The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence
Prior research indicates that various methods for measuring attribute weights show only weak to moderate agreement in the weight assignments. However, there have been few theoretical bases explaining this divergence, and thus we have little knowledge of the conditions under which the weight assignments converge. The current study shows that one determinant of inter-measurement convergence is the comparability of the underlying processing goals evoked to perform the evaluation task. Specifically, evaluation tasks that evoke the goal of differentiation are susceptible to the prominence effect, which reduces the overall convergence with weights measured by tasks based on individual evaluation goals. We show in two studies that the level of convergence improves significantly when the two measures share the same underlying processing goals. Our results have important managerial implications with respect to selecting an appropriate type of direct weighting measurement in consumer studies to better reflect the actual weight assignments in real decision contexts.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 118 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Van Ittersum, Koert & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Wansink, Brian & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2007. "The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 1177-1190, November.
- Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
- Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
- Irwin, Julie R. & Baron, Jonathan, 2001. "Response Mode Effects and Moral Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 177-197, March.
- Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
- Creyer, Elizabeth H. & Johar, Gita Venkataramani, 1995. "Response Mode Bias in the Formation of Preference: Boundary Conditions of the Prominence Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 14-22, April.
- Zhu, Shu-Hong & Anderson, Norman H., 1991. "Self-estimation of weight parameter in multiattribute analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 36-54, February.
- Srivastava, Joydeep & Connolly, Terry & Beach, Lee Roy, 1995. "Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 112-116, July.
- Harte, Johanna M. & Koele, Pieter, 1995. "A Comparison of Different Methods for the Elicitation of Attribute Weights: Structural Modeling, Process Tracing, and Self-Reports," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 49-64, October.
- Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
- Barlas, Sema, 2003. "When choices give in to temptations: Explaining the disagreement among importance measures," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 310-321, July.
- Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
- Fischer, Gregory W., 1995. "Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 252-266, June.
- Hawkins, Scott A., 1994. "Information Processing Strategies in Riskless Preference Reversals: The Prominence Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 1-26, July.
- Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
- Irwin, Julie R., 1994. "Buying/Selling Price Preference Reversals: Preference for Environmental Changes in Buying versus Selling Modes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 431-457, December.
- Gregory W. Fischer & Nirmala Damodaran & Kathryn B. Laskey & David Lincoln, 1987. "Preferences for Proxy Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 198-214, February.
- Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Moran, Elizabeth, 2001. "The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 216-233, November.
- Selart, Marcus, 1996. "Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 106-116, February.
- Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
- David Reibstein & John E. G. Bateson & William Boulding, 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 271-286.
- Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
- Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
- Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
- Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
- Jaccard, James & Brinberg, David & Ackerman, Lee J, 1986. " Assessing Attribute Importance: A Comparison of Six Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 463-68, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:37-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.