Paying for no reason? (Mis-)perceptions of product attributes in separate vs. joint product evaluation
Consumer decision-making involves the evaluation of options either in isolation or in relation to other alternatives present at the environment. According to Hsee’s evaluability hypothesis, it is easier to evaluate product attributes when they are juxtaposed (i.e., presented jointly) than when they are presented in isolation from each other. Recent research has provided some support to the evaluability hypothesis for the attribute of perceived product quantity. The present research tests the hypothesis in relation to the attribute of perceived fairness. In two experiments, we show that when participants evaluate products in isolation from each other, they err in their judgment of product quantity, and, consequently, they mis-attribute fairness to the seller. In a third experiment, we further show that the inclusion of constant yet unfair price information does not affect the fairness and price judgments. These findings provide evidence for the psychological plausibility of the evaluability hypothesis for the attributes of fairness and product quantity. Moreover, they suggest that isolated product evaluation may be systematically suboptimal for consumers, even when pricing information is included. Therefore, effective consumer decision-making will benefit by allowing the joint evaluation of alternatives.
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.
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.:
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Sevdalis, Nick & Harvey, Nigel, 2006. "Determinants of willingness to pay in separate and joint evaluations of options: Context matters," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 377-385, June.
- Hsee, Christopher K & Leclerc, France, 1998. " Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 175-86, September.
- James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
- Bolton, Lisa E & Warlop, Luk & Alba, Joseph W, 2003. " Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(4), pages 474-91, March.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:32:y:2011:i:5:p:857-864. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.