Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 41-58

  Bazerman, Max H ^a   Moore, Don A ^a   Tenbrunsel, Ann E ^b   Wade Benzoni, Kimberly A ^a   Blount, Sally ^c  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Preference reversals; Preferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033130265     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bazerman, M.H., Loewenstein, G.F., Blount White, S., 1992. Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative vs. choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 37, 220-240.
2. Bazerman, M.H., Schroth, H., Shah, P.P., Diekmann, K.A., Tenbrunsel, A.E., 1994. The inconsistent role of comparison others and procedural justice in reactions to hypothetical job descriptions: Implications for job acceptance decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 326-352.
3. Bazerman, M.H., Tenbrunsel, A.E., Wade-Benzoni, K.A., 1998. Negotiating with yourself and losing: Understanding and managing competing internal preferences. Academy of Management Review 23, 225-241.
4. Blount, S., Bazerman, M.H., 1996. Inconsistencies in valuing comparative payoffs: Implications for bargaining and trade. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 891, 1-14.
5. Goldstein, W.M., Einhorn, HJ., 1987. Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review 94, 236-254.
6. Hershey, J., Kunreuther, H., Schoemaker, P., 1982. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science 28, 936-954.
7. Hsee, C.K., 1994. When Trends of Monetary Outcome Matter: Individual Vs. Joint Presentation and Judgment of Feelings Vs. Choice, unpublished manuscript.
8. Hsee, C.K., 1996. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, 247-257.
9. Hsee, C.K., 1998. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11, 107-121.
10. Hsee, C.K., Blount, S., Loewenstein, G.F., Bazerman, M.H., 1998. Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis, in press.
11. Irwin, J.R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., McClelland, G.H., 1993. Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 5-18.
12. Kahneman, D., Miller, D.T., 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93, 136-153.
13. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., 1994. Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 5-38.
14. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263-291.
15. Loewenstein, G.F., 1996. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65, 272-292.
16. Loewenstein, G.F., Prelec, D., 1993. Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review 100, 91-108.
17. Lowenthal, D.J., 1993. What Voters Care About: How Electoral Context Influences Issue Salience in Campaigns? unpublished dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
18. Nowlis, S.M., Simonson, I., 1997. Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 205-218.
19. O'Connor, K., De Dreu, C., Schroth, H., Barry, B., Lituchy, T., Bazerman, M.H., 1998. Intrapersonal Conflict Across Time, unpublished manuscript.
20. Ritov, I., Kahneman, D., 1997. How people value the environment? In: Bazerman, M.H., Messick, D.M., Tenbrunsel, A.E., Wade-Benzoni, K.A. (Eds.), Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA
21. Schelling, T.C., 1984. Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. Slovic, P., Macphillamy, D., 1974. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11, 172-194.
23. Slovic, P., Griffin, D., Tversky, A., 1990. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In: Hogarth, R.M. (Ed.), Insights in Decision Making: Theory and Applications, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
24. Tenbrunsel, A.E., Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Bazerman, M.H., 1998. Empirical Support for the Want/Should Explanation for Separate Versus Joint Preference Reversals, unpublished manuscript.
25. Thaler, R., Shefrin, H.M., 1981. An economic theory of self control. Journal of Political Economy 89, 392-106.
26. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., Slovie, P., 1988. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95, 371-38
27. Tversky, A., Slovic, P., Kahneman, D., 1990. The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review 80, 203-217.
28. Von Neumann, J., Morganstern, O., 1947. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.