Order effects in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 92, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 91-101

  Bruine de Bruin, Wändi ^a,b   Keren, Gideon ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Direction of comparison; Feature matching; Order effects; Sequential judgment

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346343561     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00080-3     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
2. Bruine de Bruin, W., & Keren, G. (2003). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted order effects in jury evaluations. Manuscript under review.
3. Dhar, R., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). The effects of common and unique features in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 193-203.
4. Glejser, H., & Heyndels, B. (2001). Efficiency and inefficiency in the ranking in competitions: The case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest. Journal of Cultural Economics, 25, 109-129.
5. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
6. Highhouse, S., & Gallo, A. (1997). Order effects in personnel decision-making. Human Performance, 10, 31-46.
7. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
8. Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison on preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 121-141.
9. Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995), Cancellation and focus: The role of shared and unique features in the choice process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 357-378.
10. Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 335-352.
11. Markman, A. B., & Medin, D. L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 117-130.
12. Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 775-776.
13. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York; McGraw-Hill.
14. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Gibson, B. D. (1991). The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 131-146.
15. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31-48.
16. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
17. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
18. Willemsen, M. C., & Keren, G. (2002). Negative-based prominence: The role of negative features in matching and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 643-666.
19. Wilson, V. E. (1977). Objectivity and effect of order of appearance in judging of synchronized swimming meets. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 295-298.