The role of ratio differences in the framing of numerical information

International Journal of Research in Marketing

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 385-394

  Kwong, Jessica Y Y ^a   Wong, Kin Fai Ellick ^b  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Attribute perceptions; Framing; Preference reversal; Ratio differences

Indexed keywords

EID: 37849188566     PISSN: 01678116     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anderson N.H. Foundation of integration theory (1981), Academic Press, New York
2. Baron R.M., and Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173-1182
3. Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica (Pre-1986) 22 1 (1954) 23-36
4. Billings R.S., and Scherer L.L. The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 41 1 (1988) 1-19
5. Chapman G.B., and Johnson E.J. The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7 (1994) 223-242
6. Cooke A.D.J., and Mellers B.A. Multiattribute judgment: Attribute spacing influences single attributes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 24 2 (1998) 496-504
7. Dehaene S. The number sense (1997), Oxford University Press, New York
8. Dhar R., and Simonson I. The effect of the focus of comparison on consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research 29 4 (1992) 430-440
9. Grewal D., Gotlieb J., and Marmorstein H. The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research 21 1 (1994) 145-153
10. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., and Thaler R.H. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review 76 4 (1986) 728-741
11. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., and Thaler R.H. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias: Anomalies. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 1 (1991) 193-206
12. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (Pre-1986) 47 2 (1979) 263-292
13. Levin I.P., Schneider S.L., and Gaeth G.J. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 2 (1998) 149-188
14. Liberman N., Idson L.C., and Higgins E.T. Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41 5 (2005) 527-534
15. MacKinnon D.P., and Dwyer J.H. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review 17 2 (1993) 144-158
16. Mantel S.P., and Kardes F.R. The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research 25 4 (1999) 335-352
17. Mellers B.A., and Cooke A.D.J. Trade-offs depend on attribute range. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 20 5 (1994) 1055-1067
18. Mellers B.A., and Cooke A.D.J. The role of task and context in preference measurement. Psychological Science 7 2 (1996) 76-82
19. Niedrich R.W., Sharma S., and Wedell D.H. Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research 28 3 (2001) 339-354
20. Nowlis S.M., and Simonson I. Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research 34 2 (1997) 205-218
21. Qualls W.J., and Puto C.P. Organizational climate and decision framing: An integrated approach to analyzing industrial buying decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 26 2 (1989) 179-192
22. Quattrone G.A., and Tversky A. Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review 82 (1988) 719-736
23. Sanbonmatsu D.M., Kardes F.R., Houghton D.C., Ho E.A., and Posavac S.S. Overestimating the importance of the given information in multiattribute consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 3 (2003) 289-300
24. Sanbonmatsu D.M., Kardes F.R., Posavac S.S., and Houghton D.C. Contextual influences on judgment based on limited information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69 3 (1997) 251-264
25. Schkade D.A., and Johnson E.J. Cognitive processes in preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44 2 (1989) 203-231
26. Shiv B., Edell J.A., and Payne J.W. Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research 24 3 (1997) 285-294
27. Slovic P., Griffin D., and Tversky A. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In: Hogarth R.M. (Ed). Insights in decision making: Theory and applications (1990), University of Chicago, Chicago 5-27
28. Thaler R. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science 4 3 (1985) 199-214
29. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84 4 (1977) 327-352
30. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211 (1981) 453-458
31. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 4 (1991) 1039-1061
32. Tversky A., Sattath S., and Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95 3 (1988) 371-384
33. Wilson T.D., Houston C.E., Etling K.M., and Brekke N. A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 125 (1996) 387-402
34. Wong E.K.F., and Kwong J.Y.Y. Between-individual comparisons in performance evaluation: A perspective from prospect theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 2 (2005) 284-294
35. Wong K.F.E., and Kwong J.Y.Y. Is 7300m equal to 7.3km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82 2 (2000) 314-333