Attribute salience in graphical representations affects evaluation

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 151-158

  Sun, Yan ^a   Li, Shu ^a   Bonini, Nicolao ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Focus bias; Graphical representation; Judgment and decision making; Salience; Scale manipulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954466064     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Armstrong, L., & Marks, L. E. (1997). Stimulus context, perceived length, and the horizontal-vertical illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1200-1213.
2. Attneave, F., & Block, G. (1974). The time required to compare extents in various orientations. Perception & Psychophysics. 16, 431-436.
3. Berger, J., Meredith, M. & Wheeler, S. C. (2008). Contextual priming: Where people vote affect how they vote. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 105,8846-8849.
4. Gattis, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 231-239.
5. Hoffman, J. E. (1978). Search through a Sequentially Presented Visual Display. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, 1-11.
6. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference-reversal between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247- 257.
7. Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1990). Graphic displays in decision making: The visual salience effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 247-262.
8. Jones, S. K., Frisch, D., Yurak, T. J., & Kim, E. (1998). Choices and opportunities: Another effect of framing on decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11,211-226.
9. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgdement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
11. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B.L., Schreiber, C.A., & Re-delmeier, D.A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401-405.
12. Krider, R. E., Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: Pi or Squared? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons. Marketing Science, 20, 405-25.
13. Levin, I. P, & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.
14. Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85- 86.
15. Li, S., Su, Y. & Sun, Y. (2010). The effect of pseudo- immediacy on intertemporal choices. Journal of Risk Research, doi:10.1080/13669870903551704
16. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversal of preference between bids and choices in gambling decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46-55.
17. McCormick, M., & McElroy, T. (2009). Healthy choices in context: How contextual cues can influence the persuasiveness of framed health messages. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 248-255.
18. Piaget, J. (1968). Quantification, conservation and nativism. Science, 162, 976-79.
19. Raghubir, P., & Das, S. R. (2010), The long and short of it: Why are stocks with shorter runs preferred? Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 964-982.
20. Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should be the shape of the package? Journal of Marketing, 70, 95-107.
21. Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1996). As the crow flies: Bias in consumers' map-based distance judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 26-39.
22. Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999), Vital dimensions: Biases in volume estimates. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 313-26.
23. Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546-556.
24. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726.
25. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
26. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371-384.
27. Tversy, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review, 80, 204-217.
28. Verge, C. G., & Bogartz, R. S. (1978). A Functional measurement analysis of the development of dimensional coordination in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 337-53.