Making probability judgments of future product failures: The role of mental unpacking

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 237-248

  Biswas, Dipayan ^a   Keller, Robin L ^b   Burman, Bidisha ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Mental unpacking; Metacognition; Probability judgment; Product failure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860836570     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Aarts H., Dijksterhuis A. How often did I do it? Experienced ease of retrieval and frequency estimates of past behavior. Acta Psychologica 1999, 103:77-89.
2. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51(6):1173-1182.
3. Biswas D., Biswas A., Chatterjee S. Making judgments in a two-sequence cue environment: The effects of differential cue strengths, order sequence, and distraction. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2009, 19(1):88-96.
4. Fiedler K., Armbruster T. Two halfs may be more than one whole: Category split effects on frequency illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994, 66(4):633-645.
5. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1978, 4:330-344.
6. Folkes V. Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research 1984, 10(4):398-409. (March).
7. Forehand M.R., Perkins A., Reed A. When are automatic social comparisons not automatic? The effect of cognitive systems on user imagery-based self-concept activation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2011, 21:88-100.
8. Fox C.R., Clemen R.T. Subjective probability assessment in decision analysis: Partition dependence and bias toward the ignorance prior. Management Science 2005, 51:1417-1432. (September).
9. Gettys C.F., Mehle T., Fisher S. Plausibility assessments in hypothesis generation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1986, 37(11):14-33.
10. Hertwig R., Barron G., Weber E.U., Erev I. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science 2004, 15(8):534-539.
11. Hirt E.R., Kardes F.R., Markman K.D. Activating a mental simulation mind-set through generation of alternatives: Implications for debiasing in related and unrelated domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2004, 40:374-383.
12. Hung I.W., Wyer R.S. Differences in perspective on the influence of charitable appeals: When imagining oneself as a victim is not always beneficial. Journal of Marketing Research 2009, 421-434. June.
13. Irwin Julie R., McClelland G.H. Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research 2003, 366-371. (August).
14. Kardes F.R., Fennis B., Hirt E.R., Tormala Z., Bullington B. The role of the need for cognitive closure in the effectiveness of the disrupt-then-reframe influence technique. Journal of Consumer Research 2007, 34:377-385. (October).
15. Keller L.R., Ho J.L. Decision problem structuring: Generating options. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1988, 18(5):715-728.
16. Koriat A., Fiedler K., Bjork R.A. Inflation of conditional predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 2006, 135(3):429-447.
17. Lalwani A. The distinct influence of cognitive busyness and need for closure on cultural differences in socially desirable responding. Journal of Consumer Research 2009, 36:305-316. (August).
18. Menon G. Are the parts better than the whole? The effects of decompositional questions on judgments of frequent behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 1997, 34:335-346. (Aug).
19. Meyvis T., Janiszewski C. Consumers' beliefs about product benefits: The effect of obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research 2002, 28(4):618-635.
20. Morewedge C.K., Gilbert D.T., Wilson T.D. The least likely of times: How remembering the past biases forecasts of the future. Psychological Science 2005, 16:626-630.
21. Novemsky N., Dhar R., Schwarz N., Simonson I. Preference fluency in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research 2007, 45:347-356.
22. Petrova P.K., Cialdini R.B. Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research 2005, 32:442-452.
23. Rick S. Losses, gains, and brains: Neuroeconomics can help to answer open questions about loss aversion. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2011, 21:453-463.
24. Rottenstreich Y., Tversky A. Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review 1997, 104:406-415.
25. Sanna L.J., Schwarz N. Debiasing the hindsight bias: The role of accessibility experiences and (mis)attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2003, 39:287-295.
26. Schwarz N. Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2004, 14(4):332-348.
27. Schwarz N. Feelings, fit, and funny effects: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 2006, 20-23. (February).
28. Schwarz N., Bless H., Strack F., Klumpp G., Rittenauer-Schatka H., Simons A. Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991, 61:195-202.
29. Schwarz N., Sanna L., Skurnik I., Yoon C. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2007, 39:127-161.
30. Schwarz N., Vaughn L.A. The availability heuristic revisited: Recalled content and ease of recall as information. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 103-119. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
31. Sobel Michael E. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. Sociological methodology 1982, 290-312. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. S. Leinhart (Ed.).
32. Teigen K.H. Overestimation of subjective probabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1974, 15:56-62.
33. Tetlock P. Close-call counterfactuals and belief-system defenses: I was not almost wrong but I was almost right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 75(3):639-652.
34. Tormala Z.L., Petty R.E., Brinol P. Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28:1700-1712.
35. Tversky A., Koehler D.J. Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review 1994, 101:547-567.
36. Webster D.M., Kruglanski A.W. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994, 67:1049-1062.
37. Webster D.M., Kruglanski A.W. Cognitive and social consequence of the need for cognitive closure. European Review of Social Psychology 1998, 8:133-171.
38. Wyer R.S. Procedural influences on judgments and behavioral decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2011, 21:424-438.