IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v131y2015icp81-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Pham, Michel Tuan
  • Faraji-Rad, Ali
  • Toubia, Olivier
  • Lee, Leonard

Abstract

Is the perceived value of things an absolute measurable quantity, as in economists’ notion of “cardinal utility,” or a relative assessment of the various objects being evaluated, as in economists’ notion of “ordinal utility”? We believe that the answer depends in part upon which judgment system underlies the evaluation. Specifically, we advance the proposition that due to its distant evolutionary roots, the affective system of judgment is inherently more ordinal (less cardinal) than the cognitive system. That is, structurally, the affective system is designed to perform evaluations in a manner that is inherently more comparative than the cognitive system, focusing more on the relative ranking of various alternatives than their assessment in absolute terms. Results from six studies provide converging support for this general hypothesis and show how this novel proposition can explain classic judgment phenomena such as the greater scope-insensitivity and reference-dependence of affect-based judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Pham, Michel Tuan & Faraji-Rad, Ali & Toubia, Olivier & Lee, Leonard, 2015. "Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 81-94.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:131:y:2015:i:c:p:81-94
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.08.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597815000941
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.08.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    2. O. Lange, 1934. "Notes on the Determinateness of the Utility Function: III," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 75-77.
    3. Ivan Moscati, 2013. "How cardinal utility entered economic analysis: 1909--1944," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 906-939, December.
    4. Moscati, Ivan, 2013. "How Cardinal Utility Entered Economic Analysis during the Ordinal Revolution," CESMEP Working Papers 201301, University of Turin.
    5. Pham, Michel Tuan & Avnet, Tamar, 2009. "Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 267-278, March.
    6. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    7. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    8. Leonard Lee & On Amir & Dan Ariely, 2009. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Cognitive Noise and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 173-187.
    9. Pham, Michel Tuan, 1998. "Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 144-159, September.
    10. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    11. Paul A. Samuelson, 1938. "The Numerical Representation of Ordered Classifications and the Concept of Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 6(1), pages 65-70.
    12. Tuan Pham, Michel & Meyvis, Tom & Zhou, Rongrong, 2001. "Beyond the Obvious: Chronic Vividness of Imagery and the Use of Information in Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 226-253, March.
    13. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    14. Ed Diener & Ed Sandvik & Larry Seidlitz & Marissa Diener, 1993. "The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 195-223, March.
    15. O. Lange, 1934. "The Determinateness of the Utility Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 218-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aydinli, Aylin & Gu, Yangjie & Pham, Michel Tuan, 2017. "An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 746-760.
    2. Gounaris, Spiros & Almoraish, Ahmed, 2024. "A dynamic, relational approach to B2B customer experience: A customer-centric perspective from a longitudinal investigation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pham, Michel Tuan & Avnet, Tamar, 2009. "Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 267-278, March.
    2. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    3. André Lapidus, 2019. "David Hume and Rationality in Decision-Making: A Case Study on the Economic Reading of a Philosopher," Post-Print hal-01831901, HAL.
    4. Michael G. Luchs & Minu Kumar, 2017. "“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 567-584, February.
    5. Aydinli, Aylin & Gu, Yangjie & Pham, Michel Tuan, 2017. "An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 746-760.
    6. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    7. Cheng, Yimin & Zhang, Kuangjie & Zhuang, Xuhong, 2024. "Follow your heart or your mind: The effect of consumption frequency on consumers’ reliance on feelings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Georgios Gerasimou, 2017. "Preference intensity representation and revelation," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201716, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 01 Jun 2019.
    9. Senderski, Marcin, 2014. "Ecumenical foundations? On the coexistence of Austrian and neoclassical views on utility," MPRA Paper 67024, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    11. Pham, Michel Tuan & Sun, Jennifer J., 2020. "On the Experience and Engineering of Consumer Pride, Consumer Excitement, and Consumer Relaxation in the Marketplace," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 101-127.
    12. Tamara Dinev & Allen R. McConnell & H. Jeff Smith, 2015. "Research Commentary—Informing Privacy Research Through Information Systems, Psychology, and Behavioral Economics: Thinking Outside the “APCO” Box," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 639-655, December.
    13. Basu, Shankha & Savani, Krishna, 2017. "Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 76-91.
    14. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    15. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    16. Ma, Qingguo & He, Yijin & Tan, Yulin & Cheng, Lu & Wang, Manlin, 2024. "Unveiling the Impact of Payment Methods on Consumer Behavior: Insights and Future Directions," OSF Preprints 3fphk, Center for Open Science.
    17. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    18. Adams, Leen & Faseur, Tineke & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "The Influence of the Self-Regulatory Focus on the Effectiveness of Stop-Smoking Campaigns for Young Smokers," Working Papers 2010/38, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Luqiong Tong & Rui (Juliet) Zhu & Yuhuang Zheng & Ping Zhao, 2018. "Warmer or cooler: the influence of ambient temperature on complex choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 337-350, September.
    21. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:131:y:2015:i:c:p:81-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.