IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v52y2006i3p410-421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels

Author

Listed:
  • Kurt A. Carlson

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Samuel D. Bond

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

This paper introduces a technique for improving preference assessment by reducing the influence of context on preferential choices. We propose that a decision maker who is exposed to relevant attribute levels will form spontaneous valuations, which will then insulate the decision maker from the effects of context during subsequent preference assessment. Results from three studies supported this hypothesis. Pre-exposure to product attribute levels undermined the impact of attribute priming, decision framing, and asymmetric dominance on preferential choices. A fourth study demonstrated that similar results can be obtained by allowing decision makers to pregenerate lists of attribute levels on their own.

Suggested Citation

  • Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:3:p:410-421
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0434
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0434?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlson, Kurt A. & Pearo, Lisa Klein, 2004. "Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 48-59, May.
    2. Ganzach, Yoav, 1995. "Attribute Scatter and Decision Outcome: Judgment versus Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 113-122, April.
    3. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    4. Kurt A. Carlson & Margaret G. Meloy & J. Edward Russo, 2006. "Leader-Driven Primacy: Using Attribute Order to Affect Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(4), pages 513-518, March.
    5. Sen, Sankar, 1998. "Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(1), pages 64-77, June.
    6. Janiszewski, Chris & Cunha, Marcus, Jr, 2004. "The Influence of Price Discount Framing on the Evaluation of a Product Bundle," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 534-546, March.
    7. Hogarth, Robin M. (ed.), 1990. "Insights in Decision Making," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226348551, January.
    8. Dhar, Ravi & Nowlis, Stephen M & Sherman, Steven J, 1999. "Comparison Effects on Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 293-306, December.
    9. Philippe Delquié, 2003. "Optimal Conflict in Preference Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(1), pages 102-115, January.
    10. Philippe Delquié, 1997. ""Bi-Matching": A New Preference Assessment Method to Reduce Compatibility Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(5), pages 640-658, May.
    11. Schoemaker, Paul J. H. & Hershey, John C., 1992. "Utility measurement: Signal, noise, and bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 397-424, August.
    12. Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Mandel, Naomi & Johnson, Eric J, 2002. "When Web Pages Influence Choice: Effects of Visual Primes on Experts and Novices," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 235-245, September.
    14. Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward, 2004. "Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 114-128, March.
    15. Nowlis, Stephen M & Kahn, Barbara E & Dhar, Ravi, 2002. "Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 319-334, December.
    16. Ariely, Dan & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 279-290, December.
    17. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    18. Bettman, James R & Sujan, Mita, 1987. "Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 141-154, September.
    19. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    22. J. Edward Russo & Margaret G. Meloy & T. Jeffrey Wilks, 2000. "Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 13-27, January.
    23. Ratner, Rebecca K & Kahn, Barbara E, 2002. "The Impact of Private versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 246-257, September.
    24. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    25. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    26. 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.
    27. Ariely, Dan & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1995. "Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 223-232, September.
    28. Coupey, Eloise & Irwin, Julie R & Payne, John W, 1998. "Product Category Familiarity and Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 459-468, March.
    29. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    30. Svenson, Ola, 1996. "Decision Making and the Search for Fundamental Psychological Regularities: What Can Be Learned from a Process Perspective?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 252-267, March.
    31. Russo, J. Edward & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Meloy, Margaret G., 1996. "The Distortion of Information during Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 102-110, April.
    32. Philippe Delquié, 1993. "Inconsistent Trade-Offs Between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1382-1395, November.
    33. Janiszewski, Chris & Silk, Tim & Cooke, Alan D J, 2003. "Different Scales for Different Frames: The Role of Subjective Scales and Experience in Explaining Attribute-Framing Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 311-325, December.
    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. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    2. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    3. Russo, J.E. & Yong, Kevyn, 2011. "The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 132-139, May.
    4. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    5. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 890-898.
    6. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.

    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. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    2. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    3. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    4. Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
    5. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Mantrala, Murali K. & Levy, Michael & Kahn, Barbara E. & Fox, Edward J. & Gaidarev, Peter & Dankworth, Bill & Shah, Denish, 2009. "Why is Assortment Planning so Difficult for Retailers? A Framework and Research Agenda," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 71-83.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:662-677 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Seth A. Miller & Michael L. DeKay & Eric R. Stone & Clare M. Sorenson, 2013. "Assessing the sensitivity of information distortion to four potential influences in studies of risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 662-677, November.
    9. Reich, Taly & Savary, Jennifer & Kupor, Daniella, 2021. "Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 147-157.
    10. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    11. Simonson, Itamar, 2007. "Will I Like A "Medium" Pillow? Another Look At Constructed And Inherent Preferences," Research Papers 1977r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Carlson, Kurt A. & Pearo, Lisa Klein, 2004. "Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 48-59, May.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:572-585 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Auh, Seigyoung & Johnson, Michael D., 2005. "Compatibility effects in evaluations of satisfaction and loyalty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-57, February.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:503-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. George D. Farmer & Wael El-Deredy & Andrew Howes & Paul A. Warren, 2015. "The attraction effect in motor planning decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 503-510, September.
    17. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    18. DeKay, Michael L. & Miller, Seth A. & Schley, Dan R. & Erford, Breann M., 2014. "Proleader and antitrailer information distortion and their effects on choice and postchoice memory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 134-150.
    19. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    20. Kurt Carlson & Chris Janiszewski & Ralph Keeney & David Krantz & Howard Kunreuther & Mary Luce & J. Russo & Stijn Osselaer & Detlof Winterfeldt, 2008. "A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 241-254, December.
    21. Bonaccio, Silvia & Reeve, Charlie L., 2006. "Consideration of preference shifts due to relative attribute variability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 200-214, November.
    22. Marek Kapera, 2022. "Learning own preferences through consumption," KAE Working Papers 2022-074, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    23. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:3:p:410-421. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.