IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v41y2014i4p1127-1136..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Presenter's Paradox Revisited: An Evaluation Mode Account

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Krüger
  • André Mata
  • Max Ihmels

Abstract

Three experimental studies demonstrate that evaluation mode influences the assessment of product bundles. Consumers' preferences for product bundles are more pronounced in a joint evaluation mode, where the bundle is directly contrasted to its single counterpart (i.e., the bundle without its add-on), than in a separate evaluation mode, where the bundle is evaluated in isolation. An attentional explanation is suggested: consumers pay more attention to the unique features of a product bundle (i.e., the add-on) and, therefore, prefer the bundle more strongly in joint rather than in separate evaluation. This account bears relevance for Weaver, Garcia, and Schwarz's presenter's paradox, according to which presenters (i.e., people deciding what to offer to others) prefer bundle options, whereas evaluators (i.e., people deciding what to get for themselves) prefer single options. In the original research, presenters and evaluators provided judgments in joint and separate evaluation, respectively. Disentangling role (presenter vs. evaluator) and evaluation mode, our results show that, independent of role, people prefer bundle over single options in joint evaluations and are largely indifferent in separate evaluations. Thus, a substantial part of the original findings is attributable to evaluation mode. The presenter's paradox is revised in light of the current account.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Krüger & André Mata & Max Ihmels, 2014. "The Presenter's Paradox Revisited: An Evaluation Mode Account," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 1127-1136.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:41:y:2014:i:4:p:1127-1136.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1086/678393
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tan, Huimin & Lv, Xingyang & Liu, Xiaoyan & Gursoy, Dogan, 2018. "Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online customer reviews on consumers’ preferences," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 29-40.
    2. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2019. "Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 63-74.
    3. Kapoor, Ankur & Sahay, Arvind & Singh, Nandini C. & Chandrasekhar Pammi, V.S. & Banerjee, Prantosh, 2023. "The neural correlates and the underlying processes of weak brand choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:937-961 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:937-961 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jconrs:v:41:y:2014:i:4:p:1127-1136.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.