IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedbwp/07-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effects of expectations on perception: experimental design issues and further evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Tyler Williams

Abstract

Numerous studies have found that top-down processes can affect perceptions. This study examines some of the issues involved in designing field experiments aimed at discovering whether top-down mental processes affect perceptions, and, if so, how the influence takes place. Lee, Frederick, and Ariely (2006) (LFA) attempt to go further by testing whether expectations affect perception directly, by altering how sensory receptors and/or the brain?s processing centers interpret a outside stimulus?or indirectly, for example, by changing the amount of attention paid to the outside stimulus. In order to test the robustness of the findings in LFA, this paper reports the results of a field experiment similar to the one analyzed in LFA. The field experiment, designed to address some potential confounding factors in this type of research, confirms that expectations can alter perceptions. However, it also shows that heterogeneity across individuals can play a role in determining the nature of this effect, a finding that complicates the interpretation of results such as those in LFA. To frame the analysis, this paper discusses the difficulties in designing this type of experiment, makes some improvements to existing designs, and suggests some ways of eliminating the confounding influences that remain.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyler Williams, 2007. "The effects of expectations on perception: experimental design issues and further evidence," Working Papers 07-14, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:07-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2007/wp0714.htm
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2007/wp0714.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    2. Wansink, Brian & Park, Sea Bum & Sonka, Steven T. & Morganosky, Michelle A., 2000. "How Soy Labeling Influences Preference And Taste," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10.
    3. Petty, Richard E & Cacioppo, John T & Schumann, David, 1983. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(2), pages 135-146, September.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Virginia Puyana-Romero & Luigi Maffei & Giovanni Brambilla & Daniel Nuñez-Solano, 2021. "Sound Water Masking to Match a Waterfront Soundscape with the Users’ Expectations: The Case Study of the Seafront in Naples, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.

    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. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Michaela Satzinger, 2000. "Die Wirkung positiver und negativer Aussagen in der Werbung vor dem Hintergrund des Message Framing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 234-256, May.
    2. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "“Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 311-321, December.
    3. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    4. Boukis, Achilleas, 2023. "Storytelling in initial coin offerings: Attracting investment or gaining referrals?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    5. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4234 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang, 2016. "The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, September.
    8. Robert C. Bird & Vivek Soundararajan, 2020. "The Role of Precontractual Signals in Creating Sustainable Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 81-94, June.
    9. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Park, Sangwon & Nicolau, Juan L., 2019. "Image effect on customer-centric measures of performance," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 226-238.
    11. Lamont, Matthew & Hing, Nerilee & Vitartas, Peter, 2016. "Affective response to gambling promotions during televised sport: A qualitative analysis," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 319-331.
    12. Rahman, Arifur & Crouch, Geoffrey I. & Laing, Jennifer H., 2018. "Tourists' temporal booking decisions: A study of the effect of contextual framing," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 55-68.
    13. Shirai, Miyuri, 2009. "Investigation of emotional responses to an unexpected price," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 2-8.
    14. Huang, Huiling & Liu, Stephanie Q. & Kandampully, Jay & Bujisic, Milos, 2020. "Consumer Responses to Scarcity Appeals in Online Booking," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:11-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Pauline de Pechpeyrou & Béatrice Parguel & Aîda Mimouni & Pierre Desmet, 2006. "Valeur et sincérité perçues d'une promotion multi-mécanismes," Post-Print halshs-00146620, HAL.
    17. Keren, Gideon, 2007. "Framing, intentions, and trust-choice incompatibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 238-255, July.
    18. Beichen Liang & Joseph Cherian, 2014. "American And Chinese Thinking Styles: Attitude Effects On Holistic And Attribute Ads," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 5(1).
    19. Dalla Costa, Aldo Fortunato & Mollica, Vito & Singh, Abhay, 2021. "Payment methods and the disposition effect: Evidence from Indonesian mutual fund trading," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    20. Meloria Meschi & Carla Pace, 2012. "Accounting for Behavioral Biases for Non-biased Demand Estimations," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Multi-Modal Competition and the Future of Mail, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Shlomo Benartzi & Alessandro Previtero & Richard H. Thaler, 2011. "Annuitization Puzzles," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 143-164, Fall.
    22. Dan K. Hsu & Johan Wiklund & Richard D. Cotton, 2017. "Success, Failure, and Entrepreneurial Reentry: An Experimental Assessment of the Veracity of Self–Efficacy and Prospect Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(1), pages 19-47, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Uncertainty;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fip:fedbwp:07-14. 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 Spozio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbbous.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.