IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/eee/jeborg/v39y1999i1p41-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2012. "Is that the answer you had in mind? The effect of perspective on unethical behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 679-688, November.
  2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:593-601 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. Joan McMahon & Robert Harvey, 2007. "The Effect of Moral Intensity on Ethical Judgment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 335-357, June.
  4. Müller, Holger & Kroll, Eike B. & Vogt, Bodo, 2012. "Violations of procedure invariance—The case of preference reversals in monadic and competitive product evaluations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 406-412.
  5. Christopher Shallow & Rumen Iliev & Douglas Medin, 2011. "Trolley problems in context," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 593-601, October.
  6. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
  7. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
  8. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
  9. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
  10. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
  11. Shirako, Aiwa & Kilduff, Gavin J. & Kray, Laura J., 2015. "Is there a place for sympathy in negotiation? Finding strength in weakness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 95-109.
  12. Moyal, Adiel & Schurr, Amos, 2022. "The effect of deliberate ignorance and choice procedure on pro-environmental decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
  13. José Luis Pinto‐Prades & José Antonio Robles‐Zurita & Fernando‐Ignacio Sánchez‐Martínez & José María Abellán‐Perpiñán & Jorge Martínez‐Pérez, 2017. "Improving scope sensitivity in contingent valuation: Joint and separate evaluation of health states," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 304-318, December.
  14. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
  15. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
  16. Milkman, Katherine L., 2012. "Unsure what the future will bring? You may overindulge: Uncertainty increases the appeal of wants over shoulds," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 163-176.
  17. Sezer, Ovul & Zhang, Ting & Gino, Francesca & Bazerman, Max H., 2016. "Overcoming the outcome bias: Making intentions matter," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 13-26.
  18. Combris, Pierre & Giraud-Héraud, Eric & Pinto, Alexandra Seabra, 2015. "Relative willingness to pay and surplus comparison mechanism," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202755, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  19. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
  20. Portillo, Javier E. & Stinn, Joseph, 2018. "Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 40-50.
  21. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.
  22. Şule Güney & Ben R. Newell, 2019. "An exploratory investigation of the impact of evaluation context on ambiguity aversion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 335-348, May.
  23. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
  24. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
  25. K. P. Purnhagen & E. Herpen & S. Kamps & F. Michetti, 2021. "Oversized Area Indications on Bonus Packs Fail to Affect Consumers’ Transactional Decisions—More Experimental Evidence on the Mars Case," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 385-406, September.
  26. Dekel Omer & Schurr Amos, 2014. "Cognitive Biases in Government Procurement – An Experimental Study," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 169-200, July.
  27. Holger Müller & Eike Benjamin Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2010. "When Judgments and Preferences Fail to Conform: Research on Preference Reversals for Product Purchases," FEMM Working Papers 100003, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
  28. COMBRIS Pierre & SEABRA PINTO Alexandra & GIRAUD HERAUD Eric, 2015. "Relative willingness to pay and surplus comparison mechanism in experimental auctions," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-20, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
  29. Stéphane Luchini & Christel Protière & Jean‐Paul Moatti, 2003. "Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 51-64, January.
  30. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
  31. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 7-17.
  32. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
  33. Cass R. Sunstein, 2018. "On preferring A to B, while also preferring B to A," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(3), pages 305-331, August.
  34. Amable, Bruno & Petit, Pascal, 1999. "Identifying the structure of institutions to promote innovation and growth," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 9919, CEPREMAP.
  35. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:335-348 is not listed on IDEAS
  36. Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2012. "The Effect of Perspective on Unethical Behavior," Discussion Paper Series dp620, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
  37. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:679-688 is not listed on IDEAS
  38. Jeannette Brosig & Joachim Weimann & Chun-Lei Yang, 2003. "The Hot Versus Cold Effect in a Simple Bargaining Experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, June.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.