Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation

Max H. Bazerman; Don A. Moore; Ann E. Tenbrunsel; Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni; Sally Blount

doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6

Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation

Max H. Bazerman^*, Don A. Moore, Ann E. Tenbrunsel, Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni, Sally Blount

^*Corresponding author for this work

Strategy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

92 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper examines how preferences for outcomes change across joint versus separate evaluation of alternatives. In joint evaluation, two (or more) options are presented and evaluated simultaneously. In separate evaluation, each option is presented and evaluated separately. We review a growing body of evidence demonstrating this type of preference shift and discuss how it is different from existing biases and preference reversals documented in the literature. We then review and integrate three competing explanations for this type of preferential inconsistency.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	41-58
Number of pages	18
Journal	Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
Volume	39
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6
State	Published - May 1999

Funding

This paper was supported by National Science Foundation Grant no. SBR-9511977 and the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. The authors benefited from many discussions with George Loewenstein and Chris Hsee, in addition to critical comments by Richard Day, Keith Murnighan, Tom Ross, and three anonymous reviewers.

Keywords

Decision making
Preference reversals
Preferences

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Economics and Econometrics
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Access to Document

10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6

Cite this

@article{7495cb12617c4a6e98c182d931dbb316,

title = "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation",

abstract = "This paper examines how preferences for outcomes change across joint versus separate evaluation of alternatives. In joint evaluation, two (or more) options are presented and evaluated simultaneously. In separate evaluation, each option is presented and evaluated separately. We review a growing body of evidence demonstrating this type of preference shift and discuss how it is different from existing biases and preference reversals documented in the literature. We then review and integrate three competing explanations for this type of preferential inconsistency.",

keywords = "Decision making, Preference reversals, Preferences",

author = "Bazerman, {Max H.} and Moore, {Don A.} and Tenbrunsel, {Ann E.} and Wade-Benzoni, {Kimberly A.} and Sally Blount",

note = "Funding Information: This paper was supported by National Science Foundation Grant no. SBR-9511977 and the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. The authors benefited from many discussions with George Loewenstein and Chris Hsee, in addition to critical comments by Richard Day, Keith Murnighan, Tom Ross, and three anonymous reviewers.",

year = "1999",

month = may,

doi = "10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "39",

pages = "41--58",

journal = "Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization",

issn = "0167-2681",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation

AU - Bazerman, Max H.

AU - Moore, Don A.

AU - Tenbrunsel, Ann E.

AU - Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A.

AU - Blount, Sally

N1 - Funding Information: This paper was supported by National Science Foundation Grant no. SBR-9511977 and the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. The authors benefited from many discussions with George Loewenstein and Chris Hsee, in addition to critical comments by Richard Day, Keith Murnighan, Tom Ross, and three anonymous reviewers.

PY - 1999/5

Y1 - 1999/5

N2 - This paper examines how preferences for outcomes change across joint versus separate evaluation of alternatives. In joint evaluation, two (or more) options are presented and evaluated simultaneously. In separate evaluation, each option is presented and evaluated separately. We review a growing body of evidence demonstrating this type of preference shift and discuss how it is different from existing biases and preference reversals documented in the literature. We then review and integrate three competing explanations for this type of preferential inconsistency.

AB - This paper examines how preferences for outcomes change across joint versus separate evaluation of alternatives. In joint evaluation, two (or more) options are presented and evaluated simultaneously. In separate evaluation, each option is presented and evaluated separately. We review a growing body of evidence demonstrating this type of preference shift and discuss how it is different from existing biases and preference reversals documented in the literature. We then review and integrate three competing explanations for this type of preferential inconsistency.

KW - Decision making

KW - Preference reversals

KW - Preferences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033130265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033130265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6

DO - 10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00025-6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033130265

SN - 0167-2681

VL - 39

SP - 41

EP - 58

JO - Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

JF - Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

IS - 1

ER -

Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this