删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

联合评估和单独评估:富有潜力的助推手段

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

路西1,2(), HSEE3()
1 北京大学光华管理学院, 北京100871
2 中国农业大学经济管理学院, 北京 100083
3 Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, United States
收稿日期:2017-08-13出版日期:2018-08-07发布日期:2018-07-02




Joint evaluation versus single evaluation: A field full of potentials

LU Xi1,2(), Christopher K3()
1 Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2 College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
3 Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, United States
Received:2017-08-13Online:2018-08-07Published:2018-07-02







摘要/Abstract


摘要: 人们有两种基本的评估模式:一是联合评估, 即所有选项一起呈现和被评估; 二是单独评估, 各个选项单独地呈现和被评估。所有决策都是在其中一种评估模式或者两种模式的中间地带中做出的。联合和单独评估可以导致偏好反转和次优选择, 理解其机制能帮助人们提高决策结果, 包括慈善、定价、消费、甚至幸福感等方面。作为对各类决策影响广泛的重要变量, 评估模式产生了不少反直觉的效应, 目前研究尚不全面, 是一块值得探索的沃土。



图1冰淇淋示意图(资料来源: Hsee, 1998)
图1冰淇淋示意图(资料来源: Hsee, 1998)


表1JE/SE偏好反转的选项结构
选项 重要但难以单独
评估的属性
不太重要但容易
单独评估的属性
选项A 较好
(例:完成300次手术)
较差
(例:毕业于爱荷华大学)
选项B 较差
(例:完成80次手术)
较好
(例:毕业于哈佛大学)

表1JE/SE偏好反转的选项结构
选项 重要但难以单独
评估的属性
不太重要但容易
单独评估的属性
选项A 较好
(例:完成300次手术)
较差
(例:毕业于爱荷华大学)
选项B 较差
(例:完成80次手术)
较好
(例:毕业于哈佛大学)



图2可评估性和价值敏感性的影响因素
图2可评估性和价值敏感性的影响因素



图3评估模式和效用函数(A)、时间折扣函数(B)、概率权重函数(C)(修改自: Hsee & Zhang, 2010)
图3评估模式和效用函数(A)、时间折扣函数(B)、概率权重函数(C)(修改自: Hsee & Zhang, 2010)



图4室内温度和珠宝对幸福感的影响(资料来源: Hsee et al, 2009)
图4室内温度和珠宝对幸福感的影响(资料来源: Hsee et al, 2009)







[1] Bazerman M. H., Gino F., Shu L. L., & Tsay C.-J . ( 2011). Joint evaluation as a real-world tool for managing emotional assessments of morality. Emotion Review,3( 3), 290-292.
doi: 10.1177/1754073911402370URL
[2] Bazerman M. H., Loewenstein G. F., & White S. B . ( 1992). Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly,37( 2), 220-240.
doi: 10.2307/2393222URL
[3] Chatterjee S., Heath T. B., & Min J. H . ( 2009). The susceptibility of mental accounting principles to evaluation mode effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,22( 2), 120-137.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.616URL
[4] Cooney G., Gilbert D. T., & Wilson T. D . ( 2016). When fairness matters less than we expect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,113( 40), 11168-11171.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606574113URLpmid: 27638203
[5] Desvousges W. H., Johnson F. R., Dunford R. W., Boyle K. J., Hudson S. P. , & Wilson, K. N.( 1992) . Measuring nonuse damages using contingent valuation: An experimental evaluation of accuracy Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press An experimental evaluation of accuracy. Research Triangle Park, NC : RTI Press.
[6] Dunn E. W., Wilson T. D., & Gilbert D. T . ( 2003). Location, Location, Location: The misprediction of satisfaction in housing lotteries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29( 11), 1421-1432.
doi: 10.1177/0146167203256867URL
[7] Evers E. R. K., Inbar Y., Blanken I., & Oosterwijk L. D . ( 2017). When do people prefer carrots to sticks? A robust “matching effect” in policy evaluation. Management Science,63( 12), 4261-4276.
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2539URL
[8] Fox, C. R., &Tversky A , ( 1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,110( 3), 585-603.
doi: 10.2307/2946693URL
[9] Fredrick S., Loewenstein G., & O’Donoghue T . ( 2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature,40, 351-401.
doi: 10.1257/002205102320161311URL
[10] Gilbert D.T., & Wilson, T. D . ( 2009). Why the brain talks to itself: Sources of error in emotional prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,364( 1521), 1335-1341.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0305URLpmid: 19528015
[11] Gino F., Moore D. N., & Bazerman M. H . ( 2008). No harm, no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 08-080.
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1099464URL
[12] Gustafson C. R., Lybbert T. J., & Sumner D. A . ( 2016). Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics,65, 85-94.
doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.08.004URL
[13] Hsee C.K . ( 1993). When trend of monetary outcomes matters: Separate versus joint evaluation and judgment of feelings versus choice.Working paper.
[14] Hsee C.K . ( 1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,67( 3), 247-257.
doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0077URL
[15] Hsee C.K . ( 1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,11( 2), 107-121.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199806)11:23.0.CO;2-YURL
[16] Hsee C.K., &Zhang J , (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,86( 5), 680-695.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680URLpmid: 15161394
[17] Hsee, C. K., &Zhang J , ( 2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science,5( 4), 343-355.
doi: 10.1177/1745691610374586URL
[18] Hsee C. K., Shen L. X., Zhang S., Chen J. Q., & Zhang L . ( 2012). Fate or fight: Exploring the hedonic costs of competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,119( 2), 177-186.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.005URL
[19] Hsee C. K., Yang Y., Li N. H., & Shen L. X . ( 2009). Wealth, warmth, and well-being: Whether happiness is relative or absolute depends on whether it is about money, acquisition, or consumption. Journal of Marketing Research,46( 3), 396-409.
doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.3.396URL
[20] Hsee C. K., Zhang J., Lu Z. Y., & Xu F . ( 2013). Unit asking: A method to boost donations and beyond. Psychological Science,24( 9), 1801-1808.
doi: 10.1177/0956797613482947URL
[21] Hsee C. K., Zhang J., Wang L. Y., & Zhang S . ( 2013). Magnitude, time, and risk differ similarly between joint and single evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research,40( 1), 172-184.
doi: 10.1086/669484URL
[22] , , Kahneman D., &Deaton A , ( 2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,107( 38), 16489-16493.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011492107URL
[23] Kahneman D., &Ritov I , (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,9( 1), 5-37.
doi: 10.1007/BF01073401URL
[24] Kahneman D., &Tversky A , ( 1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,47( 2), 263-292.
doi: 10.2307/1914185URL
[25] Kahneman D., Wakker P. P., & Sarin R . ( 1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,112( 2), 375-405.
doi: 10.1162/003355397555235URL
[26] Kogut T, &Ritov I , ( 2005). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,97( 2), 106-116.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003URL
[27] Laibson D ( 1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,112( 2), 443-478.
doi: 10.1162/003355397555253URL
[28] List J.A . ( 2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: The “more is less” phenomenon. American Economic Review,92( 5), 1636-1643.
doi: 10.1257/000282802762024692URL
[29] Newman C. L., Howlett E., & Burton S . ( 2016). Effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: The moderating influence of comparative and noncomparative processing contexts. Journal of Consumer Research,42( 5), 749-766.
doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucv050URL
[30] Okada E.M . ( 2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research,42( 1), 43-53.
doi: 10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889URL
[31] Paharia N., Kassam K. S., Greene J. D., & Bazerman M. H . ( 2009). Dirty work, clean hands: The moral psychology of indirect agency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,109( 2), 134-141.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.002URL
[32] Powdthavee N., Riyanto Y. E., & Knetsc J. K . ( 2017). Economists’ judgments of publication lists with lower ranked journals included: Evidence from a survey experiment. Working paper.
[33] Shaffer, V. A., & Arkes, H. R . ( 2009). Preference reversals in evaluations of cash versus non-cash incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology,30( 6), 859-872.
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.08.001URL
[34] Shen L. X., Hsee C. K., Wu Q. S., & Tsai C. I . ( 2012). Overpredicting and underprofiting in pricing decisions: Evaluability in pricing decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,25( 5), 512-521.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.746URL
[35] Sher S, & McKenzie, C. R. M . ( 2014). Options as information: Rational reversals of evaluation and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,143( 3), 1127-1143.
doi: 10.1037/a0035128URLpmid: 24364684
[36] Tu, Y. P., & Hsee, C. K . ( 2016). Consumer happiness derived from inherent preferences versus learned preferences. Current Opinion in Psychology,10, 83-88.
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.013URL
[37] von Neumann J., & Morgenstern O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[38] Yang A. X., Hsee C. K., Liu Y., & Zhang L . ( 2011). The supremacy of singular subjectivity: Improving decision quality by removing objective specifications and direct comparisons. Journal of Consumer Psychology,21( 4), 393-404.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.05.006URL
[39] Zhang J. ( 2015). Joint versus separate modes of evaluation. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The wiley blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 211-238). Portsmouth: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[40] Zikmund-Fisher B. J., Fagerlin A., & Ubel P. A . ( 2004). “Is 28% good or bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Medical Decision Making,24( 2), 142-148.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X04263154URL




[1]Gerd Gigerenzer, 栾胜华, 刘永芳. 人非理性且难教化?论支持自由家长主义的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 395-406.
[2]刘隽,张震,孙彦,韩布新,陆勤,刘萍萍. 接受还是拒绝? 反应模式助推基础课与拓展课均衡选择[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 437-449.
[3]何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 803-813.
[4]Nicolao Bonini, Constantinos Hadjichristidis, Michele Graffeo. 绿色助推[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 814-826.
[5]王晓庄, 安晓镜, 骆皓爽, 徐晟, 于馨, 胡施雅, 王玉涵. 锚定效应助推国民身心健康:两个现场实验[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 848-857.
[6]李爱梅, 王海侠, 孙海龙, 熊冠星, 杨韶丽. “长计远虑”的助推效应:怀孕与环境跨期决策[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 858-867.
[7]黄元娜, 宋星云, 邵洋, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 以小拨大:默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 868-879.
[8]张琴;汪涛;龚艳萍. 价格和品牌能否削弱来源国效应 —— 产品属性赋权对来源国效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(12): 1381-1392.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4239
相关话题/心理 单独 毕业 概率 珠宝

  • 领限时大额优惠券,享本站正版考研考试资料!
    大额优惠券
    优惠券领取后72小时内有效,10万种最新考研考试考证类电子打印资料任你选。涵盖全国500余所院校考研专业课、200多种职业资格考试、1100多种经典教材,产品类型包含电子书、题库、全套资料以及视频,无论您是考研复习、考证刷题,还是考前冲刺等,不同类型的产品可满足您学习上的不同需求。 ...
    本站小编 Free壹佰分学习网 2022-09-19
  • 撞衫对消费者产品处置意向的 影响及其心理机制
    宫秀双;蒋晶(中国人民大学商学院,北京100872)收稿日期:2017-03-09出版日期:2018-03-25发布日期:2018-02-01通讯作者:蒋晶,E-mail:jiangjing@rmbs.ruc.edu.cnE-mail:E-mail:jiangjing@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 《心理学报》2017年度审稿专家名录
    出版日期:2018-01-25发布日期:2018-01-02基金资助:reviewersin2017Online:2018-01-25Published:2018-01-02Supportedby:摘要/Abstract摘要:参考文献相关文章15[1]中国心理学会.第二十二届全国心理学学术会议在杭州 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 儿童阅读与心理理论间的关系
    赵丽华,杨运梅,李晶中国科学院行为科学重点实验室,中国科学院心理研究所,北京100101中国科学院大学心理学系,北京100049收稿日期:2021-03-05出版日期:2022-01-15发布日期:2021-11-25通讯作者:李晶,E-mail:lij@psych.ac.cn基金资助:� ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 远程心理健康服务:应用、优势及挑战
    靳宇倡1,张政1,郑佩璇2,安俊秀31四川师范大学心理学院,成都610066;2阿拉巴马大学运动人体科学系,阿拉巴马州塔斯卡卢萨35401;3成都信息工程大学软件工程学院,成都610025收稿日期:2020-11-06出版日期:2022-01-15发布日期:2021-11-25通讯作者:安俊秀,E- ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 心理学视角下的道德损伤
    艾攀,戴艳四川师范大学心理学院,成都610068收稿日期:2020-12-31出版日期:2022-01-15发布日期:2021-11-25通讯作者:戴艳,E-mail:daiyanch@163.comMoralinjury:AreviewfromtheperspectiveofpsychologyA ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 人工智能辅助下的心理健康新型测评
    姜力铭1,田雪涛2,任萍3,骆方11北京师范大学心理学部,北京100875;2北京交通大学计算机与信息技术学院,北京100044;3中国基础教育质量监测协同创新中心,北京100875收稿日期:2021-02-22出版日期:2022-01-15发布日期:2021-11-25通讯作者:骆方,E-mail ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 公平规范执行中内群体偏爱的心理发展机制
    张振,李海文,熊建萍,赵辉,刘瑞雪,齐春辉河南师范大学教育学部,新乡453007收稿日期:2021-02-03发布日期:2021-10-26基金资助:国家自然科学基金青年项目(32000754);教育部人文社会科学研究青年项目(20YJC190030);河南省哲学社会科学规划项目(2019CJY03 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 多时点结果跨期选择的决策效应及其心理机制
    孙海龙1,安薪如2,熊冠星3()1广东外语外贸大学商学院,广州5100062暨南大学管理学院,广州5106323华南师范大学经济与管理学院,广州510006收稿日期:2020-09-17发布日期:2021-10-26通讯作者:熊冠星E-mail:xiongguanxing@163.com基金资助:国 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 中国社会转型过程中的心理变化:社会学视角的研究及其对心理学家的启示
    黄梓航1,2,3,王俊秀4,5,苏展2,3,敬一鸣2,3,蔡华俭2,3()1成都大学心理健康教育中心,成都6101062中国科学院心理研究所人格与社会心理研究中心,北京1001013中国科学院大学心理学系,北京1000494内蒙古师范大学心理学院,呼和浩特0100225中国社会科学院社会学研究所,北 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 品牌消费旅程中消费者的认知心理过程——神经营销学视角
    谢莹1,刘昱彤1,陈明亮2(),梁安迪31西北大学经济管理学院,西安7101272浙江大学管理学院,杭州3100583西北大学公共管理学院,西安710127收稿日期:2020-08-06出版日期:2021-11-15发布日期:2021-09-23通讯作者:陈明亮E-mail:chenml@zju.e ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01