Hsee (1996) reports a study in which participants reported theirwillingness to pay (buying price) for two music dictionaries. Onedictionary had 20,000 entries but a torn cover. The other dictionary had10,000 entries and no cover defects. When both dictionaries wereconsidered at the same time, the median price was higher for thedictionary with more entries. When each dictionary was consideredseparately, the median price was lower for the dictionary with moreentries. Tick all statements below that are correct.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The evaluability hypothesis explains why an attribute (number of entries) matters more when items are seen side-by-side than when judged alone: attributes that are hard to evaluate in isolation (entries) become salient and comparable in joint evaluation, whereas easily assessed attributes (torn cover) dominate in separate evaluation.

Relevant concepts:
- Evaluability hypothesis: People can only meaningfully assess some attributes when they have a comparison; hard-to-evaluate attributes gain weight in joint evaluation.
- Joint-evaluation vs separate-evaluation preference reversal: A product preferred in joint evaluation can be disfavored when each is evaluated separately because different attributes drive judgments in each mode.
- Bid–choice preference reversal: refers to a mismatch between willingness-to-pay (bid) and choice behavior for the same options — a different phenomenon.
- Compatibility principle: refers to responses favoring attributes most compatible with the measurement method (not Hsee’s main explanation here).

Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Empirical pattern: When both dictionaries were presented together, participants gave a higher median price to the 20,000-entry book (more entries salient). When evaluated separately, the 20,000-entry dictionary (with a torn cover) had a lower median price because the cover defect is an easily evaluated negative attribute and dominated valuation.
2. Under the evaluability hypothesis, number of entries is difficult to interpret alone (is 20,000 “much” more than 10,000?), so in separate evaluation participants focus on the obvious defect (torn cover). In joint evaluation the 20k vs 10k comparison makes entries clearly valuable, raising willingness to pay for the larger book.
3. This is the textbook case of a joint-evaluation / separate-evaluation preference reversal at the group level: the ranking of options flips depending on evaluation mode.

Why answers map to choices:
- (a) True: Hsee invoked the evaluability hypothesis to explain the flip. 
- (d) True: The group-level pattern is exactly a joint vs separate evaluation preference reversal.
- (b) False: This is not a bid–choice reversal (no inconsistency between bidding and choosing is described). 
- (c) False: The compatibility principle is not the explanation Hsee offered here.

Conclusion: Options a and d are correct, matching the provided answer.

类似问题

Is the following statement true or false? In the products of methylation-hydrolysis, every -OH group corresponds to the position of a glycosidic bond in the starting polysaccharide.

Which of the follwoing structures represents amylopectin?

Which of the following is true about an aldopentose?I. It is a monosaccharide.II. It contains a CHO groupIII. It is a disaccharide.IV. It is an oligosaccharide.

For stock A, we have 𝛽 𝑖 = 0.70. Suppose the expected market risk premium next year is 9% and the risk-free rate is 3%. What is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

The following graph shows the Security Market Line in the current economy. If a stock has a β of 1.2, what is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单