lay intuitions about overall evaluations of experiences l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Lay Intuitions about Overall Evaluations of Experiences PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Lay Intuitions about Overall Evaluations of Experiences

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Lay Intuitions about Overall Evaluations of Experiences - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 254 Views
  • Uploaded on

Lay Intuitions about Overall Evaluations of Experiences Irina Cojuharenco GPEFM Barcelona Universitat Pompeu Fabra Overall Evaluations of Experiences “I would evaluate my experience in this concert as 7 out of 10!” “On a scale from 0 to 100 this vacation would deserve 60 points!”

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Lay Intuitions about Overall Evaluations of Experiences' - Gabriel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
lay intuitions about overall evaluations of experiences

Lay Intuitions about Overall Evaluations of Experiences

Irina Cojuharenco

GPEFM Barcelona

Universitat Pompeu Fabra

overall evaluations of experiences
Overall Evaluations of Experiences

“I would evaluate my experience in

this concert as 7 out of 10!”

“On a scale from 0 to 100 this vacation

would deserve 60 points!”

“In terms of painfulness, I would rate

this medical procedure as 90 out of 100…”

the importance of overall evaluations
The Importance of Overall Evaluations
  • Decision input (motivation, future choices (Wirtz et al., 2003, Oishi & Sullivan, in press), advice)
  • Decision target (customer satisfaction or organizational performance, e.g. hotel stays, employee appraisals)

What do we know about how

overall evaluations come about?

slide4

Previous Research

Overall Evaluation=

Remembered Utility“Peak-End Rule”

(Kahneman, 2000)

Puzzle:

duration neglect

(Kahneman, Wakker & Sarin, 1997)

Experienced Utility Paradigm

slide6

Lay Intuitions

Experienced Utility Paradigm

motivation
Motivation
  • The subjective nature of overall evaluations (Alexandrova, 2005),
  • Discussions of duration neglect

(Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000),

and no research on what communication partners expect of overall evaluations of experiences.

method
Method

Informants evaluating experiences in real-time and overall (0-100 scale, “nothing pleasant” to “a great deal of pleasure”)

Guessers having to infer overall evaluations by means of Active Information Search (Huber, Wider & Huber, 1997) with only the type of experience and metrics of evaluations known initially

Closed format questionnaires for the comparison of open-ended and closed-format elicitation of intuitions

Interpretations of given overall evaluations of experiences (closed format)

method9
Method

Informants evaluating experiences in real-time and overall (0-100 scale, “nothing pleasant” to “a great deal of pleasure”)

Guessers having to infer overall evaluations by means of Active Information Search (Huber, Wider & Huber, 1997) with only the type of experience and metrics of evaluations known initially

Closed format questionnaires for the comparison of open-ended and closed-format elicitation of intuitions

Interpretations of given overall evaluations of experiences (closed format)

procedure
Procedure

Guessers

Informants

?

4 experiments: music, chocolate, pleasant images, aversive images

2 task conditions: 3 questions / 1 question

closed format questionnaires

feedback and pay

music pilot questions and theories
Music Pilot: Questions and Theories
  • Experienced Utility Paradigm (Kahneman, Wakker & Sarin, 1997)
  • Accessibility model of emotional self-report (Robinson & Clore, 2000) / Construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003)/ Valence judgments (Brendl & Higgins, 1995)
  • Personality (Updegraff, Gable & Taylor, in press)
  • Value as goal supportiveness (Brendl & Higgins, 1995)
  • Value by “functional” aspects (Zacks & Tversky, 2000)
questions classification
Category 1. Consistent with “experienced utility” (real-time ratings, duration-free statistics of these and duration)

Category 2. Non-chronological decomposition of utility (functional aspects, liking of aspects, category of experience, liking of category, emotion specification)

Category 3. Personality

Category 4. Decision rule

Category 5. Impications of the overall utility rating (future use pattern, goal supportiveness, WTP, approach-avoidance motivations)

Questions Classification

Category 1. “How did you rate the musical performances of this sequence?” · “How did you rate the performance you liked the best?” · “How many performances did you hear?”

Category 2. “What was, or, How much did you like the rhythm of the music you listened to?” · “Was the music you heard classical?” · “Was your experience similar to your experience in a philosophy lecture?”

Category 3. “Are you a person who likes variety?” · “Are you a generally depressed individual?”

Category 4. “Was your overall rating equal to the average of performance ratings?”

Category 5. “How often would you listen to this music if you had it at home?” · “Would you use it as a background for a romantic dinner?”

questions structure
Questions Structure

1 Question Asked to Infer Informant´s Evaluation

questions structure14
Questions Structure

3 Questions Asked to Infer Informant´s Evaluation

TQ – in Total Questions Asked; AP – of All Participants

summary
Summary
  • Common principles for interpreting overall evaluations. Context-dependent saliency.
  • Duration not believed to matter for overall evaluations.
  • A role for future decision-making.
closed format questionnaires
Closed Format Questionnaires

Guessers faced questions that “could have been asked in the

guessing task”

  • chose 3 that would have been most helpful
  • underlined 1 they would have chosen if constrained

Questionnaire A: 9 items inspired by question categories

found in pilot experiment (music)

Questionnaire B: 12 items inspired by “experienced utility”

paradigm

questionnaire a
Questionnaire A

Across Paradigms: Percentage of Participants Choosing an Item.

*** significantly different from random choice (5% significance level)

* significantly different from random choice (10% significance level)

__ underlined are percentages corresponding to items chosen when participants could choose one item only (percentages are not reported, all significantly different from random choice at 5% level)

questionnaire b
Questionnaire B

Experienced Utility Paradigm: Percentage of Participants Choosing an Item.

conclusions
Conclusions
  • Multiple paradigms. Interactions unexplored.
  • Duration not believed to matter for overall evaluations.
  • Eagerness to assume “overall=average” (as dictionaries?).
  • Did lay intuitions reveal potential interpretations of overall evaluations?
opinions poll
Opinions Poll

71 undergraduates rated 0-10 plausibility of various interpretations they would give to hearing a participant of a lab image-viewing experiment evaluate his/her experience overall after he/she had evaluated each image viewed.

future research
Future research
  • More on the use and social context of overall evaluations.
  • “Type of experience – principles for evaluation” interaction.
  • Standard of measurement: Utility Rating versus Willingness-to-Pay.
  • “Framing” overall evaluations.
slide23

Thank You!

www.econ.upf.edu/~irinac

For any questions regarding this work, please, contact Irina Cojuharenco at irina.cojuharenco@upf.edu