The Presenter's Paradox

This analysis introduces the Presenter's Paradox. Robust findings in impression formation demonstrate that perceivers' judgments show a weighted averaging pattern, which results in less favorable evaluations when mildly favorable information is added to highly favorable information. Across seven studies, we show that presenters do not anticipate this averaging pattern on the part of evaluators and instead design presentations that include all of the favorable information available. This additive strategy ("more is better") hurts presenters in their perceivers' eyes because mildly favorable information dilutes the impact of highly favorable information. For example, presenters choose to spend more money to make a product bundle look more costly, even though doing so actually cheapened its value from the evaluators' perspective (study 1). Additional studies demonstrate the robustness of the effect, investigate the psychological processes underlying it, and examine its implications for a variety of marketing contexts.

[1]  N. Schwarz.  Feelings, Fit, and Funny Effects: A Situated Cognition Perspective , 2006, Journal of Marketing Research.

[2]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness , 2010 .

[3]  G. Ichheiser.  Misunderstandings in human relations: a study in false social perception. , 1949 .

[4]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Exploring the Cognitive Mechanism that Underlies Regulatory Focus Effects , 2007 .

[5]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[6]  James Shanteau,et al.  Do Consumers Evaluate Products by Adding or Averaging Attribute Information , 1976 .

[7]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[9]  E. E. Jones,et al.  The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. , 1972 .

[10]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  David Faust,et al.  Eliminating the hindsight bias. , 1988 .

[13]  K. Keith.  Nisbett, Richard E , 2013 .

[14]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. , 2001, Psychological review.

[15]  G. Ichheiser.  Introduction: Why We Are Often Blinded to "Obvious" Facts , 1949, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  R. Cialdini.  Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[17]  M. Yadav.  How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment , 1994 .

[18]  G. Moskowitz.  Cognitive social psychology : the Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition , 1981 .

[19]  C M Judd,et al.  Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[21]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Culture and the Physical Environment , 2006, Psychological science.

[22]  D. Ariely,et al.  Less is more: the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  F. Kardes,et al.  The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference , 1999 .

[24]  I. Simonson,et al.  Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice , 1994 .

[25]  Rebecca W. Hamilton,et al.  Choosing options for products: the effects of mixed bundling on consumers’ inferences and choices , 2008 .

[26]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Consumer evaluation of multi-product bundles: An information integration analysis , 1991 .

[27]  Gita Venkataramani Johar,et al.  Do You Know Me? Consumer Calibration of Friends' Knowledge , 2006 .

[28]  N. Anderson.  Foundations of information integration theory , 1981 .

[29]  John M. Darley,et al.  Dual effects of implicit bystanders: Inhibiting vs. facilitating helping behavior , 2009 .

[30]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Cultural Differences in Brand Extension Evaluation: The Influence of Analytic versus Holistic Thinking , 2007 .

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[32]  David Laibson,et al.  Commentary on “Choice Bracketing” by Read, Loewenstein and Rabin , 1999 .

[33]  J. Guiltinan.  The Price Bundling of Services: A Normative Framework , 1987 .

[34]  N. Anderson.  Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  T. Gilovich,et al.  The spotlight effect in social judgment: an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  T. Meyvis,et al.  Consumers' Beliefs about Product Benefits: The Effect of Obviously Irrelevant Product Information , 2002 .

[37]  Daniel Read,et al.  Choice Bracketing , 1999 .

[38]  Jens Förster,et al.  How Global Versus Local Perception Fits Regulatory Focus , 2005, Psychological science.

[39]  N. Anderson,et al.  Application of a linear-serial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  Markus Kemmelmeier.  Separating the wheat from the chaff: does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect? , 2004 .

[41]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[42]  L. Ross,et al.  Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. , 2004, Psychological review.

[43]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Socially Situated Cognition: Cognition in its Social Context , 2004 .

[44]  Y. Rottenstreich,et al.  ABC’s of Principal-Agent Interactions: Accurate Predictions, Biased Processes, and Contrasts between Working and Delegating , 2010 .

[45]  Thomas Gilovich,et al.  Peering Into the Bias Blind Spot: People’s Assessments of Bias in Themselves and Others , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[46]  Hannah H. Chang,et al.  Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Fit, and the Search and Consideration of Choice Alternatives , 2010 .

[47]  R. Zajonc.  The process of cognitive tuning in communication. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[48]  I. Simonson,et al.  The Effect of New Product Features on Brand Choice , 1996 .

[49]  D. Krantz,et al.  The Dilution Effect : Nondiagnostic Information Weakens the Implications of Diagnostic Information , 2003 .

[50]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? , 1996 .

[51]  Joydeep Srivastava,et al.  Debiasing Using Decomposition: The Case of Memory-Based Credit Card Expense Estimates , 2002 .

[52]  Von O. Leirer,et al.  Cognitive representation of personality impressions: Organizational processes in first impression formation. , 1980 .