The Role of Task and Context in Preference Measurement

The present studies show that preferences change systematically depending on the global context and the measurement task Subjects evaluated apartments described by monthly rent and distance to campus using two different tasks (choices and attractiveness ratings) in two different global contexts (one with a narrow range of rents and a wide range of distances, and the other with a wide range of rents and a narrow range of distances) With the task held constant, preference orders for the same pair of apartments reversed in the two different contexts Similarly, with the context held constant, preference orders for the same pair of apartments reversed in the two tasks Taken together, the effects are startling Out of 25 apartments common to all four conditions, the preference rank of the apartment that was most expensive and closest to campus ranged from the 28th percentile to the 80th percentile We argue that, in the present experiments, the global context influences the scale values (or the perceptions of the attributes), and the task influences the weights (or the psychological importance) of the attributes

[1]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. , 1987 .

[2]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[3]  S. Link,et al.  Bias in Quantifying Judgments , 1989 .

[4]  Alan D. J. Cooke,et al.  Trade-offs depend on attribute range. , 1994 .

[5]  P. Slovic,et al.  Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective , 1983 .

[6]  A. A. J. Marley,et al.  Context dependent probabilistic choice models based on measures of binary advantage , 1991 .

[7]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[8]  C. Turner,et al.  Fallible indicators of the subjective state of the nation. , 1978 .

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  Context-dependent preferences , 1993 .

[10]  F. Strack,et al.  Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. , 1985, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[11]  B. Mellers,et al.  Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making. , 1992 .

[12]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment : Bias , Expertise , and the Judge ' s Point of View , 1979 .

[13]  Alan D. J. Cooke,et al.  Utility Invariance Despite Labile Preferences , 1995 .

[14]  C. Plott,et al.  Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon , 1979 .

[15]  Allen Parducci,et al.  Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency , 1971 .

[16]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment: Bias, Expertise, and the Judge's Point of View , 1979 .

[17]  A. Parducci.  The relativism of absolute judgements. , 1968, Scientific American.

[18]  M H Birnbaum,et al.  Loci of contextual effects in judgment. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  J. Russell,et al.  Relativity in the Perception of Emotion in Facial Expressions , 1987 .

[20]  A. Parducci.  Chapter 5 – CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS: A RANGE–FREQUENCY ANALYSIS* , 1974 .

[21]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Utility Measurement: Configural-Weight Theory and the Judge's Point of View , 1992 .

[22]  D. H. Wedell,et al.  Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[23]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Loci of contextual effects in judgment. , 1982 .

[24]  R. A. Lakshmi-Ratan,et al.  An aggregate contextual choice model for estimating demand for new products from a laboratory choice experiment , 1992 .

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

[26]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .