Friday, March 4
4:30pm – 6:00pm EST
4:30pm – 6:00pm EST
Discussant: Yang Yang (University of Florida)
MC: Adelle Yang (National University of Singapore)
Calendar Invite: Add to calendar
Student Coordinator: Donald Gaffney (Vanderbilt University) (donald.r.gaffney@Vanderbilt.Edu)
The Temporal Slippery Slope: Decline in Ratings with Time within Batches of Online Reviews
We show that reviewers tend to provide several ratings for different items in a single session. Our analysis of 16M ratings and 1M reviewers shows that the ubiquity of ratings given in "batches" ranges between 12.41% to 92.88% for various platforms. Findings from two large-scale databases—incorporating data from more than 100M ratings and 500K reviewers in a time resolution of seconds—reveal that the drop in ratings within these "batches" increases when longer time passes between sequential ratings. A set of experiments replicate the decrease in sequential ratings and shed light on the role of doubt in explaining this drop. We show that reviewers have stronger doubts about later ratings. Such doubt is reflected via the decrease in rating score over time and the length of time that passes from the earlier rating. The drop is attenuated when the reviewer has low (compared to high) levels of doubt about later ratings.
Hitting the Sweet Spot: How Similarity and Dissimilarity Between Bundled Products Influence Bundle Evaluation
While past research on product bundling has suggested that consumers tend to favor bundles consisting of items that are either the same or different from one another, we propose and document the reverse effect whereby consumers evaluate bundles of products that are just moderately similar or dissimilar to one another more than bundles of products that are highly similar or dissimilar. We reason our theorizing using the traditional utility model and show evidence for the proposed effect across four controlled experiments.
The Real Momentum Effect: When Is A Streak Predicted to End?
When an athlete takes time off or a salesperson deviates from his/her usual schedule, do people think they’ll continue their prior streak? In seven studies (N=2,903), we find that people predict a streak is more likely to end after the actor takes a break (vs. not). Further evidence suggests that the negative impact of a break operates through the belief that taking time off hinders skill improvement through schedule irregularity. We also find that whether the opponent also takes a break (vs. not), and whether the actor’s energy level is unspecified (vs. low) serve as boundary conditions.
Improving Probabilistic Outcomes: People Behave as if they Anticipate Regret Conditional on Experiencing a Bad Outcome
"People often must decide whether to invest in prospects to reduce risk or save scarce resources. Many existing models assume that people consider the absolute improvement in probabilistic chances (e.g., increasing a 10% chance of winning $10 to a 20% chance is similar to increasing an 80% chance of winning $10 to a 90% chance). We present evidence that people behave as if they consider the relative reduction in bad outcomes (increasing a 10% chance to 20% eliminates 1/9 of all bad outcomes, while increasing an 80% chance to 90% eliminates 1/2 of all bad outcomes)."
It’s Not Me, It’s You: Awareness of Being Nudged Results in Oppositional Changes in Self-Perceptions
The growth in use of nudges has come with a parallel increase in awareness of such tactics. We demonstrate that awareness of a nudge causes a backfire effect, wherein individuals’ self-perceptions shift opposite the desired behavior. This effect is robust to outcome valence (i.e., awareness of a nudge towards positive behavior leads to more negative self-perceptions, and vice versa). We also provide process evidence that the effect is driven by a belief that one’s actions were externally influenced, and not indicative of their actual traits. Future empirical research will focus on the downstream consequences of these changes to self-perception.
How and When does A Used (vs. Unused) Account Affect Consumption Behavior?
How does a used (vs. unused) account affect subsequent consumption in the same account? We find that people are more likely to spend their resources on non-essential activities and items from a used (vs. unused) account. We propose this is because consumers naturally engage in a within-account comparison, perceiving the used account as closer to exhaustion, and thus are more likely to devalue and spend resources in a used (vs. unused) account. Thus, if the used account is relatively full, the effect is attenuated. We demonstrate this effect across several resources, including credit card reward points, gift cards, and time.
To Neglect or To Consider? Opportunity Cost Salience Can Accelerate Satiation
We find that salience of opportunity costs at the time of choice can accelerate satiation from a focal option. The effect replicated in an incentive-compatible design and was stronger when opportunity costs considered were more attractive. An Amazon versus art.com gift card brought to mind relatively more attractive outside options, which led to faster satiation from an art print by increasing perceived repetition. Our finding that reminders of outside options can accelerate current satiation by highlighting opportunity costs contrasts with the previous finding that reminders of outside options slowed current satiation by promoting perceived variety.
Presenting Time Series Data as an Absolute Change Versus Relative Change Impacts Judgements and Choices
We find that judgements and risk taking are impacted by whether time-series data are presented as an absolute change (e.g., 20,329 new cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. on May 10th) or relative change (e.g., a 1.5% increase in cases). When participants viewed real-time COVID-19 data in a relative as opposed to an absolute chart, they were more likely to break quarantine (Study 1). In Study 2 we find that these differences in participant judgments are caused in part by the exponential growth bias when interpreting relative charts. In Study 3 we replicated these results in the investment domain.
The Deferral Momentum Effect: Choice Deferral in Sequential Decision Making
Consumers often delay making choices. Although prior research has extensively examined the antecedents of choice deferral, the consequences of deferring choice have remained largely unexplored. We propose a novel deferral momentum effect, whereby engaging in choice deferral will prompt greater deferral on subsequent choices. We further propose that the relatedness (similar vs. different) of the sequential decisions moderates the deferral momentum. Additionally, we propose that choice deferral may offer a short-term respite by suspending judgement of decision quality and temporarily boosting self-confidence, which underlies the deferral momentum. We test and provide evidence for these proposed effects across three studies.