Lay Scientism: Ignorance of Value in Compensation Decisions

How should one compensate a consumer who loses something irreplaceable because of someone else’s fault? Normatively, compensation should equal the value (utility) of the lost item and thus make the victim as happy as she would be had the damage never occurred. Our experiments demonstrate that people’s compensation decisions often ignore value and are based on the normatively irrelevant factor of cost (the price that the victim originally paid for the item). We explain this phenomenon in terms of lay scientism (a tendency to base decisions on objective factors) and discuss how the popular cost-based compensation rule hurts consumer welfare.



Citation:

Claire Tsai and Christopher Hsee (2007) ,"Lay Scientism: Ignorance of Value in Compensation Decisions", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 34, eds. Gavan Fitzsimons and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 265-268.

Authors

Claire Tsai, University of Chicago, USA
Christopher Hsee, University of Chicago, USA



Volume

NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 34 | 2007



Share Proceeding

Featured papers

See More

Featured

A Taxonomy of Opposition to Genetically Modified Foods

Philip M. Fernbach, University of Colorado, USA
Nicholas Light, University of Colorado, USA
Lauren Min, University of Colorado, USA

Read More

Featured

F2. Can Stricter Ethical Standards Increase Tolerance for Ethical Misconduct?

Olya Bullard, University of Winnipeg
Sara Penner, University of Manitoba, Canada
Kelley Main, University of Manitoba, Canada

Read More

Featured

Q8. Avatars, Consumers and Possession in Online Gaming

Feihong Hu, Lancaster University, UK
Xin Zhao, Lancaster University, UK
Chihling Liu, Lancaster University, UK

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is relatively inexpensive, but brings significant benefits to its members.