Joint Versus Separate Evaluation of Partitioned Information
Using a theoretical framework derived from Numerosity Heuristics and the Evaluability Hypothesis, we propose and find empirical evidence for our hypothesis that joint versus separate evaluations of partitioned information (with varying levels of partitions) lead to reversals in consumer probability judgments. Specifically, when evaluating partitioned information separately, consumers are likely to have higher probability judgments for information with a higher number of partitions. In contrast, when evaluating partitioned information jointly, consumers are likely to have lower probability judgments for information with a higher number of partitions.
Dipayan Biswas and Subimal Chatterjee (2007) ,"Joint Versus Separate Evaluation of Partitioned Information", in E - European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 8, eds. Stefania Borghini, Mary Ann McGrath, and Cele Otnes, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research.
Dipayan Biswas, Bentley College, USA
Subimal Chatterjee, State University of New York (Binghamton), USA
E - European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 8 | 2007
Felt Status, Social Contagion, and Consumer Word-of-Mouth in Preferential Treatment Contexts
Brent McFerran, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Jennifer Argo, University of Alberta, Canada
J15. The Deliberation Effect on the Judgment and Choice of Anthropomorphized Products
Juliana M. Batista, EAESP Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Jose Mauro C. Hernandez, Centro Universitário FEI
Format Neglect?: How Different Rank Claim Formats Influence Preference
Julio Sevilla, University of Georgia, USA
Mathew S. Isaac, Seattle University
Rajesh Bagchi, Virginia Tech, USA