Marketers frequently offer a variety of communications, brands, and service encounters that customers evaluate sequentially. When customers make these evaluations, their previous experiences in the sequence influence their current evaluation. The authors propose that these prior experiences serve as multiple reference points against which the target stimulus is judged, creating rival co-occurring comparison effects. Using real-world and experimental data, they find that assimilation and contrast effects occur simultaneously: there is assimilation to the first score within a sequence and contrast with the immediate predecessor as well as with extremes experienced earlier in the sequence. The authors document the moderating effects of extreme first stimuli, domain similarity, and individual factors of mood and expertise. They provide different recommendations for sequence construction on the basis of whether the marketer's goal is fairness, accuracy, or influencing choice. This research is unique in (1) showing how several preceding evaluations can each have an impact on a subsequent evaluation at the same time and (2) using real-world data to do so.
AllenbyGreg M., and RossiPeter E. (1999), “Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity,”Journal of Econometrics, 89(1/2), 57–78.
2.
ArielyDan, LoewensteinGeorge, and PrelecDrazen (2003), “‘Coherent Arbitrariness': Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.
3.
BjorkStaffan, and HolopainenJussi (2004), Patterns in Game Design.Hingham, MA: Charles River Media Inc.
4.
BrinbergDavid L., and McGrathJoseph Edward (1985), Validity and the Research Process.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
Bruine de BruinWandi, and KerenGideon (2003), “Order Effects in Sequentially Judged Options Due to the Direction of Comparison,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1/2), 91–101.
6.
CamererColin, LoewensteinGeorge, and WeberMartin (1989), “The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis,”Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232–54.
7.
ChapmanGretchen B., and JohnsonEric J. (1994), “The Limits of Anchoring,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223–42.
8.
ChapmanGretchen B., and JohnsonEric J. (1999), “Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115–53.
9.
DamischLysann, MussweilerThomas, and PlessnerHenning (2006), “Olympic Medals as Fruits of Comparison? Assimilation and Contrast in Sequential Performance Judgments,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(3), 166–78.
10.
Dato-onMary C., and DahlstromRobert F. (2003), “A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Contrast Effects in Decision Marketing,”Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 1–21.
11.
DavisDonna F., GolicicSusan L., BoerstlerCourtney N., ChoiSunny, and OhHanmo (2013), “Does Marketing Research Suffer from Methods Myopia?”Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1245–50.
12.
DeightonJohn, MacInnisDebbie, McGillAnn, and ShivBaba (2010), “Broadening the Scope of Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 5–7.
13.
EhrenbergA.S.C. (1995), “Empirical Generalisations, Theory, and Method,”Marketing Science, 14(3), G20–G28.
14.
GelfandAlan E., and SmithAdrian F.M. (1990), “Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(410), 398–409.
15.
HallCrystal C., ArissLynn, and TodorovAlexander (2007), “The Illusion of Knowledge: When More Information Reduces Accuracy and Increases Confidence,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 277–90.
16.
HerrPaul, M. (1986), “Consequences of Priming: Judgment and Behavior,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1106–1115.
17.
HerrPaul M., ShermanSteven J., and FazioRussell H. (1983), “On the Consequences of Priming: Assimilation and Contrast Effects,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 323–40.
18.
HubbardRaymond, and Murray LindsayR. (2002), “How the Emphasis on ‘Original’ Empirical Marketing Research Impedes Knowledge Development,”Marketing Theory, 2(4), 381–402.
19.
KahnemanDaniel, FredricksonBarbara L., SchreiberCharles A., and RedelmeierDonald A. (1993), “When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End,”Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405.
20.
KardesFrank R., and HerrPaul M. (1990), “Order Effects in Consumer Judgment, Choice, and Memory: The Role of Initial Processing Goals,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, GoldbergMarvin E., GornGerald, and PollayRichard W., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 541–46.
21.
KleiserSusan B., and MantelSusan P. (1994), “Consumer Expertise: A Scale Development,” in Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 5, MitchellAndrew, and AchrolRavi, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 20–25.
22.
KoopGregory. J., and JohnsonJoseph G. (2012), “The Use of Multiple Reference Points in Risky Decision Making,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(1), 49–62.
23.
KubovyMichael (1999), “On the Pleasures of the Mind,” in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, KahnemanDaniel, DienerEd, and SchwarzNorbert, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
LehmannDonald R., McAlisterLeigh, and StaelinRichard (2011), “Sophistication in Research in Marketing,”Journal of Marketing, 75(July), 155–65.
25.
LynchJohn G.Jr. (1999), “Theory and External Validity,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 367–76.
26.
LynchJohn G.Jr. (2011), “Substantive Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 38, DahlDarren W., JoharGita V., and van OsselaerStijn M.J., eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
27.
LynchJohn G., AlbaJoseph W., KrishnaAradhna, MorwitzVicki G., and Gürhan-CanliZeynep (2012), “Knowledge Creation in Consumer Research: Multiple Routes, Multiple Criteria,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(July) 473–85.
28.
LynchJohn G., ChakravartiDipankar, and MitraAnusree (1991), “Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 284–97.
29.
MacFieHalliday J., BratchellNicholas, GreehoffKeith, and VallisLloyd V. (1989), “Design to Balance the Effect of Order of Presentation and First-Order Carryover Effect in Hall Tests,”Journal of Sensory Studies, 4(2), 129–48.
30.
MarchJames G., and ShapiraZur B. (1992), “Variable Risk Preferences and the Focus of Attention,”Psychological Review, 99(1), 172–83.
31.
MayhewGlenn E., and WinerRussell S. (1992), “An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data,”Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 62–70.
32.
MochonDaniel, and FrederickShane (2013), “Anchoring in Sequential Judgments,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 69–79.
33.
MussweilerThomas (2003), “Comparison Processes in Social Judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences,”Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–89.
34.
MussweilerThomas, and StrackFritz (2000), “The ‘Relative Self': Informational and Judgmental Consequences of Comparative Self-Evaluation,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 23–38.
35.
NamMyungwoo, and SternthalBrian (2008), “The Effects of a Different Category Context on Target Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 668–79.
36.
NovemskyNathan, and RatnerRebecca K. (2003), “The Time Course and Impact of Consumers’ Erroneous Beliefs About Hedonic Contrast Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 507–516.
37.
OrdóñezLisa D., ConnollyTerry, and CoughlinRichard (2000), “Multiple Reference Points in Satisfaction and Fairness Assessment,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(3), 329–44.
38.
PageBenjamin I., and ShapiroRobert Y. (2010), The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
PageLionel, and PageKatie (2010), “Last Shall Be First: A Field Study of Biases in Sequential Performance Evaluations on the Idol Series,”Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73(2), 186–98.
40.
ParducciAlan (1964), “Category Judgment: A Range-Frequency Model,”Psychological Review, 72(6), 407–418.
41.
PodsakoffPhilip M., MacKenzieScott B., LeeJeong-Yeon, and PodsakoffNathan P. (2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
42.
RaghunathanRajagopal, and IrwinJulie R. (2001), “Walking the Hedonic Product Treadmill: Default Contrast and Mood-Based Assimilation Effects in Judgments of Predicted Happiness with Target Product,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 355–68.
43.
ReddenJoseph, P. (2008), “Reducing Satiation: The Role of Categorization Level,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 624–34.
44.
ReissPeter, C. (2011), “Descriptive, Structural, and Experimental Methods in Marketing Research,”Marketing Science, 30(6), 950–64.
45.
RollsBarbara J., RollsEdmund T., RoweEdward A., and SweeneyKevin (1981), “Sensory Specific Satiety in Man,”Physiology and Behavior, 27(1), 137–42.
46.
RollsBarbara J., Van DuijvenvoordeP.M., and RollsEdmund T. (1984), “Pleasantness Changes and Food Intake in a Varied Four-Course Meal,”Appetite, 5(4), 337–48.
47.
RossiPeter E., AllenbyGreg M., and McCullochRobert (2005), Bayesian Statistics and Marketing.London: John Wiley & Sons.
48.
RotaLauren M., and ZellnerDebra A. (2007), “The Categorization Effect in Hedonic Contrast: Experts Differ from Novices,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 179–83.
49.
SchwarzNorbert, and BlessHerbert (1992), “Constructing Reality and Its Alternatives: An Inclusion/Exclusion Model of Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Social Judgment,” in The Construction of Social Judgments, MartinLeonard L., and TesserAbraham, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 217–48.
50.
SchwarzNorbert, and CloreGerald L. (1983), “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well-Being,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–23.
51.
SchwarzNorbert, and CloreGerald L. (1996), “Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Tory HigginsE., and KruglanskiArie, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 433–65.
52.
SherifMuzafer, and HovlandCarl I. (1961), Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
StrongGordon, and PiatzSteve (2008), “BJCP Exam Study Guide,” (September).
54.
ThalerRichard H., and SunsteinCass R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science, 185(4157), 1124–31.
56.
WangXiao-Tian (2008), “Risk Communication and Risky Choice in Context: Ambiguity and Ambivalence Hypothesis,”Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128(April), 78–89.
57.
WelchJoe L., and SwiftCathy O. (1992), “Question Order Effects in Taste Testing of Beverages,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(3), 265–68.
58.
WinerRussell, S. (1986), “A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 250–56.
59.
WinerRussell, S. (1999), “Experimentation in the 21st Century: The Importance of External Validity,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 349–58.
60.
WirtzDerrick, KrugerJustin, ScollonChristie Napa, and DienerEd (2003), “What to Do on Spring Break? The Role of Predicted, On-Line, and Remembered Experience in Future Choice,”Psychological Science, 14(5), 520–24.
61.
WrightGeorge, RoweGene, BolgerFergus, and GammackJohn (1994), “Coherence, Calibration, and Expertise in Judgmental Probability Forecasting,”Organizational and Human Decisions Processing, 57(1), 1–25.
62.
WyerRobert S.Jr., and SrullThomas K. (1989), Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context.New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63.
ZellnerDebra A., JonesKe'nesha, MorinoJennifer, CoganElizabeth S., and JenningsEmily M. (2010), “Increased Hedonic Differences Despite Increases in Hedonic Range,”Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72(5), 1261–65.
64.
ZellnerDebra A., KernBrett B., and ParkerScott (2002), “Protection for the Good: Subcategorization Reduces Hedonic Contrast,”Appetite, 38(3), 175–80.
65.
ZellnerDebra A., RohmElizabeth, BassettiTerri, and ParkerScott (2003), “Compared to What? Effects of Categorization on Hedonic Contrast,”Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(2), 468–73.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
