Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (11): 1271-1285.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01271
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2021-02-04
Published:
2021-11-25
Online:
2021-09-23
Contact:
MENG Lu
E-mail:jjzxml123@163.com
Supported by:
DUAN Shen, MENG Lu. (2021). The polarization effect of project presentation in ranking list on project evaluation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(11), 1271-1285.
Experiment | Experimental form | Purpose of the experiment | Experimental materials | Evaluation polarization measurement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Experiment 1a | Online experiments (Credamo) | Primary verification of the main effect of positive ranking list | Phone Performance UI leaderboard | Estimation of first and last evaluation score (percentile scale) |
Experiment 1b | Online Experiment (Marketing Research Office) | Primary verification of the main effect of negative ranking list | Phone Performance UI leaderboard | Estimation of first and last evaluation score (percentile scale) |
Experiment 2 | Laboratory experiment | Formal verification of the main effect of the full ranking list + preliminary verification of the mediating effect | Gift product ranking scenarios | Estimation of total project evaluation score (percentile scale) |
Experiment 3 | Laboratory experiment | Formal verification of the mediating effect of perceived differences in positive list items | Business school ranking scenarios | Top and bottom score estimates (percentile scale) and Attitude Preference (7-point scale) was measured in two ways |
Experiment 4 | Laboratory experiment | Formal verification of positive attribute evaluability adjustment effect | Phone Performance UI leaderboard | First and last evaluation score (7-point scale) |
Table 1 Experimental logic table
Experiment | Experimental form | Purpose of the experiment | Experimental materials | Evaluation polarization measurement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Experiment 1a | Online experiments (Credamo) | Primary verification of the main effect of positive ranking list | Phone Performance UI leaderboard | Estimation of first and last evaluation score (percentile scale) |
Experiment 1b | Online Experiment (Marketing Research Office) | Primary verification of the main effect of negative ranking list | Phone Performance UI leaderboard | Estimation of first and last evaluation score (percentile scale) |
Experiment 2 | Laboratory experiment | Formal verification of the main effect of the full ranking list + preliminary verification of the mediating effect | Gift product ranking scenarios | Estimation of total project evaluation score (percentile scale) |
Experiment 3 | Laboratory experiment | Formal verification of the mediating effect of perceived differences in positive list items | Business school ranking scenarios | Top and bottom score estimates (percentile scale) and Attitude Preference (7-point scale) was measured in two ways |
Experiment 4 | Laboratory experiment | Formal verification of positive attribute evaluability adjustment effect | Phone Performance UI leaderboard | First and last evaluation score (7-point scale) |
Item ranking | Vertical Ranking List | Horizontal ranking list | Same-term mean difference (vertical- horizontal) | Same-term difference significance | Cumulative difference significance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean score | Scoring standard deviation | Difference from the mean of the preceding term | Cumulative mean difference | Mean score | Scoring standard deviation | Difference from the mean of the preceding term | Cumulative mean difference | ||||
1 | 93.05 | 4.29 | —— | —— | 86.90 | 5.69 | —— | —— | 6.15 | ** | —— |
2 | 84.94 | 9.01 | 8.11 | 8.11 | 79.09 | 8.87 | 7.81 | 7.81 | 5.85 | ** | n.s |
3 | 77.48 | 11.98 | 7.46 | 15.58 | 73.10 | 10.04 | 5.99 | 13.80 | 4.38 | * | n.s. |
4 | 68.52 | 10.46 | 8.96 | 24.54 | 64.86 | 11.02 | 8.24 | 22.04 | 3.66 | n.s. | n.s. |
5 | 56.69 | 11.10 | 11.83 | 36.37 | 55.73 | 12.92 | 9.13 | 31.17 | 0.96 | n.s. | * |
6 | 43.84 | 9.08 | 12.85 | 49.22 | 49.11 | 13.62 | 6.62 | 37.79 | -5.27 | n.s. | ** |
7 | 34.02 | 12.90 | 9.82 | 59.04 | 42.93 | 10.43 | 6.18 | 43.97 | -8.91 | n.s. | ** |
8 | 27.47 | 8.25 | 6.55 | 65.59 | 36.01 | 9.11 | 6.92 | 50.89 | -8.54 | * | ** |
9 | 20.52 | 6.97 | 6.95 | 72.54 | 29.59 | 6.04 | 6.42 | 57.31 | -9.07 | ** | ** |
10 | 11.39 | 6.31 | 9.13 | 81.67 | 22.44 | 5.99 | 7.15 | 64.46 | -11.05 | *** | *** |
Mean value | 51.79 | 9.04 | 9.07 | —— | 53.98 | 9.37 | 7.50 | —— | —— | n.s. a | ** b |
Table 2 A table of evaluation differences among the gifts ranked in different ways of presentation
Item ranking | Vertical Ranking List | Horizontal ranking list | Same-term mean difference (vertical- horizontal) | Same-term difference significance | Cumulative difference significance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean score | Scoring standard deviation | Difference from the mean of the preceding term | Cumulative mean difference | Mean score | Scoring standard deviation | Difference from the mean of the preceding term | Cumulative mean difference | ||||
1 | 93.05 | 4.29 | —— | —— | 86.90 | 5.69 | —— | —— | 6.15 | ** | —— |
2 | 84.94 | 9.01 | 8.11 | 8.11 | 79.09 | 8.87 | 7.81 | 7.81 | 5.85 | ** | n.s |
3 | 77.48 | 11.98 | 7.46 | 15.58 | 73.10 | 10.04 | 5.99 | 13.80 | 4.38 | * | n.s. |
4 | 68.52 | 10.46 | 8.96 | 24.54 | 64.86 | 11.02 | 8.24 | 22.04 | 3.66 | n.s. | n.s. |
5 | 56.69 | 11.10 | 11.83 | 36.37 | 55.73 | 12.92 | 9.13 | 31.17 | 0.96 | n.s. | * |
6 | 43.84 | 9.08 | 12.85 | 49.22 | 49.11 | 13.62 | 6.62 | 37.79 | -5.27 | n.s. | ** |
7 | 34.02 | 12.90 | 9.82 | 59.04 | 42.93 | 10.43 | 6.18 | 43.97 | -8.91 | n.s. | ** |
8 | 27.47 | 8.25 | 6.55 | 65.59 | 36.01 | 9.11 | 6.92 | 50.89 | -8.54 | * | ** |
9 | 20.52 | 6.97 | 6.95 | 72.54 | 29.59 | 6.04 | 6.42 | 57.31 | -9.07 | ** | ** |
10 | 11.39 | 6.31 | 9.13 | 81.67 | 22.44 | 5.99 | 7.15 | 64.46 | -11.05 | *** | *** |
Mean value | 51.79 | 9.04 | 9.07 | —— | 53.98 | 9.37 | 7.50 | —— | —— | n.s. a | ** b |
[1] | Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty, & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences(pp. 25-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. |
[2] |
Bagchi, R., & Derick, F. D. (2016). Numerosity and consumer decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10(5), 89-93.
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.010 URL |
[3] |
Bagchi, R., & Ince, E. C. (2016). Is a 70% forecast more accurate than a 30% forecast? How level of a forecast affects inferences about forecasts and forecasters. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 31-45.
doi: 10.1509/jmr.12.0526 URL |
[4] |
Bao, Y. C., Bao, Y. Q., & Sheng, S. B (2011). Motivating purchase of private brands: Effects of store image, product signatureness, and quality variation. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 220-226.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.007 URL |
[5] | Bargh, J. A., Williams, L. E., Huang, J. Y., Song, H., & Ackerman, J. M. (2010). From the physical to the psychological: Mundane experiences influence social judgment and interpersonal behavior. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(4), 267-268. |
[6] |
Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 733-764.
doi: 10.1080/03640210701530748 URL |
[7] |
Brosvic, G. M., & Cohen, B. D. (1988). The horizontal-vertical illusion and knowledge of results. Percept Mot Skills, 67(2), 463-469.
doi: 10.2466/pms.1988.67.2.463 URL |
[8] |
Cai, F., Shen, H., Hui, & Michael, K. (2012). The effect of location on price estimation: Understanding number-location and number-order associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 718-724.
doi: 10.1509/jmr.11.0203 URL |
[9] |
Casasanto, & Daniel. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 138(3), 351-367.
doi: 10.1037/a0015854 URL |
[10] |
Chae, B., Li, X. P., & Zhu, R. (2013). Judging product effectiveness from perceived spatial proximity. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 317-335.
doi: 10.1086/670393 URL |
[11] | Chen, S. S., Ke, Y. N., Jiang, J., & Xiao, X. (2014). The influence of vertical metaphor of power on power judgment. Journal of Psychological Science, (2), 388-393. |
[12] | Cogan, D. G. (1949). Neurology of the ocular muscles. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 109(2), 187. |
[13] |
Crawford, L. E., Margolies, S. M., Drake, J. T., & Murphy, M. E. (2006). Affect biases memory of location: Evidence for the spatial representation of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 20(8), 1153-1169.
doi: 10.1080/02699930500347794 URL |
[14] |
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127.
doi: 10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114 URL |
[15] |
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3-6), 487-506.
doi: 10.1080/02643290244000239 URL |
[16] |
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284(5416), 970-974.
pmid: 10320379 |
[17] |
Deng, X., Kahn, B. E., Unnava, H. R., & Lee, H. (2016). A "wide" variety: Effects of horizontal versus vertical display on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 682-698.
doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0151 URL |
[18] |
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586-598.
pmid: 15535773 |
[19] |
Ding, Y., & Zhong, J. Q. (2020). The effect of social crowding on individual preference for self-improvement products. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(2), 216-228.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00216 URL |
[20] |
Faro, D. (2010). Changing the future by reshaping the past: The influence of causal beliefs on estimates of time to onset. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 279-291.
doi: 10.1086/651234 URL |
[21] |
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL |
[22] |
Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2016). The average fuel-efficiency fallacy: Overestimation of average fuel efficiency and how it can lead to biased decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 435-445.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.v30.2 URL |
[23] | Hartmann, M., Gashaj, V., Stahnke, A., & Mast, F. W. (2014). There is more than "more is up": Hand and foot responses reverse the vertical association of number magnitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 40(4), 1401-1414. |
[24] | Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. |
[25] | Holmberg, L. (1975). The influence of elongation on the perception of volume of geometrically simple objects. Psychological Research Bulletin, 15(2), 1-18. |
[26] |
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257.
doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0077 URL |
[27] |
Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107-121.
doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771 URL |
[28] |
Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343-355.
doi: 10.1177/1745691610374586 URL |
[29] |
Isaac, M. S., Brough, A. R., & Grayson, K. (2016). Is top 10 better than top 9? The role of expectations in consumer response to imprecise rank claims. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 338-353.
doi: 10.1509/jmr.14.0379 URL |
[30] |
Isaac, M. S., & Schindler, R. M. (2014). The top-ten effect: Consumers' subjective categorization of ranked lists. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6):1181-1202.
doi: 10.1086/674546 URL |
[31] |
Judd, C. M., & Lusk, C. M. (1984). Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: Effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1193-1207.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1193 URL |
[32] |
Koo, D. M., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Inter-relationships among dominance, energetic and tense arousal, and pleasure, and differences in their impacts under online vs. offline environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1740-1750.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.001 URL |
[33] | Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to Western thought. New York: Basic Books. |
[34] |
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045-1067.
doi: 10.1037/a0020970 pmid: 20822208 |
[35] |
Leclerc, F., Hsee, C. K., & Nunes, J. C. (2005). Narrow focusing: Why the relative position of a good in its category matters more than it should. Marketing Science, 24(2), 194-205.
doi: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0090 URL |
[36] |
Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Value conflict and thought-induced attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(3), 203-216.
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(91)90012-U URL |
[37] | Liu, H. Y., Zhang, S. X. (2019). To see the truth of space: A literature review and prospects of spatial metaphors’ effects on the consumption behavior. Foreign Economics & Management, 41(2), 59-72. |
[38] |
Lu, X., & Hsee, Christopher K. (2018). Joint evaluation versus single evaluation: A field full of potentials. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 827-839.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00827 URL |
[39] | Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What\"s \"up\" with god? vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93(5), 699-710. |
[40] |
Millar, M., & Abraham, T. (1986). Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 259-269.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.259 URL |
[41] |
Ouellet, M., Santiago, J., Israeli, Z., & Gabay, S. (2010). Is the future the right time?. Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 308-314.
doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000036 pmid: 20178942 |
[42] |
Paulhus, D. L., & Lim, D. T. K. (1994). Arousal and evaluative extremity in social judgments: A dynamic complexity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 89-99.
doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992 URL |
[43] |
Pham, M. T (1996). Cue representation and selection effects of arousal on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 373-387.
doi: 10.1086/jcr.1996.22.issue-4 URL |
[44] |
Pope, D. G. (2009). Reacting to rankings: Evidence from "America's best hospitals". Journal of Health Economics, 28(6), 1154-1165.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.08.006 URL |
[45] |
Rodas, M. A., & Roedder, J. D. (2019). The secrecy effect: Secret consumption increases women’s product evaluations and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1093-1109.
doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz041 URL |
[46] |
Romero, M., & Biswas, D. (2016). Healthy-left, unhealthy-right: Can displaying healthy items to the left (versus right) of unhealthy items nudge healthier choices?. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 103-112.
doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw008 URL |
[47] |
Ryan, K. M. (2018). Vertical video: Rupturing the aesthetic paradigm. Visual Communication, 17(2), 245-261
doi: 10.1177/1470357217736660 URL |
[48] | Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(1), 1-21. |
[49] | Schwartz, B. (1981). Vertical classification: A study in structuralism and the sociology of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
[50] |
Sevilla, J., Isaac, M. S., & Bagchi, R. (2018). Format neglect: How the use of numerical versus percentage rank claims influences consumer judgments. Journal of Marketing, 82(6), 150-164.
doi: 10.1177/0022242918805455 URL |
[51] |
Shen, L. X., Hsee, C. K., Wu, Q. S., & Tsai, C. I. (2012). Overpredicting and under profiting in pricing decisions: Evaluability in pricing decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 512-521.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.v25.5 URL |
[52] |
Song, Y. Q., & Zhang, J. J. (2014). Temporal-spatial metaphor in conceptual representation: Can spatial information be activated when processing the temporal reference which implied in the changing shape of objects? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(2), 216-226.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00216 URL |
[53] | Sun, J. (2011). Consumer brand preference construction: The moderating role of evaluation mode. Management Review, 23(8), 103-111. |
[54] | Tsiros, M. (2017). Convexity neglect in consumer decision making. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 2(4), 286-286. |
[55] |
Wang, Z., Lu Z., Y. (2013). The vertical spatial metaphor of moral concepts and its influence on cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(5), 538-545.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00538 URL |
[56] |
Williams, C. M. (1966). Horizontal versus vertical display of numbers. Human Factors, 8(3), 237.
pmid: 5965876 |
[57] | Wu, L. M., Mo, L., & Wang, R. M. (2006). The activation process of spatial representations during real-time comprehension of verbs. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(5), 663-671. |
[58] |
Yunhui, H., & Han, G. (2018). The minimal deviation effect: Numbers just above a categorical boundary enhance consumer desire. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 775-791.
doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy048 URL |
[59] |
Zhang, M., & Wang, J. (2009). Psychological distance asymmetry: The spatial dimension vs. other dimensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3):497-507.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.001 URL |
[60] |
Zhao, X. R., He, X. Y., Wei, Z., Chen, G. Y., Chen, Q., & Huang, L. X. (2018). Interpersonal choice: The advantage on the left or on the right?. International Journal of Psychology, 53(5), 331-338.
doi: 10.1002/ijop.2018.53.issue-5 URL |
[61] |
Zhu, M., & Ratner, R. K. (2015). Scarcity polarizes preferences: The impact on choice among multiple items in a product class. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 13-26.
doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0451 URL |
[62] | Zhu, Y. M. (2019). Influence of consumer participation level on identification in online brand community—The moderating effect of product type and brand familiarity. Journal of Business Economics, (2), 51-61. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||