ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (8): 827-839.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00827

• “以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展”专栏 • 上一篇    下一篇


路西1,2(), HSEE3()   

  1. 1 北京大学光华管理学院, 北京100871
    2 中国农业大学经济管理学院, 北京 100083
    3 Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, United States
  • 收稿日期:2017-08-13 出版日期:2018-08-07 发布日期:2018-07-02

Joint evaluation versus single evaluation: A field full of potentials

LU Xi1,2(), Christopher K3()   

  1. 1 Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
    2 College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
    3 Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, United States
  • Received:2017-08-13 Online:2018-08-07 Published:2018-07-02


人们有两种基本的评估模式:一是联合评估, 即所有选项一起呈现和被评估; 二是单独评估, 各个选项单独地呈现和被评估。所有决策都是在其中一种评估模式或者两种模式的中间地带中做出的。联合和单独评估可以导致偏好反转和次优选择, 理解其机制能帮助人们提高决策结果, 包括慈善、定价、消费、甚至幸福感等方面。作为对各类决策影响广泛的重要变量, 评估模式产生了不少反直觉的效应, 目前研究尚不全面, 是一块值得探索的沃土。

关键词: 评估模式, 偏好反转, 广义可评估性理论, 决策双系统, 助推


Evaluation mode is an important yet under-studied aspect of decision-making. All decisions are made in one of two evaluation modes or some mix of the two. One is joint evaluation (JE), in which different options are presented together and evaluated simultaneously. The other is single evaluation (SE), in which different options are presented separately, and each option is evaluated in isolation.

This article reviews existing literature on how JE and SE can lead to reversed preferences, with one option favored in JE and another option favored in SE, in domains including hiring, consumer choice, moral judgments and healthcare decisions. For example, in JE, a plain-looking but experienced job candidate would be favored over a good-looking but less-experienced job candidate, but in SE, the good-looking but less experienced candidate would be favored. We also review existing research on the “less is better” phenomenon-that in SE (but not in JE), a normatively less valuable option is judged more favorably than its more valuable alternative. For example, in SE (but not in JE), 7 oz. of ice cream served in a 5-oz. cup is valued more favorably than 8 oz. of ice cream served in a 10-oz. cup.

To interpret JE/SE preference reversals and the less-is-better effect, several explanations have been proposed, such as a want/should conflict, a within-category versus between-category comparison, the option as information model, and the dual-process model. The present review focuses on the general evaluability theory (GET), which ascribes JE/SE preference reversals and the less-is-better effect to attribute evaluability. According to GET, the evaluability of an attribute depends conjunctively on three factors: evaluation mode (JE versus SE), knowledge of the decision-maker about the attribute, and the inherent/learned nature of the attribute. Not only can GET explain JE/SE preference reversals and the less-is-better effect, it also explains many other effects, such as scope neglect, differences in risk preference between JE and SE, differences in time preference between JE and SE, misprediction of future hedonic experiences, and so on.

Understanding JE-SE differences and attribute evaluability also offers insight into how to improve decisions in contexts such as fundraising, pricing strategy, public service, and subjective well-being. |||The review suggests that evaluation mode (JE versus SE) is an important independent variable that influences a wide range of decisions in counterintuitive ways and thereby provides opportunities to design choice-architecture-based nudges to improve decisions. Yet despite its importance, evaluation mode has not been well-studied and therefore is a fertile ground for researchers to explore and develop.

Key words: evaluation mode, preference reversal, general evaluability theory, dual-process model, nudge


[an error occurred while processing this directive]