Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite the fact that overpackaging can signal better product protection and higher quality, it may also trigger perceptions of waste and diminish perceived value. With such a persistent tension, it remains unclear when and why overpackaging can be beneficial or harmful. To tackle this issue, this research leverages cue utilization theory and general evaluability theory to propose product evaluability as a boundary condition to explain consumer responses to overpackaging. A series of five studies, using a variety of operationalizations of evaluability and packaging, different research designs, and secondary data from both Eastern and Western cultural contexts, consistently show that consumers prefer overpackaging only when product evaluability is low, whereas they prefer non-overpackaging when product evaluability is high. Our research also reveals two asymmetric pathways through perceived value: when product evaluability is low, overpackaging increases purchase intention via boosting quality value, whereas when product evaluability is high, overpackaging decreases purchase intention via reducing price value. These findings reframe overpackaging from a universally wasteful practice to a context-dependent retail strategy, implying that packaging decisions should be matched to product evaluability rather than standardized across different product assortments.

Consumers typically infer greater quantity from larger numbers. For instance, a 500 gram box of chocolates appears heavier than a .5 kilogram box. By expressing quantities in alternative units or attribute dimensions, one can represent an otherwise identical quantity in a more versus less discretized manner (e.g., a box containing 25 chocolates vs. a box weighing 500 grams). Seven experimental studies show that a difference between more discretized quantities (e.g., 25 vs. 50 chocolates) appears larger relative to a difference between less discretized quantities (e.g., 500 grams vs. 1,000 grams), above and beyond effects of number magnitude. More discretized quantity expressions enhance the consumers’ ability to discriminate between choice options and can also nudge consumers to more favorable choices. Because more discretized quantities are more evaluable, expressing a quantity in terms of a collection of elements particularly helps individuals who are less numerically proficient. By identifying how discretization functions as a novel antecedent of evaluability and by distinguishing two different conceptualizations of numerosity (i.e., symbolic and perceptual numerosity), this article draws important connections between the numerical cognition literature and General Evaluability Theory.

Equity crowdfunding can provide significant resources to new ventures. However, it is not clear how crowd investors decide which ventures to invest in. Building on prior work on professional investors as well as theories in behavioral decision-making, we examine the weight non-professional crowd investors place on criteria related to a start-up’s management, business, and financials. Our conceptual discussion raises the possibility that crowd investors often lack the experience and training to assess complex and sometimes technical investment information, potentially leading them to place larger weight on factors that appear easy to evaluate and less weight on factors that are more difficult to evaluate. Studying over 200 campaigns on the platform Crowdcube, we find that fundraising success is most strongly related to attributes of the product or service, followed by selected aspects of the team, in particular, founders’ motivation and commitment. However, financial metrics disclosed in campaign descriptions do not predict funding success. We discuss implications for investors and entrepreneurs, as well as platform organizers and policy makers.

Purpose Given the growing acceptance of cashback offers (e.g. $10 PayPal cashback within 24 hours of the transaction) among retailers, this paper aims to understand how consumers evaluate them vis-à-vis traditional price-discounts and their subsequent impact on retailers’ promotional strategies. Design/methodology/approach Six experimental studies examine if and when consumers can discern differences in the time-of-reward-accrual (i.e. the waiting time associated with receiving promotional savings) of cashbacks and price-discounts. Building on evaluability theory, we propose that the time-of-reward-accrual of promotion is hard-to-evaluate. Put simply, consumers find it hard to assess the duration of waiting time associated with receiving promotions. Consequently, consumers’ perceptions of cashbacks vis-à-vis price-discounts can be influenced by whether they evaluate both promotions simultaneously [joint-evaluation (JE) mode] or independently [single-evaluation (SE) mode]. Findings The initial four studies show that the time-of-reward-accrual of promotions is hard-to-evaluate. Cashbacks appear just as appealing as price-discounts when consumers evaluate them independently (SE-mode) but lose their appeal when consumers view them alongside price-discounts (JE-mode). The next two studies further enhance the generalizability of our findings by replicating the observed effects for different purchase types (hedonic vs utilitarian) and varying promotional benefit levels (high vs low). Originality/value By shedding light on evaluations of time-of-reward-accrual of promotion, this paper adds a new dimension to research on promotions. The paper also extends the application of evaluability theory beyond domains such as hiring, fairness judgments and product bundle assessments. The paper presents evaluation mode as a boundary condition to explain contradictory predictions from prior research for consumers’ preferences for delayed vs immediate promotions.

Specifications of many product attributes (prices, review scores, fuel efficiency, calories, computer processor speed, etc.) are numerical. When comparing alternatives, consumers often need to judge how much larger or smaller one value is than another (say x and y). How do they make such a judgment? The literature suggests that people can rely on either the absolute difference (x – y) or relative difference (x / y). Importantly, relying on the absolute versus relative difference might lead to divergent outcomes. Therefore, this research aims to identify one factor that moderates consumers’ reliance on absolute versus relative differences. Specifically, we propose that when the attribute is easy to evaluate (i.e., when consumers have clear reference information), people tend to compute and rely on absolute differences to make comparative judgments. By contrast, when the attribute evaluability is low (i.e., reference information is lacking), they tend to compute the relative difference. Results from six studies provide convergent evidence for this proposition and demonstrate its downstream effects on preference and judgments.

ObjectivesTo evaluate image quality, coronary evaluability and radiation exposure of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) performed with whole-heart coverage cardiac-CT in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).Materials and methodsWe prospectively enrolled 164 patients with AF who underwent a clinically indicated CCTA with a 16-cm z-axis coverage scanner. In all patients CCTA was performed using prospective ECG-triggering with targeted RR interval. We evaluated image quality, coronary evaluability and effective dose (ED). Patients were divided in two subgroups based on heart rate (HR) during imaging. Group 1: 64 patients with low HR (<75 bpm), group 2: 100 patients with high HR (≥75 bpm). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients and the institutional ethics committee approved the study protocol.ResultsIn a segment-based analysis, coronary evaluability was 98.4 % (2,577/2,620 segments) in the whole population, without significant differences between groups (1,013/1,024 (98.9 %) and 1,565/1,596 (98.1 %), for groups 1 and 2, respectively, p=0.15). Mean ED was similar in both groups (3.8±1.9 mSv and 3.9±2.1 mSv in groups 1 and 2, respectively, p=0.75)ConclusionsThe whole-heart-coverage scanner could evaluate coronary arteries with high image quality and without increase in radiation exposure in AF patients, even in the high HR group.Key points• Last-generation CT scanner improves coronary artery assessment in AF patients.• The new CT scanner enables low radiation exposure in AF patients.• Diagnostic ICA maybe avoided in AF patients with suspected CAD.• Whole-heart coverage CT scanner enables low radiation exposure in AF patients.

Purpose This research examines how the design of the online energy label can be improved to stimulate consumer choice of energy-efficient household products in Web stores. Based on general evaluability theory, the authors propose new label formats that aim to improve the evaluability of the label information for consumers and test their influence during two distinct stages in the online decision-making process: consideration set formation and final choice. Design/methodology/approach Two large-scale controlled online experiments are conducted with over 10,000 consumers in 10 European countries. The experiments test label alternatives in simulated online store environments, mimicking the two distinct decision stages, for four product categories to enhance generalizability. The data are analyzed using random-intercept linear and logistic regression models to account for their multi-level structure. Findings The results show that the impact of the online energy label on consumers’ online decision-making depends on both the label format and the decision stage (consideration vs choice), but in a different way than expected. The findings reveal that the current online energy label is significantly outperformed by a label that provides reference information by incorporating the scale range. This alternative label is particularly effective in the consideration set formation stage, and among consumers who consider energy efficiency a relatively unimportant choice criterion. Research limitations/implications Online energy labels encourage consumers to consider and choose more energy-efficient products, especially if scale range information is included. The present results stress the importance of presenting this information early on in the online decision process. They also show that, particularly at this early stage and particularly for consumers who find energy efficiency a relatively unimportant choice criterion, label format matters. Practical implications The present findings provide important input for policymakers in the context of the ongoing revision of the EU energy label. They also help online retailers make decisions about when and how to present product information on their websites. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on product labelling by examining the effects of relatively unexplored types of reference information in two distinct stages of the consumer decision-making process. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to test the effectiveness of the online energy label.

The MPG illusion and the time-saving bias both show that people misjudge the gains from increases in efficiency or speed, because people falsely believe that efficiency and speed are linearly related to consumption (e.g., gallons of fuel or journey time). This efficiency-consumption gap (ECG) has been demonstrated consistently in various situations. In parallel, people have also been found to show a diminished sensitivity to increases in magnitudes when judged under separate vs. joint evaluation modes (SE vs. JE). We show that these “two wrongs can make a right”: when people judge efficiency upgrades under SE mode, their subjective judgments follow a concave curve that closely resembles the curvilinear pattern of efficiency upgrades, making their preferences (artificially) less biased than they are under JE. In two studies we show that when asked for their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for upgrading products or services in two (a smaller vs. a larger) upgrade options, WTPs are less different in SE vs. JE modes. This means that people are exhibiting lower sensitivity to the upgrade size under SE which leads to a de-biasing effect. We show that because JE follow a linear trend, it yields biased preferences for efficiency measures, but not for consumption measures. In contrast, SE yield biased preferences for consumption, but not for efficiency measures.

Our paper contributes to the rapidly expanding body of experimental research on transformative decision making, and in the process, marks out a novel empirical interpretation for assessments of subjective value in transformative contexts. We start with a discussion of the role of subjective value in transformative decisions, and then critique extant experimental work that explores this role, with special attention to Reuter and Messerli (2018). We argue that current empirical treatments miss a crucial feature of practical deliberation manifesting across a variety of everyday decisions: often, people attach more weight to decision criteria that they can know—a phenomenon known as the “evaluability bias.” In transformative contexts, if people cannot know the subjective value of an option, they are unlikely to attach it much weight. Despite this, people may care very much about such value. We then use this point to develop and present new empirical results that, in addition to supporting our concerns about evaluability bias, support the hypothesis that people care about subjective value. Our work enriches the current philosophical understanding of transformative decisions and helps to frame the emerging experimental paradigm for the empirical dimensions of the debate.

The unit in which numerical information is presented can have a strong influence on how decision makers evaluate and choose between available choice options. The present work examines the influence of frequently used default units on judgments and decisions of energy efficiency. Across three experiments (total N = 497), our results provide evidence that value sensitivity increases by about 25 percent in joint evaluation mode when a product attribute is presented in the default unit versus a non-default unit. As a result, presenting an attribute in the default unit led to more favorable evaluations of superior products and less favorable evaluations of inferior products. This result was robust to changes in the numerical magnitude of the non-default unit. Moreover, when joint evaluation was performed across different units, products described using the default unit were evaluated more favorably than products described using a non-default unit. More favorable evaluations based on the default unit translated into a higher willingness to pay for efficiency advantages. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of default units to guide informed consumer judgments and effective energy efficiency labeling.