The susceptibility of mental accounting principles to evaluation mode effects

Subimal Chatterjee (), Timothy B. Heath and Junhong Min
Additional contact information
Subimal Chatterjee: School of Management - Binghamton University [SUNY] - SUNY - State University of New York
Timothy B. Heath: Department of Marketing - MU - Miami University [Ohio]
Junhong Min: SUNY - State University of New York

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: The present research shows that the predictions and outcomes of mental-accounting tests depend on whether preferences are measured separately (one at a time) or jointly (comparatively). Across five studies, we show that joint evaluation weakens some decision biases (the theater ticket problem, the calculator and jacket problem), but exacerbates others (the basketball game problem). Joint evaluations serve as a check on whether people think the answers they give in separate evaluations make sense or require adjustment. We discuss how the findings impact (1) tests of mental accounting predictions (between vs. within subjects designs), and (2) the normative status of mental accounting.

Keywords: mental accounting; joint and separate evaluations; preference reversals (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009-04
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Published in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2009, vol. 22, issue 2, p. 120-137. ⟨10.1002/bdm.616⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00668834

DOI: 10.1002/bdm.616

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().