The Presenter's Paradox Revisited: An Evaluation Mode Account
André Mata and
Journal of Consumer Research, 2014, vol. 41, issue 4, 1127 - 1136
Three experimental studies demonstrate that evaluation mode influences the assessment of product bundles. Consumers' preferences for product bundles are more pronounced in a joint evaluation mode, where the bundle is directly contrasted to its single counterpart (i.e., the bundle without its add-on), than in a separate evaluation mode, where the bundle is evaluated in isolation. An attentional explanation is suggested: consumers pay more attention to the unique features of a product bundle (i.e., the add-on) and, therefore, prefer the bundle more strongly in joint rather than in separate evaluation. This account bears relevance for Weaver, Garcia, and Schwarz's presenter's paradox, according to which presenters (i.e., people deciding what to offer to others) prefer bundle options, whereas evaluators (i.e., people deciding what to get for themselves) prefer single options. In the original research, presenters and evaluators provided judgments in joint and separate evaluation, respectively. Disentangling role (presenter vs. evaluator) and evaluation mode, our results show that, independent of role, people prefer bundle over single options in joint evaluations and are largely indifferent in separate evaluations. Thus, a substantial part of the original findings is attributable to evaluation mode. The presenter's paradox is revised in light of the current account.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/678393
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Journal of Consumer Research from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().