Cited by 410Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsEconomic and Environmental ValuationExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

General Evaluability Theory

Hsee, Christopher K., Zhang, Jiao·2010·Perspectives on Psychological Science

DOI 10.1177/1745691610374586

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A central question in psychology and economics is the determination of whether individuals react differently to different values of a cared-about attribute (e.g., different income levels, different gas prices, and different ambient temperatures). Building on and significantly extending our earlier work on preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations, we propose a general evaluability theory (GET) that specifies when people are value sensitive and when people mispredict their own or others' value sensitivity. The GET can explain and unify many seemingly unrelated findings, ranging from duration neglect to affective forecasting errors and can generate many new research directions on topics ranging from temporal discounting to subjective well-being.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691610374586

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/002205102320161311 · Cited by 6,106
Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all
Easterlin, R. (1995) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(95)00003-b · Cited by 3,202
Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles
Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.46.1.95 · Cited by 3,159
Adaptation-Level Theory
Parducci, A., & Helson, H. (1965) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421107 · Cited by 2,493
Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.4.305 · Cited by 1,946
Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative?
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff‐Bulman, R. (1978) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.8.917 · Cited by 1,707
Will Money Increase Subjective Well-Being?
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1023/a:1014411319119 · Cited by 1,555

Show all 63 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

10.5465/amr.1998.533224 · DOI · Paper page
10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917 · DOI
Cryder C.E., 2008, Paper presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making Preconference: Using Human Nature to Improve Human Life
10.1257/jel.40.2.351 · DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576 · DOI
Loewenthal D., 1993, Reversals of preference in candidate choice
Stevenson B., 2008, Bookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1
10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003 · DOI

Sorted by citations

Advances in subjective well-being research
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6 · Cited by 2,003
Theory and Validity of Life Satisfaction Scales
Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2012) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0076-y · Cited by 1,386
Handbook of Religion and Health
Koenig, H. G., VanderWeele, T. J., & Peteet, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190088859.001.0001 · Cited by 1,160
Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612436522 · Cited by 812
The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2107346118 · Cited by 864
New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research.
Diener, E. (2012) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0029541 · Cited by 699
Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations.
Diener, E., Tay, L., & Oishi, S. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030487 · Cited by 464
Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents
Caserotti, M., Girardi, P., Rubaltelli, E., Tasso, A., Lotto, L., & Gavaruzzi, T. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113688 · Cited by 461
Scarcity Frames Value
Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614563958 · Cited by 433
Do Investors Care about Impact?
Heeb, F., Kölbel, J. F., Paetzold, F., & Zeisberger, S. (2023) · The Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhac066 · Cited by 332
User perception of differences in recommender algorithms
Ekstrand, M. D., Harper, F. M., Willemsen, M. C., & Konstan, J. A. (2014) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/2645710.2645737 · Cited by 205
The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Information in Supply-Chain Contracting: Evidence from the Expansion of CSR Rating Coverage
Darendeli, A., Fiechter, P., Hitz, J.-M., & Lehmann, N. (2021) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101525 · Cited by 195
The Motivating-Uncertainty Effect: Uncertainty Increases Resource Investment in the Process of Reward Pursuit
Shen, L., Fishbach, A., & Hsee, C. K. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/679418 · Cited by 192
Self-citation
Neural Underpinnings of the Identifiable Victim Effect: Affect Shifts Preferences for Giving
Genevsky, A., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., & Knutson, B. D. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2348-13.2013 · Cited by 164
Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and utilitarian consumption
Roy, R., & Ng, S. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.371 · Cited by 153
Attitudes and Donation Behavior When Reading Positive and Negative Charity Appeals
Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018) · Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · doi:10.1080/10495142.2018.1452828 · Cited by 150
Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being
Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2011.584548 · Cited by 119
Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature
Butts, M. M., Lunt, D. C., Freling, T. H., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.006 · Cited by 129
Shopper Response to Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling Programs: Potential Consumer and Retail Store Benefits
Newman, C. L., Howlett, E. A., & Burton, S. (2013) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.11.001 · Cited by 117
Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning
Wilson, K. E., Martinez, M., Mills, C., D’Mello, S. K., Smilek, D., & Risko, E. F. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.011 · Cited by 114
When High-Similarity Copycats Lose and Moderate-Similarity Copycats Gain: The Impact of Comparative Evaluation
van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.08.0405 · Cited by 112
Paper Meets Plastic: The Perceived Environmental Friendliness of Product Packaging
Sokolova, T., Krishna, A., & Döring, T. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucad008 · Cited by 108
Investors’ evaluation criteria in equity crowdfunding
Shafi, K. (2019) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-019-00227-9 · Cited by 109
Lay Rationalism: Individual Differences in using Reason versus Feelings to Guide Decisions
Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Zheng, X., & Wang, H. (2014) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0532 · Cited by 108
Self-citation
The Mere Urgency Effect
Zhu, M. S., Yang, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy008 · Cited by 109
Self-citation
The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?
Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Everett, J. A. C., Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2014) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006185 · Cited by 103
Slow response times undermine trust in algorithmic (but not human) predictions
Efendić, E., de Calseyde, P. P. F. M. V., & Evans, A. M. (2020) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.008 · Cited by 103
Public attitudes value interpretability but prioritize accuracy in Artificial Intelligence
Nußberger, A.-M., Luo, L., Celis, L. E., & Crockett, M. J. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33417-3 · Cited by 105
Graphics help patients distinguish between urgent and non-urgent deviations in laboratory test results
Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J., Scherer, A. M., Witteman, H. O., Solomon, J., Exe, N. L., Tarini, B. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2016) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw169 · Cited by 91
The reversed description-experience gap: Disentangling sources of presentation format effects in risky choice.
Glöckner, A., Hilbig, B. E., Henninger, F., & Fiedler, S. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0040103 · Cited by 86
Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand.
Dunn, T. L., Lutes, D. J. C., & Risko, E. F. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000236 · Cited by 83
Swayed by the Numbers: The Consequences of Displaying Product Review Attributes
Watson, J., Ghosh, A. P., & Trusov, M. (2018) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242918805468 · Cited by 76
Promoting happiness: The malleability of individual and societal subjective wellbeing
Tay, L., & Kuykendall, L. E. (2013) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00207594.2013.779379 · Cited by 92
Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy.
Dickert, S., Västfjäll, D., Kleber, J., & Slovic, P. (2014) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.002 · Cited by 68
The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey
Santana, S., Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. G. (2019) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2019.09.005 · Cited by 68
It pays to be nice, but not really nice: Asymmetric reputations from prosociality across 7 countries
Klein, N., Grossmann, I., Üskül, A. K., Kraus, A. A., & Epley, N. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005167 · Cited by 69
Pseudoinefficacy: negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped
Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., & Mayorga, M. W. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00616 · Cited by 68
Assessing the visual appeal of real/AI-generated food images
Califano, G., & Spence, C. J. (2024) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105149 · Cited by 83
The topography of generosity: Asymmetric evaluations of prosocial actions.
Klein, N., & Nicholas Epley, A. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000025 · Cited by 63
Anticipated Guilt for Not Helping and Anticipated Warm Glow for Helping Are Differently Impacted by Personal Responsibility to Help
Erlandsson, A., Jungstrand, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01475 · Cited by 70
Product survival analysis for the App Store
Jung, E.-Y., Baek, C., & Lee, J. (2012) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9207-0 · Cited by 59
When Less Is More: Evolutionary Origins of the Affect Heuristic
Kralik, J. D., Xu, E. R., Knight, E. J., Khan, S. A., & Levine, W. J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046240 · Cited by 63
Unit Asking
Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Lu, Z. Y., & Xu, F. Y. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613482947 · Cited by 59
Self-citation
The road to heaven is paved with effort: Perceived effort amplifies moral judgment.
Bigman, Y., & Tamir, M. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000230 · Cited by 65
Valuing Intrinsic and Instrumental Preferences for PrivacyPreprint
Lin, T. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3406412 · Cited by 55
Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine
Gustafson, C. R., Lybbert, T. J., & Sumner, D. A. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.08.004 · Cited by 59
Overearning
Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Cai, C. F., & Zhang, S. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612464785 · Cited by 54
Self-citation
Making Sense of Nonsense
Shen, L., & Urminsky, O. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612451470 · Cited by 51
Implementing evidence-based assessment and selection in organizations: A review and an agenda for future research
Neumann, M., Niessen, A. S. M., & Meijer, R. R. (2020) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/2041386620983419 · Cited by 53
The communication of uncertainty in health: A scoping review
Kalke, K., Studd, H., & Scherr, C. L. (2021) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.034 · Cited by 52
Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior
Kleber, J., Dickert, S., Peters, E. M., & Florack, A. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.009 · Cited by 46
Deconfounding distance effects in judgments of moral obligation.
Nagel, J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0028641 · Cited by 45
Perceived Utility (not Sympathy) Mediates the Proportion Dominance Effect in Helping Decisions
Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1789 · Cited by 45
Points of (Dis)parity: Expectation Disconfirmation from Common Attributes in Consumer Choice
Evangelidis, I., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2017) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.15.0233 · Cited by 46
Making Each Unit Count: The Role of Discretizing Units in Quantity Expressions
Lembregts, C., & den Bergh, B. V. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy036 · Cited by 44
Separate Versus Joint Evaluation: The Roles of Evaluation Mode and Construal Level in Technology Adoption
Ho, K. Y., Ke, W., Liu, H., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2020) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2020/14246 · Cited by 46
Does Delegation Undermine Accountability? Experimental Evidence on the Relationship Between Blame Shifting and Control
Hill, A. D. (2015) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12074 · Cited by 40
Culture and Judgment and Decision Making
Savani, K., Cho, J., Baik, S., & Morris, M. W. (2015) · doi:10.1002/9781118468333.ch16 · Cited by 40
Meeting Three Challenges in Risk Communication
Rakow, T., Heard, C. L., & Newell, B. R. (2015) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/2372732215601442 · Cited by 44
The Psychology of Marginal Utility
Li, X., & Hsee, C. K. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaa064 · Cited by 38
Self-citation
Valuations of human lives: normative expectations and psychological mechanisms of (ir)rationality
Dickert, S., Västfjäll, D., Kleber, J., & Slovic, P. (2012) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0137-4 · Cited by 37
The Visual Complexity = Higher Production Cost Lay Belief
Min, L., Liu, P. J., & Anderson, C. L. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucae044 · Cited by 36
Forecasting forecasts: The trend effect
Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005568 · Cited by 35
Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice
de Langhe, B., & Puntoni, S. (2014) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2045 · Cited by 33
Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially
Basu, S., & Savani, K. (2017) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.004 · Cited by 35
Social selling cues: The dynamics of posting numbers viewed and bought on customers' purchase intentions
Das, G., Spence, M. T., & Agarwal, J. (2021) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.01.001 · Cited by 31
Options as information: Rational reversals of evaluation and preference.
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0035128 · Cited by 35
Living Among the Affluent
Tay, L., Morrison, M., & Diener, E. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614525786 · Cited by 30
Putting a Price Tag on Personal Information - A Literature Review
Wagner, A., Wessels, N., Buxmann, P., & Krasnova, H. (2018) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.474 · Cited by 30
Questioning the end effect: Endings are not inherently over-weighted in retrospective evaluations of experiences.
Tully, S. M., & Meyvis, T. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000155 · Cited by 32
Set-fit effects in choice.
Evers, E. R. K., Inbar, Y., & Zeelenberg, M. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0033343 · Cited by 29
More than 50% or Less than 70% Chance: Pragmatic Implications of Single‐Bound Probability Estimates
Hohle, S. M., & Teigen, K. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2052 · Cited by 27
Effect of Harm Anchors in Visual Displays of Test Results on Patient Perceptions of Urgency About Near-Normal Values: Experimental Study
Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J., Scherer, A. M., Witteman, H. O., Solomon, J., Exe, N. L., & Fagerlin, A. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8889 · Cited by 29
Financial and symbolic incentives promote ‘green’ charging choices
Kacperski, C., & Kutzner, F. (2020) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2020.01.002 · Cited by 28
Realistic affective forecasting: The role of personality
Hoerger, M. P., Chapman, B. P., & Duberstein, P. R. (2015) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1061481 · Cited by 39
Relevance insensitivity: A new look at some old biases
Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., & Li, X. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.002 · Cited by 28
Self-citation
Toward a Process-Transfer Model of the Endorser Effect
Wong, V. C. H., Fock, H. K. Y., & Ho, K. Y. (2020) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/0022243720910453 · Cited by 27
Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice
Erlandsson, A. (2021) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500008378 · Cited by 27
Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study
Vromans, R., Tillier, C. N., Pauws, S. C., van der Poel, H. G., van de Poll-Franse, L. V., & Krahmer, E. (2022) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.04.017 · Cited by 27
Less is more: Why some domains are more positional than others
Bogaerts, T., & Pandelaere, M. (2013) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2013.08.005 · Cited by 28
Helping People Know Whether Measurements Have Good or Bad Implications: Increasing the Evaluability of Health and Science Data Communications
Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J. (2019) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/2372732218813377 · Cited by 27
The role of evaluation mode on the unit effect
Schley, D. R., Lembregts, C., & Peters, E. M. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.07.001 · Cited by 28
The effect of paternalistic alternatives on attitudes toward default nudges
Hagman, W., Erlandsson, A., Dickert, S., Tinghög, G., & Västfjäll, D. (2019) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2019.17 · Cited by 26
Winners Love Winning and Losers Love Money
Kassam, K., Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611405681 · Cited by 27
How measurement framing and accounting information system evaluation mode influence environmental performance judgments
Alewine, H. C., Allport, C. D., & Shen, W.-C. M. (2016) · International Journal of Accounting Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2016.10.002 · Cited by 26
Much ado about nothing: The zero effect in life‐saving decisions
Zhang, Y., & Slovic, P. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2089 · Cited by 26
Less Information, More Comparison, and Better Performance: Evidence from a Field Experiment
Eyring, H., Ferguson, P. J., & Koppers, S. (2021) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12362 · Cited by 25
Redevelopment of the Predict: Breast Cancer website and recommendations for developing interfaces to support decision‐making
Farmer, G. D., Pearson, M., Skylark, W., Freeman, A., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2021) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.4072 · Cited by 15
Do Investors Care About Impact?Preprint
Heeb, F., Koelbel, J., Paetzold, F., & Zeisberger, S. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3765659 · Cited by 25
Consumer wealth
Tully, S. M., & Sharma, E. (2021) · Consumer Psychology Review · doi:10.1002/arcp.1073 · Cited by 28
Moral preferences in helping dilemmas expressed by matching and forced choice
Erlandsson, A., Lindkvist, A. M., Lundqvist, K., Andersson, P. A., Dickert, S., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2020) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500007427 · Cited by 24
Selling Hope: The Role of Affect-Laden Health Care Advertising in Consumer Decision Making
Kemp, E., Min, K. S., & Joint, E. (2015) · The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/10696679.2015.1049688 · Cited by 23
This way, please: Uncovering the directional effects of attribute translations on decision making
Mertens, S., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2020) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006896 · Cited by 25
Product Attributes, Evaluability, and Consumer Satisfaction
Antonides, G., & Hovestadt, L. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132212393 · Cited by 42
Incomparability and Incommensurability in Choice: No Common Currency of Value?
Walasek, L., & Brown, G. D. A. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231192828 · Cited by 27
Risky business: rhesus monkeys exhibit persistent preferences for risky options
Xu, E. R., & Kralik, J. D. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00258 · Cited by 24
Is a .51 validity coefficient good? Value sensitivity for interview validity
Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., Nesnidol, S., & Sim, S. (2017) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12192 · Cited by 26
Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations
Li, X., & Hsee, C. K. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.007 · Cited by 23
Self-citation
Type and amount of help as predictors for impression of helpers
Erlandsson, A., Wingren, M., & Andersson, P. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243808 · Cited by 23
Choosing between options associated with past and future regret
Shani, Y., Danziger, S., & Zeelenberg, M. (2014) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.001 · Cited by 22

Authors: Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J.
Affiliations: University of Chicago (US)
University of Miami (US)
ORCID: Hsee, Christopher K.
Zhang, Jiao
Venue: Perspectives on Psychological Science
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Published: 2010-07
Volume: 5
Issue: 4
Pages: 343-355
ISSN: 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
1745-6924
DOI: 10.1177/1745691610374586
OpenAlex: W1997137767
Cited by: 410
References: 63
Citations by year: 2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 14
FWCI: 1.09
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed
Licence: journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations: Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders: John Templeton Foundation
Topics: Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords: value sensitivity, preference reversal, delay discounting, subjective well-being

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

General Evaluability Theory

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks