The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
General Evaluability Theory
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
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
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
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
Cited by
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
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- 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
- 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
- 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
