No abstract

We conducted a preregistered close replication and extension of Studies 1, 2, and 4 in Hsee (1998). Hsee found that when evaluating choices jointly, people compare and judge the option higher on desirable attributes as better (“more is better”). However, when people evaluate options separately, they rely on contextual cues and reference points, sometimes resulting in evaluating the option with less as being better (“less is better”). We found support for “less is better” across all studies (N = 403; Study 1 original d = 0.70 [0.24,1.15], replication d = 0.99 [0.72,1.26]; Study 2 original d = 0.74 [0.12,1.35], replication d = 0.32 [0.07,0.56]; Study 4 original d = 0.97 [0.43,1.50], replication d = 0.76 [0.50,1.02]), with weaker support for “more is better” (Study 2 original d = 0.92 [0.42,1.40], replication dz = 0.33 [.23,.43]; Study 4 original d = 0.37 [0.02,0.72], replication dz = 0.09 [-0.05,0.23]). Some results of our exploratory extensions were surprising, leading to open questions. We discuss remaining implications and directions for theory and measurement relating to economic rationality and the evaluability hypothesis. Materials/data/code: https://osf.io/9uwns/