Preference, projection, and packing: Support theory models of judgments of others’ preferences

Brenner, Lyle; Bilgin, Baler

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.007

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, they are not fully aware of the extent to which their own judgments are biased by their motivation (Kunda ). Second, when individuals are uncertain about others’ beliefs and preferences, they tend to believe that others’ beliefs and preferences are more like their own than is actually the case (Marks and Miller ; Brenner and Bilgin ). These false consensus effects lead them to expect that their superiors’ judgments will be more like their own than they actually will be, thus creating additional error in subordinates’ expectations about which management decisions their superiors will evaluate more highly and what their actual PE will be.…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, sharing additional information can lead to more, not less, difference in individuals’ judgments and decisions (Darley and Gross ; Thompson and Loewenstein ). Moreover, subordinates are not always aware of how much their own interpretations of the additional information differ from those of their superiors, because false consensus effects can lead individuals to underestimate the differences between others’ beliefs and preferences and their own (Marks and Miller ; Brenner and Bilgin ). Such false consensus effects can exacerbate errors in subordinates’ expectations about which management decisions their superiors will evaluate more highly and what their actual PE will be.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Additional Information in Accounting Reports: Effects on Management Decisions and Subjective Performance Evaluations Under Causal Ambiguity

Luft

Shields

Thomas

2015

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations have often been criticized for reliance on a single item of accounting information (e.g., profit) in evaluating performance, because of its incompleteness. We provide theory-based experimental evidence that under frequently occurring performance-evaluation conditions (subjective performance evaluation, causal ambiguity, and individual differences in cognitive ability, knowledge, and/or motivation that lead to different interpretations of information), reliance on a single item of accounting information (profit), rather than profit plus additional (e.g., nonfinancial or external) information, can provide two potential benefits which offset the costs of information incompleteness. First, subordinates are more likely to make the management decisions that superiors will evaluate and reward highly-that is, there are fewer coordination failures in management decisions. Second, even after controlling for the presence or absence of coordination failures, subordinates experience less negative surprise about their performance evaluations. * Accepted l'information suppl ementaire (non financi ere ou externe, par exemple), est susceptible d'offrir deux avantages qui compensent les coûts associ es a l'incompl etude de l'indicateur. En premier lieu, les subordonn es sont davantage susceptibles de prendre les d ecisions de gestion que leurs sup erieurs evalueront et r etribueront g en ereusementde sorte que l'on observera moins de discordance dans les d ecisions de gestion. En second lieu, même une fois contrôl ee la pr esence ou l'absence de discordance, les subordonn es s'exposent a moins de surprises d esagr eables dans l' evaluation de leur performance. 1.Causal ambiguity is defined as uncertainty about the relations among actions, outcomes, and information (Barney 1991; King and Zeithaml 2001); see section 2 for an extended formal definition. 2.A coordination failure occurs when actions which would be expected to benefit two or more parties do not occur (Black, Hashimzade, and Myles 2008), for example because the parties do not have the information or communication opportunities that would have enabled them to take these actions. In our setting, both subordinates and superiors expect higher benefits when there is a match (coordination) between the management decisions subordinates make and the management decisions which their superiors will evaluate and reward highly. Failures can occur when subordinates make incorrect judgments about what these decisions are.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Additional Information in Accounting Reports: Effects on Management Decisions and Subjective Performance Evaluations Under Causal Ambiguity

Luft

Shields

Thomas

2015

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Advances in consumer technologies have resulted in many being commonly used and shared by several household members, which has implications for use and purchase decision making (Ngobo, 2011). Purchasing technology in a household context is significantly different from individual-level adoption, and the complex interactions and negotiations among household members, such as the decision maker's spouse or children, are expected to add significantly to the purchase decision complexity and can be influential for the decision outcome (Brenner & Bilgin, 2011;Dholakia, 2006;Kurt, Inman, & Argo, 2011;Ngobo, 2011;Salovaara, Helfenstein, & Oulasvirta, 2011;Van Rijnsoever & Donders, 2009;Wilcox, Block, & Eisenstein, 2011). Purchasing technology in a household context is significantly different from individual-level adoption, and the complex interactions and negotiations among household members, such as the decision maker's spouse or children, are expected to add significantly to the purchase decision complexity and can be influential for the decision outcome (Brenner & Bilgin, 2011;Dholakia, 2006;Kurt, Inman, & Argo, 2011;Ngobo, 2011;Salovaara, Helfenstein, & Oulasvirta, 2011;Van Rijnsoever & Donders, 2009;Wilcox, Block, & Eisenstein, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, studies researching technology adoption at the individual level have traditionally focused on the use or continued use of technology (Bhattacherjee, 2001a;Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006;Chakraborty, Hu, & Cui, 2008;Hong et al, 2006;Hsieh, Rai, & Xu, 2011;Sun, 2012;Williams, Dwivedi, Lal, & Schwarz, 2009). However, consumer psychology has found that purchase decisions and consumption decisions are systematically different because critical factors, such as cost considerations, may apply to purchase decisions, but be unrelated to use behavior (e.g., when employees use technology as part of their job) (Brenner & Bilgin, 2011;Chau & Hu, 2001;Joshi & Rai, 2000;Ngobo, 2011;Wilcox et al, 2011). However, consumer psychology has found that purchase decisions and consumption decisions are systematically different because critical factors, such as cost considerations, may apply to purchase decisions, but be unrelated to use behavior (e.g., when employees use technology as part of their job) (Brenner & Bilgin, 2011;Chau & Hu, 2001;Joshi & Rai, 2000;Ngobo, 2011;Wilcox et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If purchasing technologies used exclusively by individuals, the purchase decision is a cognitive process that can be made solely by individuals without consulting others. Purchasing technology in a household context is significantly different from individual-level adoption, and the complex interactions and negotiations among household members, such as the decision maker's spouse or children, are expected to add significantly to the purchase decision complexity and can be influential for the decision outcome (Brenner & Bilgin, 2011;Dholakia, 2006;Kurt, Inman, & Argo, 2011;Ngobo, 2011;Salovaara, Helfenstein, & Oulasvirta, 2011;Van Rijnsoever & Donders, 2009;Wilcox, Block, & Eisenstein, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technology adoption decisions in the household: A seven‐model comparison

Brown

Venkatesh

Hoehle

2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We identified 7 theoretical models that have been used to explain technology adoption and use. We then examined the boundary conditions of these models of technology adoption when applied to the household context using longitudinal empirical data from households regarding their purchase and use decisions related to household technologies. We conducted 2 studies and collected 1,247 responses from U.S. households for the first study and 2,064 responses from U.S. households for the second study. Those households that had adopted household technologies were surveyed regarding their use behavior. Potential adopters (i.e., those who had currently not adopted) were surveyed regarding their purchase intentions. This allowed us to identify the most influential factors affecting a household's decision to adopt and use technologies. The results show that the model of adoption of technology in the household provided the richest explanation and explained best why households purchase and use technologies.

show abstract

Assessing task difficulty for other people: when deeper evaluation means “it’s more about me!”

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical studies have revealed that teachers face problems when assessing task difficulty for their students. By drawing on research that focuses on how individuals assess what others know, we argue that these difficulties are a consequence of the imputation of one's own knowledge to others (i.e., social projection). In particular, we tested the assumption that individuals impute more of their own knowledge to others, the more they elaborate what these others might know. In a first experiment, students were asked to judge task difficulty for their best friend. In the second experiment, teacher trainees were asked to assess task difficulty for 9th graders. Results revealed that individuals, who deeply elaborated when assessing task difficulty for another person, more closely relied on their own rating of task difficulty than individuals with a lower elaboration depth. These findings support the notion that social projection becomes stronger, the deeper individuals elaborate.

show abstract

Preference, projection, and packing: Support theory models of judgments of others’ preferences

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

Additional Information in Accounting Reports: Effects on Management Decisions and Subjective Performance Evaluations Under Causal Ambiguity

Additional Information in Accounting Reports: Effects on Management Decisions and Subjective Performance Evaluations Under Causal Ambiguity

Technology adoption decisions in the household: A seven‐model comparison

Assessing task difficulty for other people: when deeper evaluation means “it’s more about me!”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About