Asymmetries in strength of preference: A focus shift model of valence effects in difference judgments.

Abstract

A descriptive model of strength of preference for options composed of multiple attributes is proposed. This focus shift model assumes that people judge strength of preference by weighting the desirable and undesirable features of choice alternatives. Judgments of much a superior option is can differ in absolute magnitude from the inverse judgment of much an inferior option is. The how much better question is referred to as the positive valence question and the how much worse question is referred to as the negative valence question; a positive valence effect occurs when a positive valence question receives a larger rating in absolute magnitude than the corresponding negative valence question. A negative valence effect occurs when the opposite ordering is observed. In Experiments 1-3, statistically reliable positive and negative valence effects were observed at the individual participant level. Analysis in terms of the focus shift model showed that particular configurations of subjective weights were associated with positive and negative valence effects. Experiment 4 showed that the direction of the valence effect was predictable from the intrinsic pleasantness of the stimulus domains. Implications for preferential choice and choice-rejection asymmetries are discussed. Much research has demonstrated that performance on logically equivalent tasks can differ as a function of the task is described. A famous example is the preference reversal phenomenon, where people may choose gamble A over gamble Z but assign a higher selling price to Z than to A (Lichtenstein & Slovic, 1971, 1973; Lindman, 1971). Pricing of objects may also exhibit similar reversals. The endowment effect is the finding that people demand more money to give up an object in their possession than they are willing to pay to obtain it. Kahneman, Knetch, and Thaler (1990) randomly assigned participants to the roles of buyers and sellers and found that a mug was valued at $2.50 by buyers, whereas owners refused to sell the same mug for less than $5.25. Sometimes reaction times exhibit asymmetries. Banks, Clark, and Lucy (1975) presented participants with an abstract picture of two circles, each connected with a line stretching downward to the bottom of the frame. Participants responded to either Which balloon