Reversals of Preference in Allocation Decisions¶
Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G. F., & White, S. B. (1992). Reversals of Preference in Allocation Decisions: Judging an Alternative versus Choosing among Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 220-240.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Joint vs. Separate Evaluation
- Peer review and policy evaluation: rating papers one at a time against an absolute scale yields different orderings than ranking them as a slate, and a program's cost-effectiveness ratio evaluated alone against a threshold differs from the same ratio evaluated head-to-head against competing programs. Negotiation: issue-by-issue (sequential separate) versus package (joint) negotiation activates different reference points, and integrative gains usually require joint mode because cross-issue trade-offs are only evaluable when issues sit together.
This sourceDemonstrates joint–separate reversals in evaluation, supporting the negotiation point that integrative trade-offs require joint mode.
- Peer review and policy evaluation: rating papers one at a time against an absolute scale yields different orderings than ranking them as a slate, and a program's cost-effectiveness ratio evaluated alone against a threshold differs from the same ratio evaluated head-to-head against competing programs. Negotiation: issue-by-issue (sequential separate) versus package (joint) negotiation activates different reference points, and integrative gains usually require joint mode because cross-issue trade-offs are only evaluable when issues sit together.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9250e2822ec8 · see in the full table