|
| ||
|
|
||
Choice Setting (choice + setting)
Selected AbstractsProfit maximization versus disadvantageous inequality: the impact of self-categorizationJOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING, Issue 3 2005Stephen M. Garcia Abstract Choice behavior researchers (e.g., Bazerman, Loewenstein, & White, 1992) have found that individuals tend to choose a more lucrative but disadvantageously unequal payoff (e.g., self,$600/other,$800) over a less profitable but equal one (e.g., self,$500/other,$500); greater profit trumps interpersonal social comparison concerns in the choice setting. We suggest, however, that self-categorization (e.g., Hogg, 2000) can shift interpersonal social comparison concerns to the intergroup level and make trading disadvantageous inequality for greater profit more difficult. Studies 1,3 show that profit maximization diminishes when recipients belong to different social categories (e.g., genders, universities). Study 2 further implicates self-categorization, as self-categorized individuals tend to forgo profit whether making a choice for themselves or another ingroup member. Study 3, moreover, reveals that social categorization alone is not sufficient to diminish profit maximization; individuals must self-categorize and identify with their categorization. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] On the robustness and the direction of the effect of cause-related marketingJOURNAL OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR, Issue 4 2003Eldad Yechiam Abstract Two experiments are presented in this paper that explore the effect of cause-related marketing (CRM) on product choice. To allow evaluation of the effect of experience and the role of individual differences, the experiments used a repeated choice setting. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the effect of CRM was stable over time. However, the direction of the effect was sensitive to the value of the product. CRM served as an equaliser: it helped disadvantaged alternatives and reduced the attractiveness of superior alternatives. Experiment 2 showed that the effect of CRM decreased but did not disappear in an easy choice task. These findings are summarised in a simple model and discussed in terms of their potential marketing applications. Copyright © 2003 Henry Stewart Publications. [source] DURABILITY CHOICE AND THE PIRACY FOR PROFIT OF GOODSMETROECONOMICA, Issue 2 2010Article first published online: 26 MAR 200, Gregory E. Goering ABSTRACT We explore the impact of durable goods piracy in a simple two-period durability choice setting where an originator faces a future for-profit pirate that clones or duplicates copies of the durable good. We find that a social planner, as well as a monopoly originator, may well engage in a sort of ,reversed planned obsolescence'. In other words, they manufacture a product that is more durable than the first-best cost-minimizing level, if they cannot directly control the pirate. We show this occurs even in rental or committed sales settings, indicating Swan's market independence result does not hold here. [source] PARTIAL IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTERFACTUAL CHOICE PROBABILITIES,INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REVIEW, Issue 4 2007Charles F. Manski This article shows how to predict counterfactual discrete choice behavior when the presumed behavioral model partially identifies choice probabilities. The simple, general approach uses observable choice probabilities to partially infer the distribution of types in the population and then applies the results to predict behavior in unrealized choice settings. Two illustrative applications are given. One assumes only that persons have strict preferences. The other assumes strict preferences and utility functions that are linear in attribute bundles, with no restrictions on the shape of the distribution of preference parameters. [source] | ||||||||||