Biomedical subjects

LD Ordóñez

Publications and source records attributed to LD Ordóñez.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2000

Regret and Responsibility: A Reply to Zeelenberg et al. (1998).

M. Zeelenberg, W. W. van Dijk, and A. S. R. Manstead (1998, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 254-272) recently reported an altered replication of our earlier study (T. Connolly, L. D. Ordóñez, & R. Coughlan, 1997, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73-85) concerning the effects of decision agency on regret and outcome evaluation. Our earlier study had found no such effect, but Zeelenberg et al. did. In two new experiments, we have largely confirmed Zeelenberg et al.'s result but have shown that, contrary to most theory, regret (a) can appear even in the absence of decision agency, (b) can be unrelated to outcome evaluations, and (c) may be more influenced by the experience of gains or losses from the status quo than by any decisional responsibility for those changes. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1999

Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options.

Subjects screened a set of jobs, retaining those for which they wished to apply and rejecting those that were no longer under consideration. In Experiment 1, subjects who indicated the jobs for which they would apply/not apply screened out fewer jobs than those with instructions to reject/not reject or those with instructions simply to screen (control). There were no differences between the reject and control conditions. Experiment 2 used a design similar to that of Experiment 1, but subjects were made accountable for their screening judgments. The reject-apply discrepancy remained, but the accountability manipulation made the subjects more stringent in their screening compared to those who were not accountable for their judgments. In Experiment 3, subjects were told to consider either the regret resulting from retaining a bad option (regret bad) or the regret from rejecting a good option (regret good). Subjects in the regret bad condition rejected more jobs than did subjects in the regret good condition, but not more than subjects in the control condition. As predicted by image theory, the normal screening process appears to be to screen out the bad options rather than screen in the good options. This is demonstrated by screening in the control condition being similar to screening under the reject instructions (Experiment 1) and under regret bad instructions (Experiment 3), since these conditions were shown to focus attention on the bad options. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1998

The Effect of Correlation between Price and Quality on Consumer Choice.

According to the price-expectancy model of consumer choice, consumers evaluate products by comparing the actual price with a reference or expected price determined from (a) product's quality and (b) the price-quality correlation of the product category. Choices between hypothetical products of beer are used to test the model against a model without a reference price. Consistent with the price-expectancy model, product preferences varied with the subjective correlation between price and quality: the relative preference for higher priced/higher quality products over lower priced/lower quality products increased as the subjective correlation increased. For some pairs, the correlation between price and quality created a preference reversal across contexts: the higher priced/higher quality product was chosen over the lower priced/lower quality product in the higher correlational context, but the lower priced/lower quality product was chosen over the higher priced/higher quality product in the lower correlational context. An additional study provided evidence that the price-quality correlation affects reference price, rather than reference quality, formation. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗