Learning the wrong schedule
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 9:57 am
In the dictionaries in separate evaluation, the attribute 'defects' is easy to evaluate. However, the attribute 'number of words' is difficult to evaluate. Most customers lack a reference point with which they can assess the value of the number of words in a dictionary. Possibly, due to the lack of such a reference, they give less weight to the information about the number of words in their judgment, and pay more attention to the easily evaluable attribute 'defects'.
This difference in the evaluability of the attributes may explain why customers are willing to pay more for Dictionary A in separate evaluation ($24 versus $20 for Dictionary B).
No reference point, no evaluation of attributes
The joint evaluation situation, however, changes the evaluability of the word count. The dictionaries can now be compared with each other on the attribute 'word count'. The word count of one book serves as a reference point for the other dictionary. This makes it easier for customers to evaluate the word count, which also makes them more inclined to pay more attention to this attribute. The increase in attention is so great that the word count seems to gain more weight than the attribute 'defects'. Because of this predominance of the attribute 'word count', customers are willing to pay more for Dictionary B ($27 versus $19 for Dictionary A).
Without a reference point, it seems difficult to evaluate attributes. If this reference point is somehow missing, people tend to give these attributes less weight during information processing.
Adjusting schematics
Using the evaluability of attributes, we now take a look at the adaptation of schemata. What is the role of this evaluability in the adaptation (accommodation) of a schema?
Sometimes a new product (such as the new BlackBerry Z10) can have innovative but difficult to evaluate attributes for customers. In such a case, we believe that an existing scheme is not being adapted usa phone data sufficiently. For example, in Hsee's study, customers had difficulty valuing the number of words in separate evaluation. Due to the lack of a reference point, this attribute was difficult to evaluate and was also not sufficiently included in the evaluation of the dictionaries.
The same can happen when adjusting a schema: the information that is difficult to evaluate is not sufficiently highlighted and processed. As a result, a customer can learn a schema that the designer of a new product did not initially have in mind. In this new schema, the attributes that are difficult to evaluate are perhaps not sufficiently included.
For easily evaluable attributes (think 'torn cover'), customers are likely to have a clear, concise and consistent reference point. This reference point allows people to interpret the attribute and process it correctly, increasing the likelihood that the attribute will actually be included in their newly adapted schema. This makes the accommodated schema more similar to what the designer originally had in mind.
This difference in the evaluability of the attributes may explain why customers are willing to pay more for Dictionary A in separate evaluation ($24 versus $20 for Dictionary B).
No reference point, no evaluation of attributes
The joint evaluation situation, however, changes the evaluability of the word count. The dictionaries can now be compared with each other on the attribute 'word count'. The word count of one book serves as a reference point for the other dictionary. This makes it easier for customers to evaluate the word count, which also makes them more inclined to pay more attention to this attribute. The increase in attention is so great that the word count seems to gain more weight than the attribute 'defects'. Because of this predominance of the attribute 'word count', customers are willing to pay more for Dictionary B ($27 versus $19 for Dictionary A).
Without a reference point, it seems difficult to evaluate attributes. If this reference point is somehow missing, people tend to give these attributes less weight during information processing.
Adjusting schematics
Using the evaluability of attributes, we now take a look at the adaptation of schemata. What is the role of this evaluability in the adaptation (accommodation) of a schema?
Sometimes a new product (such as the new BlackBerry Z10) can have innovative but difficult to evaluate attributes for customers. In such a case, we believe that an existing scheme is not being adapted usa phone data sufficiently. For example, in Hsee's study, customers had difficulty valuing the number of words in separate evaluation. Due to the lack of a reference point, this attribute was difficult to evaluate and was also not sufficiently included in the evaluation of the dictionaries.
The same can happen when adjusting a schema: the information that is difficult to evaluate is not sufficiently highlighted and processed. As a result, a customer can learn a schema that the designer of a new product did not initially have in mind. In this new schema, the attributes that are difficult to evaluate are perhaps not sufficiently included.
For easily evaluable attributes (think 'torn cover'), customers are likely to have a clear, concise and consistent reference point. This reference point allows people to interpret the attribute and process it correctly, increasing the likelihood that the attribute will actually be included in their newly adapted schema. This makes the accommodated schema more similar to what the designer originally had in mind.