Thinking and Deciding

294 CHOICE UNDER CERTAINTY
means. These results suggest that more neutral response modes, such as choice or
ratings of attractiveness, should be less biased. We cannot test this hypothesis easily,
though, because we have no clear criterion of equal attention.
Evaluability and joint versus separate evaluation
One of the big lessons of utility theory is that everything is relative. When we evaluate
an option with two or more dimensions, we must establish some value for each
dimension. Suppose you are considering the purchase of a secondhand music dictionary
with a torn cover and 20,000 entries (Hsee, 1996a). It is easy for you to evaluate
the torn cover, but not the 20,000 entries. You would probably think badly of this
option. If, later, you are presented with another option without a torn cover but with
only 10,000 entries (and you have forgotten the 20,000), you might take it. But if
you evaluated the two options side by side, you would probably take the one with the
torn cover. It would then be easier for you to evaluate the number of entries, because
you would have a comparison point.
Another experiment illustrates how evaluation can be made easy or difficult
(Hsee, Loewenstein, Blount, and Bazerman, 1999). Subjects gave their maximum
willingness to pay for two compact-disk changers:
CD capacity THD
CD changer J holds 5 CDs .003%
CD changer S holds 20 CDs .01%
Subjects were told that THD stood for “total harmonic distortion” and meant better
sound quality when the number was lower. When subjects priced the two changers
separately, they priced S higher than J, but they priced J higher than S when they
priced them jointly, that is, side by side. In the joint condition, subjects had some
idea how to evaluate THD. When subjects were told the overall range of THD (.002%
to .012%), however, they could evaluate THD more easily even with separate presentation,
so they gave a higher price for J. In sum, either telling subjects the range
or presenting the two changers side by side made THD easier to evaluate.
In general, it is better to be able to evaluate relevant attributes. Decisions will
achieve goals better when they are made with explicit comparisons available or with
information about the ranges and effects of relevant attributes. One possible exception
to this principle is a selection of a single good that is valued mainly for the
experience it provides. You might notice a difference in THD when you listen to
two CD changers one after the other, but when you take one home, THD may not
affect the quality of your experience very much, if at all. You might do better to
evaluate the changers in the mode like that in which you experience them (Hsee et
al., 1999). More usually, this does not happen. When you buy a car, for example,
you care about such features as braking speed because this is a means to another end,
prevention of crashes. The ultimate experience involved here is one you hope you
never have, a crash. The braking speed is not evaluable in ordinary driving, but it is
still very important.