Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Chapter 9 Biased Preferences through Exploitation
- Chapter 10 Evaluative Consequences of Sampling Distinct Information
- Chapter 11 Information Sampling in Contingency Learning
- Chapter 12 The Collective Hot Stove Effect
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Chapter 12 - The Collective Hot Stove Effect
from Part III - Consequences of Selective Sampling
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Chapter 9 Biased Preferences through Exploitation
- Chapter 10 Evaluative Consequences of Sampling Distinct Information
- Chapter 11 Information Sampling in Contingency Learning
- Chapter 12 The Collective Hot Stove Effect
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
The “Hot Stove Effect” pertains to an asymmetry in error corrections that affects a learner who estimates the quality of an option based on his or her experience with the option: errors of overestimation of the quality of an option are more likely to be corrected than errors of underestimation. In this chapter, we describe a “Collective Hot Stove Effect” which characterizes the dynamics of collective valuations rather than individual quality estimates. We analyze settings in which the collective valuation of options is updated sequentially based on additional samples of information. We focus on cases where the collective valuation of an option is more likely to be updated when it is higher than when it is lower. Just as the law-of-effect implies a Hot Stove Effect for individual learners, a Collective Hot Stove Effect emerges: errors of overestimation of the quality of an object by the collective valuation are more likely to be corrected than errors of underestimation. We test the unique predictions of our model in an online experiment and test assumptions and predictions of our model in analyses of large datasets of online ratings from popular websites (Amazon.com, Yelp.com, Goodreads.com, Weedmaps.com) comprising more than 160 million ratings.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 266 - 286Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026.Google Scholar
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Rohwer, G. (2001). Techniques of event history modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354.Google Scholar
De Langhe, B., Fernbach, P. M., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2016). Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 817–833. http://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv047Google Scholar
Dellarocas, C., Zhang, X. M., & Awad, N. F. (2007). Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 23–45. http://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denrell, J., & March, J. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.523.10092Google Scholar
Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Le Mens, G. (2019, May). The few-get-richer: A surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings? In The World Wide Web Conference (pp. 2764–2770).Google Scholar
Godes, D., & Silva, J. C. (2012). Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Science, 31(3), 448–473. http://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, G., Koçak, Ö., & Kovács, B. (2018). Co-opt or coexist? A study of medical cannabis dispensaries’ identity-based responses to recreational-use legalization in Colorado and Washington. Organization Science, 29(1), 172–190.Google Scholar
Hsu, G., Kovács, B., & Koçak, Ö. (2019). Experientially diverse customers and organizational adaptation in changing demand landscapes: A study of US cannabis markets, 2014–2016. Strategic Management Journal, 40(13), 2214–2241.Google Scholar
Kovács, B., & Sharkey, A. J. (2014). The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Le Mens, G., Denrell, J., Kovács, B., & Karaman, H. (2019). Information sampling, judgment, and the environment: Application to the effect of popularity on evaluations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 358–373.Google Scholar
Li, X., & Hitt, L. M. (2008). Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 456–474. http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0154Google Scholar
McAuley, J., Pandey, R., & Leskovec, J. (2015a). Inferring networks of substitutable and complementary products (pp. 785–794). Presented at the 21st ACM SIGKDD International Conference, New York. New York: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2783381Google Scholar
McAuley, J., Targett, C., Shi, Q., & van den Hengel, A. (2015b). Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes (pp. 43–52). Presented at the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference, New York. New York: ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767755Google Scholar
Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A. (2012). Online product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Marketing Science, 31(3), 372–386. http://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S., Shin, W., & Xie, J. (2021). The fateful first consumer review. Marketing Science, 40(3), 481–507, mksc.2020.1264. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1264Google Scholar
Prager, J., Krueger, J. I., & Fiedler, K. (2018). Towards a deeper understanding of impression formation: New insights gained from a cognitive-ecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 379.Google Scholar
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854–856. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlosser, A. E. (2005). Posting versus lurking: Communicating in a multiple audience context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 260–265.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, M., & McAuley, J. (2018, September). Item recommendation on monotonic behavior chains. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (pp. 86–94).Google Scholar