Aspects of Experiences: The Role of Novelty in Retrospective Summary Assessments

Many consumption episodes involve experiences that extend over time or comprise sequences of outcomes. Whether leisure activities, shopping visits, or service encounters, extended experiences vary in their novelty for consumers. While past work has studied the role of novelty in how episodes are experienced, in this dissertation I ask: How does the novelty of an experience impact its retrospective, overall evaluation? Previous research on the snapshot model observed that overall evaluations are based on only the most accessible snapshots of experiences. This past work largely focused on accessibility differences arising from serial positioning and intensity, whereas novelty stems from differences on stimulus or conceptual characteristics. In this dissertation, while demonstrating that novelty influences accessibility in overall evaluations, I also show that novelty’s effect depends on the timing and type of evaluation. As a basic effect, I find that novelty enhances the accessibility of affective experience: Aspects that are normally under-weighted in overall evaluations have a larger influence if these aspects are novel. Further, studying overall evaluations of affect at different points in time, I find that aspects that regularly influence immediate evaluations are more likely to impact delayed evaluations if these aspects are novel. Examining different evaluation types, I show that novelty has opposite effects for informational evaluations: Retrospective judgments of attribute quality levels are more accurate when an experience is common versus when it is unique—an effect driven by learning advantages that accrue through accumulated experience. Finally, I distinguish novelty from unfamiliarity by showing that novelty varies based on the number of past direct experiences but not indirect experiences (e.g., verbal descriptions of episodes) in a domain. Taken together, these findings augment our understanding of overall evaluations and explicate novelty. This dissertation also unites the snapshot model literature with other work on memory, learning, and affect

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

When choosing from multiple options, decision-makers may directly choose an option (single-stage decision), or initially shortlist a subset of options, and then choose an option from this shortlist (two-stage decision). Past work suggests that these two decision formats should lead to the same final choice when information about the choice alternatives is held constant. In contrast, this research demonstrates a novel effect: two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) options. A regulatory focus account explains this effect. In a two-stage process, after shortlisting, decision-makers feel that they have sufficiently advanced their prevention goals, and this reduces their prevention focus during the final choice stage. Reduced prevention focus, in turn, enhances hedonic preference. Four studies across different decision contexts illustrate this effect and support the underlying process mechanism. The findings suggest that the formal structure of a decision (single-stage vs. two-stage) leads to systematic differences in decision-makers’ choices

Relationship between life satisfaction and (1) health satisfaction, (2) BMI, and (3) daily positive emotions, separately for groups classified by the ones (i.e., last) digit in their age.

<p>Bold values are significant.</p><p>Relationship between life satisfaction and (1) health satisfaction, (2) BMI, and (3) daily positive emotions, separately for groups classified by the ones (i.e., last) digit in their age.</p

Correlates of life satisfaction.

<p>Relationships between life satisfaction and (1) health satisfaction (2) body mass index (BMI), and (3) daily positive emotions. The dark grey bar depicts correlation coefficients for non-milestone age participants, and the light grey bar depicts correlation coefficients for milestone age participants. Error bars represent standard error of the correlation coefficient. The asterisks denote significant (<i>p</i> < .05) differences between milestone age and non-milestone age participants (Fisher’s <i>Z</i> test).</p