Suchergebnisse

Abstract
A fundamental contribution of consumer behavior research is to help marketing scholars develop an understanding of how people think about and express their preferences. In this article we find that two commonly used preference elicitation procedures, willingness to pay (WTP) and choice, are consistently associated with different expressed preferences. Specifically, choices are associated with a relatively greater preference for hedonic goods, while WTP is associated with a relatively greater preference for utilitarian goods. We find that this is caused, in part, by the greater reliance on deliberation in determining WTP values, while preferences in choices are determined by an affect heuristic. Unlike other choice and WTP preference reversals, we find that this effect is not caused by mechanical determinants such as scale compatibility, as the effect persists with continuous scale measures that rely on affect and with choice-based scale measures that rely on determining valuation.

The possibility of preference reversals according to the Kaldor-Hicks (KH) criterion in benefit-cost analysis has concerned economists since Scitovsky (1941) first published his results. Lawyers and philosophers have argued that the potential of reversals calls the use of benefit-cost analysis into question, implying elimination of its use. We demonstrate that reversals occur only with inferior goods in the case of static production possibilities and that reversals occur under changing production possibilities only when production possibilities frontiers cross, which is a myopic characterization that ignores practical cases of global production possibilities.

This article argues that the threat of review and reversal by supervising courts affects circuit court judges differently in disputes focusing on law compared to disputes focusing on facts. Because fact-bound cases are less likely to be reviewed than law-bound cases, lower court judges are freer to indulge their policy preferences in fact-bound cases. I test this argument using computer-assisted content analysis to measure the extent to which legal disputes are based on interpretations of facts and interpretations of relevant legal standards, respectively. The results of this content analysis are then used as independent variables in a model predicting the outcomes of legal challenges to the actions of administrative agencies. The results indicate that highly fact-bound decisions amplify the effects of judicial ideology while highly law-bound decisions constrain the effects of ideology.