Publications
Publications
- 2025
- HBS Working Paper Series
A Preference for Revision Absent Improvement
By: Ximena Garcia-Rada, Leslie K. John, Ed O’Brien and Michael I. Norton
Abstract
People regularly encounter revised stimuli (e.g., revised versions of products, new editions of
books, tweaked recipes, and technological updates). In principle, a world of constant revision
should benefit people by affording them the most up-to-date offerings. In practice, however, the
current research reveals a potential cost: People cannot easily tell the difference between genuine improvement from merely superficial change and instead appear to uniformly assume all revised
stimuli are better stimuli—even when nothing has improved in reality. Six studies document this
effect and its psychological underpinnings, suggesting people rely on revision labels as an
overgeneralized heuristic into stimulus quality. For example, participants became more likely to
choose a stimulus merely when it was labeled as revised—and even when the product was
indeed revised but made worse. Accordingly, this effect was attenuated when it was easier for
participants to evaluate stimulus quality.
Keywords
Product Change; Versioning; Expectancy Effects; Heuristics; Intuitive Processing; Product Marketing; Change; Perception; Consumer Behavior
Citation
Garcia-Rada, Ximena, Leslie K. John, Ed O’Brien, and Michael I. Norton. "A Preference for Revision Absent Improvement." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-087, February 2019. (Revised April 2025.)