A Preference for Revision Absent Objective Improvement

Ximena  Garcia-Rada; Leslie  John; Ed  O’Brien; Michael I. Norton

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2020

A Preference for Revision Absent Objective Improvement

by Ximena Garcia-Rada, Leslie John, Ed O’Brien and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

Things change. Things also get changed—often. Why? The obvious reason is that revising things often makes them better. We document a less obvious reason: revising things makes consumers think they are better, even absent objective improvement. Eleven studies document the preference for revision and provide insight into its psychological underpinnings. Studies 1A–1C document the effect among MBA students engaged in a resume revision process, while Studies 2 and 3 demonstrate the effect both experientially (eating candy) and via choice (of pens). Revisions are preferred even when trivially different from their predecessors (study 4A), and even when there is no difference between original and revised versions (study 4B). Consumers overgeneralize their belief that revisers intend to improve their creations and that revisions represent the successful fruition of those intentions (studies 5A and 5B); as a result, consumers are relatively uncritical of flaws in purportedly revised products (a video game; study 6), unless cued to doubt that revisers can be trusted (study 7).

Keywords: heuristics and biases; framing; sequences; judgment; Change; Perception;

Language: English

Format: Print

53 pages

SSRN Read Now

Citation:

Garcia-Rada, Ximena, Leslie John, Ed O’Brien, and Michael I. Norton. "A Preference for Revision Absent Objective Improvement." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-087, February 2019. (Revised April 2020.)

How do the very wealthy spend their time, and how does time use relate to well-being? In two studies in the Netherlands, the affluent (N=863, N=690) and the general population (N=1232, N=306) spent time in surprisingly similar ways, such as by spending the same amount of time working. Yet, the nature of their time-use differed in critical ways that are related to life satisfaction. In Study 1, millionaires spent more time engaged in active leisure (e.g., exercising and volunteering) rather than passive leisure (e.g., watching television and relaxing). In Study 2, millionaires spent more time engaged in tasks at work over which they had more control. The affluent sample belongs to the top of the income and wealth distribution, representing a significantly wealthier sample than in previous studies. These results further our understanding of when and how wealth may translate into greater well-being.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act intensified debates over the role of government in the distribution of healthcare. A nationally-representative sample of Americans reported their estimated and ideal distributions of healthcare (unmet need for prescription medications) and death (gains in life expectancy). Respondents across the demographic and political spectrum wanted mortality and healthcare to be distributed more evenly among the rich and poor than they estimated them to be. For example, respondents estimated that Americans in the poorest quintile lived 1.5 months longer over the previous 20 years while those in the richest quintile lived 4.7 months longer, but reported ideal figures of 2.5 and 3.6 months – both were far more equal than the actual figures: -1.8 and 7.2 months. Despite heated debates about healthcare, Americans share a consensus belief that current disparities in death and healthcare are far from their ideals.

Email mking@hbs.edu for a courtesy copy.

In August 2017, Commonwealth Bank of Australia was looking for ways to differentiate itself from competing banks and was also trying to improve the financial well-being of its customers. One domain where this was particularly relevant was in its bank-issued credit card business, where customers routinely selected cards that although profitable for the bank could be a poor fit for customers’ needs—leading to low satisfaction scores, cancellations, and occasionally, financial distress. To that end, the company’s Behavioral Economics team had developed a provocative experiment dubbed “The Good and the Bad.” Rather than just presenting the strengths of its various credit card offerings, they proposed also promoting each credit card’s less-obvious drawbacks. Being transparent with customers might help them make better choices, but would those choices come at the expense of bank performance? Should a company choose to be in the sales prevention business?

Faculty & Research

A Preference for Revision Absent Objective Improvement

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors