Abstract
This research documents a perfection premium in evaluative judgments wherein individuals disproportionately reward perfection on an attribute compared to near-perfect values on the same attribute. For example, individuals consider a student who earns a perfect score of 36 on the American College Test to be more intelligent than a student who earns a near-perfect 35, and this difference in perceived intelligence is significantly greater than the difference between students whose scores are 35 versus 34. The authors also show that the perfection premium occurs because people spontaneously place perfect items into a separate mental category than other items. As a result of this categorization process, the perceived evaluative distance between perfect and near-perfect items is exaggerated. Four experiments provide evidence in favor of the perfection premium and support for the proposed underlying mechanism in both social cognition and decision-making contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Bizer G. Y., Schindler R. M. (2005). Direct evidence of ending-digit drop-off in price information processing. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 771–783.
Brenner L., Rottenstreich Y., Sood S. (1999). Comparison, grouping, and preference. Psychological Science, 10, 225–229.
Camerer C. F., Ho T.-H. (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(2), 167–196.
Chernev A., Gal D. (2010). Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 738–747.
Gunasti K., Ross W. T. Jr. (2010). How and when alphanumeric brand names affect consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1177–1192.
Hayes A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press.
Hinrichs J. V., Berie J. L., Mosell M. K. (1982). Place information in multidigit number comparison. Memory & Cognition, 10, 487–495.
Hunt L. L., Eastwick P. W., Finkel E. J. (2015). Leveling the playing field: Longer acquaintance predicts reduced assortative mating on attractiveness. Psychological Science, 26, 1046–1053.
Isaac M. S., Schindler R. M. (2014). The top-ten effect: Consumers’ subjective categorization of ranked lists. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1181–1202.
Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
King D., Janiszewski C. (2011). The sources and consequences of the fluent processing of numbers. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 327–341.
Kruger J., Vargas P. (2008). Consumer confusion of percent differences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (1), 49–61.
Laski E. V., Siegler R. S. (2007). Is 27 a big number? Correlational and causal connections among numerical categorization, number line estimation, and numerical magnitude comparison. Child Development, 78, 1723–1743.
Li M., Chapman G. B. (2009). “100% of anything looks good”: The appeal of one hundred percent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 156–162.
McShane B. B., Böckenholt U. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048–1063.
Newman G. E. (2016). An essentialist account of authenticity. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 16, 294–321.
Newman G. E., Diesendruck G., Bloom P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 215–228.
Olenski A. R., Zimerman A., Coussens S., Jena A. B. (2020). Behavioral heuristics in coronary-artery bypass graft surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(8), 778–779.
Olsen A. L. (2013). Leftmost-digit-bias in an enumerated public sector? An experiment on citizens’ judgment of performance information. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 365–371.
Pope D., Simonsohn U. (2011). Round numbers as goals: Evidence from baseball, SAT takers, and the lab. Psychological Science, 22(1), 71–79.
Restle F. (1970). Speed of adding and comparing numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 274–278.
Rosch E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.
Rosch E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch E., Lloyd B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rozin P., Ashmore M., Markwith M. (1996). Lay American conceptions of nutrition: Dose insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychology, 15, 438–447.
Rozin P., Nemeroff C. (1990). The laws of sympathetic magic: A psychological analysis of similarity and contagion. In Stigler J., Herdy G., Shweder R. A. (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 205–223). Cambridge University Press.
Shampanier K., Mazar N., Ariely D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Science, 26, 742–757.
Shepard R. N., Kilpatric D. W., Cunningham J. P. (1975). The internal representation of numbers. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 82–138.
Tu Y., Soman D. (2014). The categorization of time and its impact on task initiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 810–822.
Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
Wu G., Gonzalez R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676–1690.
Biographies
Mathew S. Isaac is the Genevieve Albers Professor of marketing at the Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University, Seattle, WA. His research on consumer judgment and decision making, which examines how contextual and motivational factors influence product evaluations and purchase intentions, has been published in a number of leading scientific journals including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, and Journal of Consumer Psychology.
Katie Spangenberg is a doctoral candidate in marketing at the University of Washington Foster School of Business, Seattle, WA. Her research on implicit cognition, self-identity, brand perception, and advertising has been published in journals such as Journal of Advertising, and presented at top marketing and psychology conferences.
Handling Editor: Eva Walther
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.