All's well that ends (and peaks) well? A meta-analysis of the peak-end rule and duration neglect

被引：21

作者：

Alaybek, Balca ^{[1
,2
]}

Dalal, Reeshad S. ^{[1
]}

Fyffe, Shea ^{[1
]}

Aitken, John A. ^{[1
]}

Zhou, You ^{[1
]}

Qu, Xiao ^{[1
]}

Roman, Alexis ^{[1
]}

Baines, Julia, I ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] George Mason Univ, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA

[2] Mitre Corp, Mclean, VA 22102 USA

来源：

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES | 2022年 / 170卷

关键词：

Peak; End; Trough; Duration neglect; Heuristics; Retrospective evaluations; Gestalt characteristics; PUBLICATION BIAS; RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATIONS; MAXIMIZING TENDENCY; EXPERIENCE; PERFORMANCE; DECISION; PAIN; VARIABILITY; RESPONSES; MEMORIES;

D O I：

10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104149

中图分类号：

B849 [应用心理学];

学科分类号：

040203 ;

摘要：

The peak-end rule (Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993) asserts that, when people retrospectively evaluate an experience (e.g., the previous workday), they rely more heavily on the episode with peak intensity and on the final (end) episode than on other episodes in the experience. We meta-analyzed 174 effect sizes and found strong support for the peak-end rule. The peak-end effect on retrospective summary evaluations was: (1) large (r = 0.581, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.487-0.661), (2) robust across boundary conditions, (3) comparable to the effect of the overall average (mean) score and stronger than the effects of the trend and variability across all episodes in the experience, (4) stronger than the effects of the first (beginning) and lowest intensity (trough) episodes, and (5) stronger than the effect of the duration of the experience (which was essentially nil, thereby supporting the idea of duration neglect; Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993). We provide a future research agenda and practical implications.

引用

页数：15

共 92 条

[51] Ketelaar T., 2001, Conceptual challenges in evolutionary psychology
[52] The Effects of Performance Extremities on Ratings of Dynamic Performance
Lee, Hana
Dalal, Reeshad S.
[J]. HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 2011, 24 (02) : 99 - 118
[53] Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory
Loftus, EF
[J]. LEARNING & MEMORY, 2005, 12 (04) : 361 - 366
[54] Self-Regulation at Work
Lord, Robert G.
Diefendorff, James M.
Schmidt, Aaron M.
Hall, Rosalie J.
[J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 61 : 543 - 568
[55] Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory
McClelland, JL
Chappell, M
[J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1998, 105 (04) : 724 - 760
[56] Scientific Contributions of Within-Person Research in Management: Making the Juice Worth the Squeeze
McCormick, Brian W.
Reeves, Cody J.
Downes, Patrick E.
Li, Ning
Ilies, Remus
[J]. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2020, 46 (02) : 321 - 350
[57] Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors
McDaniel, Michael A.
Rothstein, Hannah R.
Whetzel, Deborah L.
[J]. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 59 (04) : 927 - 953
[58] Mill J. S., 1879, UTILITARIANISM
[59] RECENCY AND PRIMACY IN PERSUASION AS A FUNCTION OF THE TIMING OF SPEECHES AND MEASUREMENTS
MILLER, N
CAMPBELL, DT
[J]. JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1959, 59 (01): : 1 - 9
[60] Memories of Yesterday's Emotions: Does the Valence of Experience Affect the Memory-Experience Gap?
Miron-Shatz, Talya
Stone, Arthur
Kahneman, Daniel
[J]. EMOTION, 2009, 9 (06) : 885 - 891

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 →