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

IF 3.4 2区管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104149

Balca Alaybek , Reeshad S. Dalal , Shea Fyffe , John A. Aitken , You Zhou , Xiao Qu , Alexis Roman , Julia I. Baines

{"title":"All’s well that ends (and peaks) well? A meta-analysis of the peak-end rule and duration neglect","authors":"Balca Alaybek , Reeshad S. Dalal , Shea Fyffe , John A. Aitken , You Zhou , Xiao Qu , Alexis Roman , Julia I. Baines","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The peak-end rule (<span>Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993</span>) 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 (<em>r</em> = 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; <span>Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993</span>). We provide a future research agenda and practical implications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000334","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Abstract

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.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

结局好(顶峰好)的都是好?峰值结束规则和持续时间忽视的荟萃分析

峰端规则(弗雷德里克森&;卡纳曼(Kahneman, 1993)断言，当人们回顾性地评估一段经历(例如，前一个工作日)时，他们更依赖于强度最高的那一段和最后(结束)的那一段，而不是经历中的其他部分。我们对174个效应量进行了meta分析，发现峰端规则得到了强有力的支持。回顾性总结评价的峰端效应为:(1)大(r = 0.581, 95%置信区间= 0.487-0.661)，(2)跨边界条件稳健，(3)与总体平均(平均)得分的影响相当，强于经历中所有情节的趋势和变异的影响，(4)强于第一(开始)和最低强度(低谷)情节的影响，(5)强于经历持续时间的影响(基本上为零)。从而支持了持续忽视的观点;弗雷德里克森,卡尼曼,1993)。我们提供了一个未来的研究议程和实际意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Multiple-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

4.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context