Evaluating multiepisode events: boundary conditions for the peak-end rule.

This study advances our understanding of how people arrive at retrospective evaluations of multiepisode experiences. Large samples from the United States, France, and Denmark (810, 820, and 805 participants, respectively) reported their feelings during each episode of the previous day using the Day Reconstruction Method. The duration-weighted average of these feelings represented the normative approach to evaluation, and, contrary to the predictions of the peak-end rule, the average was the best predictor of retrospective evaluations of the day. To capture participants' heuristic evaluation, they also reported having a wonderful (peak) and/or awful (low) moment during the previous day. The results indicate that retrospective evaluations of multiepisode events rely on the averaged ratings of emotions, ignore ends, and also consider the presence of lows, and occasionally peaks, as subjectively defined by those experiencing them. Peaks and lows contribute more to comparative, rather than absolute evaluations. Future research should examine whether these findings extend to other multiepisode events that, unlike days, form cohesive units in terms of their content, goal, and emotionality.