nach oben

Marketing Letters

Erschienen in:

04.02.2017

The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect

verfasst von: Jungkeun Kim

Erschienen in: Marketing Letters | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The current research examines how different types of information representation mode (graphical vs. numerical) influence the compromise effect. We posit that the compromise effect will be relatively stronger in the graphical versus numerical information presentation mode. Four empirical studies reported in this research provide the following: (1) support for these predictions, (2) the moderating role of time pressure, and (3) the moderating role of explicit relational information for the above prediction. The empirical results reveal that individuals employ different kinds of information processing and judgments, depending on the type of information representation mode.

Vorheriger Artikel How psychological contracts motivate employer-brand patronage

Nächster Artikel Creating ethical brands: the role of brand name on consumer perceived ethicality

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The decoy effect (or the attraction effect) is a situation where the addition of a new alternative in the choice set increases the choice of one of the existing alternatives, which dominates the new addition in the choice set (Huber et al. 1982).

A pretest (n = 76, 43% female, average age = 34.1 years) was conducted to check the manipulation of time pressure, in that participants in the time-pressure condition showed a higher level of perceived time pressure than those in the no time-pressure condition (M _{time_pressure} = 5.42 vs. M _{no_time_pressure} = 3.72; F (1, 68) = 103.76, p < .001), based on two 7-point scale items (1 = no time pressure/more than adequate time available, 7 = too much time pressure/not adequate time available, based on Suri and Monroe 2003).

Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 111–139.CrossRef

Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 643–654.CrossRef

Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2005). Size does matter: the effects of magnitude representation congruency on price perceptions and purchase likelihood. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 64–76.CrossRef

Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65–71.CrossRef

Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146–160.CrossRef

Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: an analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 189–200.CrossRef

Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 487–507.CrossRef

Hart, R. P. (1997). Analyzing media: modern rhetorical criticism (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L. (1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 103–111.CrossRef

Houghton, D. C., Kardes, F. R., Mathieu, A., & Simonson, I. (1999). Correction processes in consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 107–112.CrossRef

Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.CrossRef

Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1990). Graphic displays in decision making: the visual salience effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(4), 247–262.CrossRef

Khan, U., Zhu, M., & Kalra, A. (2011). When trade-offs matter: the effect of choice construal on context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 62–71.CrossRef

Kim, S., & Kim, J. (2016). The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption goals on the compromise effect. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 387–401.CrossRef

Kleinmuntz, D., & Schkade, D. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4(4), 221–227.CrossRef

Larson, J. S., & Billeter, D. M. (2013). Consumer behavior in “equilibrium”: how experiencing physical balance increases compromise choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 535–547.CrossRef

Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 409–433.CrossRef

Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (2000). Coping with unfavorable attribute values in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 274–299.CrossRef

Mourali, M., Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234–247.CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press.

Pettibone, J. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision making, 7(4), 513–523.

Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources: resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344–355.CrossRef

Rook, F. W., & Donnell, M. L. (1993). Human cognition and the expert system interface: mental models and inference explanations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23(6), 1649–1661.CrossRef

Rosenkrans, G. (2009). The creativeness and effectiveness of online interactive rich media advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(2), 18–31.CrossRef

Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.CrossRef

Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295.CrossRef

Stone, E. R., Yates, J. F., & Parker, A. (1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 243–256.

Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 92–104.CrossRef

Taggart, W., & Robey, D. (1981). Minds and managers: on the dual nature of human information processing and management. Academy of Management Review, 6(2), 187–195.

Townsend, C., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The “visual preference heuristic”: the influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 993–1015.CrossRef

Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–394.CrossRef

Wyer, R. S., Hung, I. W., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 244–257.CrossRef

Titel: The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect
verfasst von: Jungkeun Kim
Publikationsdatum: 04.02.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Marketing Letters / Ausgabe 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0923-0645
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-059X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9419-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

Creating ethical brands: the role of brand name on consumer perceived ethicality

The effects of uppercase and lowercase wordmarks on brand perceptions

The value of winning: endorsement returns in individual sports

Using segment level stability to select target segments in data-driven market segmentation studies

The vices and virtues of consumption choices: price promotion and consumer decision making

The future of Marketing Letters