Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions

被引:189
作者
Park, CW [1 ]
Jun, SY
Macinnis, DJ
机构
[1] Univ So Calif, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
[2] Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
D O I
10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The authors examine the effects of using a subtractive versus an additive option-framing method on consumers' option choice decisions in three studies. The former option-framing method presents consumers with a fully loaded product and asks them to delete options they do not want. The latter presents them with a base model and asks them to add the options they do want. Combined, the studies support the managerial attractiveness of the subtractive versus the additive option-framing method. Consumers tend to choose more options with a higher total option price when they use subtractive versus additive option framing. This effect holds across different option price levels (Study 1) and product categories of varying price (Study 2). Moreover, this effect is magnified when subjects are asked to anticipate regret from their option choice decisions (Study 2). However, option framing has a different effect on the purchase likelihood of the product category itself, depending on the subject's initial interest in buying within the category. Although subtractive option framing offers strong advantages to managers when product commitment is high, it appears to demotivate category purchase when product commitment is low (Study 3). In addition, the three studies reveal several other findings about the attractiveness of subtractive versus additive option framing from the standpoint of consumers and managers. These findings, in turn, offer interesting public policy and future research implications.
引用
收藏
页码:187 / 202
页数:16
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   REGRET IN DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY [J].
BELL, DE .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1982, 30 (05) :961-981
[2]  
BRWON CL, 1997, TAKEN OUT CONTEXT EF
[3]  
CHAKRAVARTI D, 1992, DEV AUGMENTED PRODUC
[4]   Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: The effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty [J].
Chatterjee, S ;
Heath, TB .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1996, 67 (02) :144-155
[5]   Consumer preference for a no-choice option [J].
Dhar, R .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1997, 24 (02) :215-231
[6]   MODELING LOSS AVERSION AND REFERENCE DEPENDENCE EFFECTS ON BRAND CHOICE [J].
HARDIE, BGS ;
JOHNSON, EJ ;
FADER, PS .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1993, 12 (04) :378-394
[7]   MENTAL ACCOUNTING AND CHANGES IN PRICE - THE FRAME DEPENDENCE OF REFERENCE DEPENDENCE [J].
HEATH, TB ;
CHATTERJEE, S ;
FRANCE, KR .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1995, 22 (01) :90-97
[8]   DECISION BIAS AND PERSONNEL-SELECTION STRATEGIES [J].
HUBER, VL ;
NEALE, MA ;
NORTHCRAFT, GB .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1987, 40 (01) :136-147
[9]   NORM THEORY - COMPARING REALITY TO ITS ALTERNATIVES [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
MILLER, DT .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1986, 93 (02) :136-153
[10]   THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PREFERENCES [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
TVERSKY, A .
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1982, 246 (01) :160-&