[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/11-712.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: Numerosity Effects in Option Comparisons

Author

Listed:
  • M. PANDELAERE
  • B. BRIERS
Abstract
Consumers prefer quantitative to qualitative information, yet the same quantitative information can appear as different numbers (e.g., 7-year warranty = 84-month warranty). The current paper demonstrates that consumers focus more on the number of units (7 versus 84) than on the type of units (year versus month), which implies a unit effect. The same attribute difference expressed as a higher number of units induces a perception of being larger (Study 1). When consumers receive the same information on different scales, the unit effect disappears (Study 2). Because differences in quality for the various options appear inflated due to the use of a scale with more units, consumers may switch away from a lower quality option when the quality ratings employ many units (Study 3). Finally, the unit effect implies that consumers are more sensitive to proportional differences and ratios of attribute levels when the attribute expression relies on many units rather than a few units (Study 4).

Suggested Citation

  • M. Pandelaere & B. Briers, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: Numerosity Effects in Option Comparisons," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 11/712, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:11/712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_11_712.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Catherine W. M. Yeung & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Attribute Evaluability and the Range Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 363-369, December.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    5. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2003. "Adapting to the Euro: Evidence from bias reduction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 285-292, June.
    6. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    7. Christopher K. Hsee & Yang Yang & Yangjie Gu & Jie Chen, 2009. "Specification Seeking: How Product Specifications Influence Consumer Preference," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(6), pages 952-966, April.
    8. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Yuk Yee, 2000. "Is 7300 m Equal to 7.3 km? Same Semantics but Different Anchoring Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 314-333, July.
    9. Klaus Wertenbroch & Dilip Soman & Amitava Chattopadhyay, 2007. "On the Perceived Value of Money: The Reference Dependence of Currency Numerosity Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    11. Kivetz, Ran & Simonson, Itamar, 2003. "The Role of Effort Advantage in Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs: The Idiosyncratic Fit Heuristic," Research Papers 1738r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Janiszewski, Chris & Silk, Tim & Cooke, Alan D J, 2003. "Different Scales for Different Frames: The Role of Subjective Scales and Experience in Explaining Attribute-Framing Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 311-325, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huang, Wen-Hsien & Cheng, Yi-Ching, 2015. "Threshold free shipping policies for internet shoppers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 193-203.
    2. Thomas Hagedorn & Jan Wessel, 2022. "How Information on Emissions per Euro Spent can Influence Leisure Travel Decisions," Working Papers 35, Institute of Transport Economics, University of Muenster.
    3. Michal Mijal, 2012. "Computer games in the organization - psychological determinants (Gry komputerowe w organizacji - uwarunkowania psychologiczne)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 10(38), pages 262-270.
    4. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Antonio J. Morales & Enrique Fatas, 2021. "Price competition and nominal illusion: experimental evidence and a behavioural model," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 607-632, December.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:214-222 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Suk, Kwanho & Hwang, Sanyoung & Jeong, Yunjoo, 2022. "The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Zoe Y. Lu & Christopher K. Hsee & Kaiyang Wu, 2024. "Short-Asking with Long-Encouraging (SALE): A simple method to increase purchase quantity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1152-1170, July.
    9. Si-Chu Shen & Yuan-Na Huang & Cheng-Ming Jiang & Shu Li, 2019. "Can asymmetric subjective opportunity cost effect explain impatience in intertemporal choice? A replication study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 214-222, March.
    10. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Jonathan Leland, 2016. "Axioms for Salience Perception," Working Papers 16-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    11. Andrea H. Tangari & Scot Burton & Cassandra Davis, 2014. "Do They Have Your Number? Understanding the Moderating Role of Format Effects and Consumer Numeracy for Quantitative Front-of-Package Nutrition Claims," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 620-633, October.
    12. Cadario, Romain & Parguel, Béatrice & Benoit-Moreau, Florence, 2016. "Is bigger always better? The unit effect in carbon emissions information," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 204-207.
    13. Lembregts, Christophe & Pandelaere, Mario, 2014. ""A 20% income increase for everyone?": The effect of relative increases in income on perceived income inequality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 37-47.
    14. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    15. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. Yao, Jun & Oppewal, Harmen, 2016. "Unit Pricing Increases Price Sensitivity Even When Products are of Identical Size," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 109-121.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Ho, Edward & Kowatsch, Tobias & Ilic, Alexander, 2014. "The Sales Velocity Effect on Retailing," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 237-256.
    19. Arnaud Monnier & Manoj Thomas, 2022. "Experiential and Analytical Price Evaluations: How Experiential Product Description Affects Prices [The Utility of an Information Processing Approach for Behavioral Price Research]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(4), pages 574-594.
    20. Fecher, André & Robbert, Thomas & Roth, Stefan, 2019. "Same price, different perception: Measurement-unit effects on price-level perceptions and purchase intentions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 129-142.
    21. Santana, Shelle & Thomas, Manoj & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2020. "The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 138-154.
    22. Oliver James & Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 2019. "Rates and the Judgment of Government Performance," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    23. Hsin-Hsien Liu & Hsuan-Yi Chou, 2022. "Attribute specification effect on hedonic and utilitarian options," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 47(2), pages 322-341, May.
    24. Hou, Chenxuan & Sarigöllü, Emine, 2022. "Is bigger better? How the scale effect influences green purchase intention: The case of washing machine," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    25. Fecher, André & Robbert, Thomas & Roth, Stefan, 2020. "Per piece or per kilogram? Default-unit effects in retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reich, Taly & Savary, Jennifer & Kupor, Daniella, 2021. "Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 147-157.
    2. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    3. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    4. Basu, Shankha & Savani, Krishna, 2017. "Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 76-91.
    5. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    6. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    7. Jiangbo Yu, 2022. "An elementary mechanism for simultaneously modeling discrete decisions and decision times," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 215-245, July.
    8. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Simonson, Itamar, 2007. "Will I Like A "Medium" Pillow? Another Look At Constructed And Inherent Preferences," Research Papers 1977r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Alistair Munro & Danail Popov, 2013. "A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 335-348, September.
    11. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    12. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    13. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    14. Guevara, C. Angelo & Fukushi, Mitsuyoshi, 2016. "Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 318-337.
    15. Ryan Webb & Paul W. Glimcher & Kenway Louie, 2021. "The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, January.
    16. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:503-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    19. George D. Farmer & Wael El-Deredy & Andrew Howes & Paul A. Warren, 2015. "The attraction effect in motor planning decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 503-510, September.
    20. Linhai Wu & Pingping Liu & Xiujuan Chen & Wuyang Hu & Xuesen Fan, 2021. "Contents of product attributes and the decoy effect: A study on traceable pork from the perspective of consumer utility," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 974-984, June.
    21. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole, 2011. "Customer reactions in Out-of-Stock situations: Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothsis?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-021, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:11/712. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.