IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v28y2017i3d10.1007_s11002-017-9419-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jungkeun Kim

    (Auckland University of Technology)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jungkeun Kim, 2017. "The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 397-409, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11002-017-9419-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-017-9419-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-017-9419-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-017-9419-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Claudia Townsend & Barbara E. Kahn, 2014. "The "Visual Preference Heuristic": The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(5), pages 993-1015.
    3. Veryzer, Robert W, Jr & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1998. "The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 374-394, March.
    4. Mehdi Mourali & Ulf Bckenholt & Michel Laroche, 2007. "Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 234-247, June.
    5. Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 2000. "Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 274-299, March.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:513-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. Suri, Rajneesh & Monroe, Kent B, 2003. "The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers' Judgments of Prices and Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 92-104, June.
    9. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    10. Holbrook, Morris B & Moore, William L, 1981. "Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(1), pages 103-113, June.
    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. (Gina) Cui, Yuanyuan & (Sam) Kim, Seongseop & Kim, Jungkeun, 2021. "Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 641-652.
    2. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2020. "Choose Quickly! The Influence of Cognitive Resource Availability on the Preference between the Intuitive and Externally Recommended Options," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 263-272.
    3. Kim, Jungkeun, 2019. "The impact of different price promotions on customer retention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 95-102.
    4. Kim, Jungkeun & Spence, Mark T. & Marshall, Roger, 2018. "The Color of Choice: The Influence of Presenting Product Information in Color on the Compromise Effect," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 167-185.
    5. Yizhi Liu & Xuan Lu & Chengjiang Li & Gang Zhao, 2022. "The Influence of Content Presentation on Users’ Intention to Adopt mHealth Applications: Based on the S-O-R Theoretical Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-20, August.

    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. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    3. (Gina) Cui, Yuanyuan & (Sam) Kim, Seongseop & Kim, Jungkeun, 2021. "Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 641-652.
    4. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    5. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    6. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. 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.
    8. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Liangyan Wang & Brian Wu & Cornelia Pechmann & Yitong Wang, 2023. "The performance effects of creative imitation on original products: Evidence from lab and field experiments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 171-196, January.
    11. K. Sivakumar, 2016. "A unified conceptualization of the attraction effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 39-58, June.
    12. Joško Brakus, J. & Schmitt, Bernd H. & Zhang, Shi, 2014. "Experiential product attributes and preferences for new products: The role of processing fluency," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2291-2298.
    13. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    14. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2012. "Asymmetric Dominance, Deferral and Status Quo Bias in a Theory of Choice with Incomplete Preferences," MPRA Paper 40097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia J., 2004. "Effect propensity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 156-174, November.
    17. Marcel Lichters & Paul Bengart & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2017. "What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 127-138, March.
    18. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia, 2003. "Effect Propensity: The Location of the Reference State in the Option Space as a Determinant of the Direction of Effects on Choice," Research Papers 1788, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    19. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2020. "Choose Quickly! The Influence of Cognitive Resource Availability on the Preference between the Intuitive and Externally Recommended Options," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 263-272.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jonathan C. Pettibone, 2012. "Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 513-523, July.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11002-017-9419-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.