IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1609.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Simonson, Itamar

    (Stanford U)

  • Kivetz, Ran

Abstract

Two current trends, information overload combined with increased control of marketers (e.g., on the Internet) over the manner in which their products are sold and presented to buyers, suggest that deciding what information to provide or not to provide can determine a product's success in the marketplace. Although it has long been recognized that most purchase decisions are made with incomplete information, we still know very little about the effect of missing information on consumer choice. Building on earlier work by Slovic and MacPhillamy (1974), we demonstrate that a tendency to give more weight to attributes on which all considered options have values ("common attributes"), relative to attributes for which not all options have values ("unique attributes"), can often lead to intransitive preferences. Using process measures, it is further shown that buyers tend to interpret missing attribute values in a way that supports the purchase of the option that is superior on the common attribute. The results indicate that information presentation format and inferences about mission values cannot account for the observed effects of missing information on consumer choice. We also show that the purchase decisions of buyers who consider attribute importance prior to making a choice and those with high need for cognition are less susceptible to influence by missing information. Finally, the findings indicate that choosing from sets with missing information can impact buyer tastes and purchase decisions made subsequently. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this research.

Suggested Citation

  • Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/rp1609.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. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    3. Bettman, James R & Kakkar, Pradeep, 1977. "Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 3(4), pages 233-240, March.
    4. Ross, William T, Jr & Creyer, Elizabeth H, 1992. "Making Inferences about Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(1), pages 14-25, June.
    5. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    6. Russo, J. Edward & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Meloy, Margaret G., 1996. "The Distortion of Information during Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 102-110, April.
    7. Johnson, Richard D & Levin, Irwin P, 1985. "More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 169-177, September.
    8. Biehal, Gabriel & Chakravarti, Dipankar, 1986. "Consumers' Use of Memory and External Information in Choice: Macro and Micro Perspectives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(4), pages 382-405, March.
    9. Shafir, Eldar B. & Osherson, Daniel N. & Smith, Edward E., 1993. "The Advantage Model: A Comparative Theory of Evaluation and Choice under Risk," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 325-378, August.
    10. Dick, Alan & Chakravarti, Dipankar & Biehal, Gabriel, 1990. "Memory-Based Inferences during Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(1), pages 82-93, June.
    11. Simmons, Carolyn J & Lynch, John G, Jr, 1991. "Inference Effects without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(4), pages 477-491, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:196-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Shih-Chieh Chuang & Danny Tengti Kao & Yin-Hui Cheng & Chu-An Chou, 2012. "The effect of incomplete information on the compromise effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 196-204, March.
    4. Gunasti, Kunter & Ross, William T., 2015. "The effects of compensatory inferences for attributes on the choice of incomplete product options," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1136-1144.
    5. Tyszka, Tadeusz, 1998. "Two Pairs of Conflicting Motives in Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 189-211, June.
    6. Daniel J Walters & Hal E Hershfield & J Jeffrey Inman & Rebecca K Ratner, 2020. "Consumers Make Different Inferences and Choices When Product Uncertainty Is Attributed to Forgetting Rather than Ignorance [Is Memory Schematic?]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(1), pages 56-78.
    7. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    8. Yan, Huan & Chang, En-Chung & Chou, Ting-Jui & Tang, Xiaofei, 2015. "The over-categorization effect: How the number of categorizations influences shoppers' perceptions of variety and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 631-638.
    9. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    10. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.
    11. Sanjay K. Dhar & Claudia González-Vallejo & Dilip Soman, 1999. "Modeling the Effects of Advertised Price Claims: Tensile Versus Precise Claims?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 154-177.
    12. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    13. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    14. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    15. 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.
    16. Wu, Fang & Swait, Joffre & Chen, Yuxin, 2019. "Feature-based attributes and the roles of consumers' perception bias and inference in choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 325-340.
    17. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    18. 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.
    19. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    20. 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).
    21. Babutsidze, Zakaria, 2007. "How Do Consumers Make Choices? A Summary of Evidence from Marketing and Psychology," MERIT Working Papers 2007-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    More about this item

    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:ecl:stabus:1609. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.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.