IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v150y2018icp43-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Demand effects of consumers’ stated and revealed preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Engström, Per
  • Forsell, Eskil

Abstract

Knowledge of how consumers react to different signals is fundamental to understanding how markets work. The modern electronic marketplace has revolutionized the possibilities for consumers to gather detailed information about products and services before purchase. Specifically, a consumer can easily – through a host of online forums and evaluation sites – estimate a product’s quality based on either (i) what other users say about the product (stated preferences) or (ii) how many other users that have bought the product (revealed preferences). In this paper, we compare the causal effects on demand from these two signals based on data from the biggest marketplace for Android apps, Google play. This data consists of daily information, for 42 consecutive days, of more than 500,000 apps from the US version of Google play. Our main result is that consumers are much more responsive to other consumers’ revealed preferences, compared to others’ stated preferences. A 10 percentile increase in displayed average rating only increases downloads by about 3%, while a 10 percentile increase in displayed number of downloads increases downloads by about 25%.

Suggested Citation

  • Engström, Per & Forsell, Eskil, 2018. "Demand effects of consumers’ stated and revealed preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 43-61.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:150:y:2018:i:c:p:43-61
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.04.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268118301094
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters,in: Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Rafert, Greg & Hilger, JAmes, 2011. "Expert Opinion and the Demand for Experience Goods: An Experimental Approach," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0h43433x, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser & John Swanson & Kate Lockwood, 2006. "The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 79-101, June.
    5. Hesselius, Patrik & Johansson, Per & Nilsson, Peter, 2009. "Sick of your colleagues' absence?," Working Paper Series 2009:2, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    6. David S. Lee & Thomas Lemieux, 2010. "Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 281-355, June.
    7. Imbens, Guido W. & Lemieux, Thomas, 2008. "Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 615-635, February.
    8. David A. Reinstein & Christopher M. Snyder, 2005. "THE INFLUENCE OF EXPERT REVIEWS ON CONSUMER DEMAND FOR EXPERIENCE GOODS: A CASE STUDY OF MOVIE CRITICS -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 27-51, March.
    9. Michael Anderson & Jeremy Magruder, 2012. "Learning from the Crowd: Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effects of an Online Review Database," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(563), pages 957-989, September.
    10. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    11. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:i:4:p:929-945 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2012. "Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2206-2236, August.
    13. Paul Resnick & Christopher Avery & Richard Zeckhauser, 1999. "The Market for Evaluations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 564-584, June.
    14. McCrary, Justin, 2008. "Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 698-714, February.
    15. Melnik, Mikhail I & Alm, James, 2002. "Does a Seller's Ecommerce Reputation Matter? Evidence from eBay Auctions," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 337-349, September.
    16. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    17. James Hilger & Greg Rafert & Sofia Villas-Boas, 2011. "Expert Opinion and the Demand for Experience Goods: An Experimental Approach in the Retail Wine Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1289-1296, November.
    18. Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2011. "How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 828-842, May.
    19. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    20. David Lucking-Reiley & Doug Bryan & Naghi Prasad & Daniel Reeves, 2007. "PENNIES FROM EBAY: THE DETERMINANTS OF PRICE IN ONLINE AUCTIONS -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 223-233, June.
    21. Duflo, Esther & Saez, Emmanuel, 2002. "Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: the influence of colleagues' choices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 121-148, July.
    22. Alan T. Sorensen, 2006. "Social learning and health plan choice," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 929-945, December.
    23. Ginger Zhe Jin & Andrew Kato, 2006. "Price, quality, and reputation: evidence from an online field experiment," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 983-1005, December.
    24. Pope, Devin G., 2009. "Reacting to rankings: Evidence from "America's Best Hospitals"," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1154-1165, December.
    25. Richard Friberg & Erik Grönqvist, 2012. "Do Expert Reviews Affect the Demand for Wine?," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 193-211, January.
    26. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:i:4:p:983-1005 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    28. Enrico Moretti, 2011. "Social Learning and Peer Effects in Consumption: Evidence from Movie Sales," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 356-393.
    29. Luís Cabral & Ali Hortaçsu, 2010. "THE DYNAMICS OF SELLER REPUTATION: EVIDENCE FROM EBAY -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 54-78, March.
    30. Amy Finkelstein, 2009. "E-ztax: Tax Salience and Tax Rates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(3), pages 969-1010.
    31. Abhijit V. Banerjee, 1992. "A Simple Model of Herd Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(3), pages 797-817.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Peer effects; Observational learning; Network effects; Stated preferences; Revealed preferences; eWOM; Google play; Android apps; Regression discontinuity design; Instrumental variable analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C26 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    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:eee:jeborg:v:150:y:2018:i:c:p:43-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.