IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joinma/v27y2013i1p47-61.html

Thinking or Feeling the Risk in Online Auctions: The Effects of Priming Auction Outcomes and the Dual System on Risk Perception and Amount Bid

Author

Listed:
  • Steinhart, Yael
  • Kamins, Michael A.
  • Mazursky, David
  • Noy, Avraham

Abstract

The present research sheds new light on the antecedents and outcomes of bidders' perceived risk. It examines the role of the two-system model in the context of activating the potential to either win or lose an online auction. This study demonstrates that when a bidder's affective system is primed, concern about losing the item is greater and ultimately the bid amount is higher when the bidder expects to lose rather than win. Conversely, when the cognitive system is primed, the anticipated goals of winning the auction – rather than the fear of losing – drive the bidder's actions. In the latter case, the bidder pays a higher amount if the expectancy of winning is primed, as opposed to the expectancy of losing. A field study on eBay and two lab studies confirm this phenomenon.

Suggested Citation

  • Steinhart, Yael & Kamins, Michael A. & Mazursky, David & Noy, Avraham, 2013. "Thinking or Feeling the Risk in Online Auctions: The Effects of Priming Auction Outcomes and the Dual System on Risk Perception and Amount Bid," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 47-61.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joinma:v:27:y:2013:i:1:p:47-61
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intmar.2012.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094996812000503
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.09.001?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel D. Zeng & James C. Cox & Moshe Dror, 2007. "Coordination of Purchasing and Bidding Activities Across Markets," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    2. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    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. Aimee Drolet & Mary Frances Luce & Itamar Simonson, 2009. "When Does Choice Reveal Preference? Moderators of Heuristic versus Goal-Based Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 137-147, June.
    5. Shailendra Pratap Jain & Nidhi Agrawal & Durairaj Maheswaran, 2006. "When More May Be Less: The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Responses to Different Comparative Frames," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(1), pages 91-98, June.
    6. Leonard Lee & On Amir & Dan Ariely, 2009. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Cognitive Noise and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 173-187.
    7. Loewenstein, George & O'Donoghue, Ted, 2004. "Animal Spirits: Affective and Deliberative Processes in Economic Behavior," Working Papers 04-14, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    8. Swinyard, William R, 1993. "The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 271-280, September.
    9. Noort, Guda Van & Kerkhof, Peter & Fennis, Bob M., 2008. "The persuasiveness of online safety cues: The impact of prevention focus compatibility of Web content on consumers’ risk perceptions, attitudes, and intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 58-72.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    11. Kamins, Michael A. & Noy, Avi & Steinhart, Yael & Mazursky, David, 2011. "The Effect of Social Cues on Sniping Behavior in Internet Auctions: Field Evidence and a Lab Experiment," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 241-250.
    12. R. Duncan Luce & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1994. "What Common Ground Exists for Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Normative Utility Theories?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 263-279, February.
    13. Carvalho, Sergio W. & Block, Lauren G. & Sivaramakrishnan, Subramanian & Manchanda, Rajesh V. & Mitakakis, Chrissy, 2008. "Risk perception and risk avoidance: The role of cultural identity and personal relevance," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 319-326.
    14. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    15. Srinivasan, Narasimhan & Ratchford, Brian T, 1991. "An Empirical Test of a Model of External Search for Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(2), pages 233-242, September.
    16. Vicki McKinney & Kanghyun Yoon & Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi, 2002. "The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 296-315, September.
    17. Forsythe, Sandra M. & Shi, Bo, 2003. "Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 867-875, November.
    18. Bosnjak, Michael & Galesic, Mirta & Tuten, Tracy, 2007. "Personality determinants of online shopping: Explaining online purchase intentions using a hierarchical approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 597-605, June.
    19. Aaker, Jennifer L & Lee, Angela Y, 2001. ""I" Seek Pleasures and "We" Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 33-49, June.
    20. Dabholkar, Pratibha A, 1994. "Incorporating Choice into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of Mental Comparison Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 100-118, June.
    21. Ku, Gillian & Malhotra, Deepak & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2005. "Towards a competitive arousal model of decision-making: A study of auction fever in live and Internet auctions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 89-103, March.
    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. Adam, Marc T.P. & Astor, Philipp J. & Krämer, Jan, 2016. "Affective Images, Emotion Regulation and Bidding Behavior: An Experiment on the Influence of Competition and Community Emotions in Internet Auctions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 56-69.
    2. Casado-Aranda, Luis-Alberto & Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco & Sánchez-Fernández, Juan, 2018. "A Neuropsychological Study on How Consumers Process Risky and Secure E-payments," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 151-164.
    3. Yael Steinhart & Michael Kamins & David Mazursky, 2019. "Influence of the “benefit of the doubt” in online auctions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 245-260, December.

    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. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    2. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    5. Adam, Marc T.P. & Krämer, Jan & Müller, Marius B., 2015. "Auction Fever! How Time Pressure and Social Competition Affect Bidders’ Arousal and Bids in Retail Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 468-485.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    7. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    8. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    9. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    10. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    11. repec:rza:wpaper:047 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    14. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    15. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    17. Gebhard Geiger, 2012. "Multi-attribute non-expected utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 263-292, July.
    18. Colin Camerer, 1998. "Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 163-183, September.
    19. Stefan Schiller, 2017. "The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    20. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    21. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:joinma:v:27:y:2013:i:1:p:47-61. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-interactive-marketing/ .

    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.