IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i3p21582440241274831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Fluent Anchors More Effective? Field Experiment on Anchoring, Anchor Fluency, and Willingness to Pay

Author

Listed:
  • Tereza Simkova
  • Michal Durinik
  • Jakub Prochazka

Abstract

Processing fluency of stimuli has been shown to impact consumers’ decision-making. We investigate whether inhibiting the processing fluency of an anchor results in a more pronounced anchoring effect, as is proposed in the existing literature. We use a point-of-purchase field experiment to test the hypothesis that a disfluent anchor in a product name influences consumers’ willingness to pay for this product more than a fluent anchor. The results provide strong support against the fluency—willingness to pay relationship. Contrary to theoretical predictions, our study cautions marketing practitioners against the use of low-fluency anchors in product names.

Suggested Citation

  • Tereza Simkova & Michal Durinik & Jakub Prochazka, 2024. "Are Fluent Anchors More Effective? Field Experiment on Anchoring, Anchor Fluency, and Willingness to Pay," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:21582440241274831
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241274831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241274831
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241274831?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    2. Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir & Cenk Koçaş, 2015. "Seemingly incidental anchoring: the effect of incidental environmental anchors on consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 607-618, December.
    3. Scott Motyka & Rajneesh Suri & Dhruv Grewal & Chiranjeev Kohli, 2016. "Disfluent vs. fluent price offers: paradoxical role of processing disfluency," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 627-638, September.
    4. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.
    5. Sangsuk Yoon & Nathan M. Fong & Angelika Dimoka, 2019. "The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 470-487, July.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:470-487 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Matthew McGranaghan & Jura Liaukonyte & Geoffrey Fisher & Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2019. "Lead Offer Spillovers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 643-668, July.
    3. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2020. "Honey, Mugs and Caricatures: anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold hypothetically," Working Papers 2020-40, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    5. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    6. Thierry Magnac & Eric Maurin, 2008. "Partial Identification in Monotone Binary Models: Discrete Regressors and Interval Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(3), pages 835-864.
    7. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    8. Feng, Shan & Suri, Rajneesh & Chao, Mike Chen-Ho & Koc, Umit, 2017. "Presenting comparative price promotions vertically or horizontally: Does it matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 209-218.
    9. Philippe Polome & Anne van der Veen & Peter Geurts, 2006. "Is Referendum the Same as Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 174-188.
    10. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2021. "Are strategies anchored?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. van Soest, Arthur & Hurd, Michael, 2008. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 126-136, March.
    12. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    14. Phillips, Owen R. & Menkhaus, Dale J., 2010. "The culture of private negotiation: Endogenous price anchors in simple bilateral bargaining experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 705-715, December.
    15. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    16. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    17. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    18. Greiner, Romy & Rolfe, John, 2003. "Estimating consumer surplus and elasticity of demand of tourist visitation to a region in North Queensland using contingent valuation," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57881, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    20. Lewbel, Arthur & McFadden, Daniel & Linton, Oliver, 2011. "Estimating features of a distribution from binomial data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 170-188, June.

    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:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:21582440241274831. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.