IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureri/117879.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Dellaert, B.G.C.
  • Johnson, E.J.
  • Baker, T.

Abstract

Health insurance decisions are a challenge for many consumers and influence welfare, health outcomes, and longevity. Two choice architecture tools are examined that can improve these decisions: informed ordering of options (from best to worst) and choice set partitioning. It is hypothesized that these tools can improve choices by changing: (1) decision focus: the options in a set on which consumers focus their attention, and (2) decision strategy: how consumers integrate the different attributes that make up the options. The first experiment focuses on the mediating role of the hypothesized decision processes on consumer decision outcomes. The outcome results are validated further in a field study of over 40,000 consumers making actual health insurance choices and in two additional experiments. The results show that informed ordering and partitioning can reduce consumers’ mistakes by hundreds of dollars per year. They suggest that wise choice architecture interventions depend upon two factors: The quality of the user model possessed by the firm to predict consumers’ best choice and possible interactions among the ensemble of choice architecture tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Dellaert, B.G.C. & Johnson, E.J. & Baker, T., 2019. "Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2019-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
  • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:117879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/117879/ERS-2019-008-MKT.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maya Bar-Hillel, 2015. "Position Effects in Choice from Simultaneous Displays: A Conundrum Solved," Discussion Paper Series dp678, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    2. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    3. Lohse, Gerald L. & Johnson, Eric J., 1996. "A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 28-43, October.
    4. Nils Reisen & Ulrich Hoffrage & Fred W. Mast, 2008. "Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(8), pages 641-658, December.
    5. Atalay , Selin & Onur Bodur , H. & Rasolofoarison , Dina, 2012. "Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice," HEC Research Papers Series 978, HEC Paris.
    6. Johnson, Eric J & Meyer, Robert J, 1984. "Compensatory Choice Models of Noncompensatory Processes: The Effect of Varying Context," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 528-541, June.
    7. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2018. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Post-Print hal-01914908, HAL.
    8. Selin Atalay & H. Onur Bodur & Dina Rasolofoarison, 2012. "Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice," Post-Print hal-00758534, HAL.
    9. Gerald Häubl & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Bas Donkers, 2010. "Tunnel Vision: Local Behavioral Influences on Consumer Decisions in Product Search," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 438-455, 05-06.
    10. A. Selin Atalay & H. Onur Bodur & Dina Rasolofoarison, 2012. "Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 848-866.
    11. Keith Marzilli Ericson & Amanda Starc, 2012. "Heuristics and Heterogeneity in Health Insurance Exchanges: Evidence from the Massachusetts Connector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 493-497, May.
    12. Cait Poynor Lamberton & Kristin Diehl, 2013. "Retail Choice Architecture: The Effects of Benefit- and Attribute-Based Assortment Organization on Consumer Perceptions and Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 393-411.
    13. John G. Lynch , Jr. & Dan Ariely, 2000. "Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 83-103, April.
    14. Eric J Johnson & Ran Hassin & Tom Baker & Allison T Bajger & Galen Treuer, 2013. "Can Consumers Make Affordable Care Affordable? The Value of Choice Architecture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-6, December.
    15. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    16. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    17. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    18. Saurabh Bhargava & George Loewenstein & Justin Sydnor, 2017. "Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Option," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 132(3), pages 1319-1372.
    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. Dolnicar, Sara, 2020. "Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    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. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Baker, T. & Johnson, E.J., 2017. "Partitioning Sorted Sets: Overcoming Choice Overload while Maintaining Decision Quality," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 18-2, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Mason, Richard, 2019. "Digital enrollment architecture and retirement savings decisions: Evidence from the field," Other publications TiSEM 58639618-e34e-4b5c-8c8c-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "An analysis of process-tracing research on consumer decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-320.
    4. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    6. Yu, Junwei & Droulers, Olivier & Lacoste-Badie, Sophie, 2022. "Why display motion on packaging? The effect of implied motion on consumer behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Husić-Mehmedović, Melika & Omeragić, Ismir & Batagelj, Zenel & Kolar, Tomaž, 2017. "Seeing is not necessarily liking: Advancing research on package design with eye-tracking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 145-154.
    8. Tong V. Wang & Rogier J. D. Potter van Loon & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Number preferences in lotteries," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 243-259, May.
    9. Lindström, Annika & Berg, Hanna & Nordfält, Jens & Roggeveen, Anne L. & Grewal, Dhruv, 2016. "Does the presence of a mannequin head change shopping behavior?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 517-524.
    10. Savannah Wei Shi & Hai Che & Lang Jin, 2021. "Strategic Product Displays Across Different Assortment Levels," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(3), pages 84-101, September.
    11. Orquin, Jacob L. & Bagger, Martin P. & Lahm, Erik S. & Grunert, Klaus G. & Scholderer, Joachim, 2020. "The visual ecology of product packaging and its effects on consumer attention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-195.
    12. Milica Mormann & Tom Griffiths & Chris Janiszewski & J. Edward Russo & Anocha Aribarg & Nathaniel J. S. Ashby & Rajesh Bagchi & Sudeep Bhatia & Aleksandra Kovacheva & Martin Meissner & Kellen J. Mrkva, 2020. "Time to pay attention to attention: using attention-based process traces to better understand consumer decision-making," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 381-392, December.
    13. Greenacre, Luke & Martin, James & Patrick, Sarah & Jaeger, Victoria, 2016. "Boundaries of the centrality effect during product choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-38.
    14. Huddleston, Patricia T. & Behe, Bridget K. & Driesener, Carl & Minahan, S., 2018. "Inside-outside: Using eye-tracking to investigate search-choice processes in the retail environment," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 85-93.
    15. Lacoste-Badie, Sophie & Gagnan, Arnaud Bigoin & Droulers, Olivier, 2020. "Front of pack symmetry influences visual attention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    16. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    17. Orth, Ulrich R. & Crouch, Roberta C., 2014. "Is Beauty in the Aisles of the Retailer? Package Processing in Visually Complex Contexts," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(4), pages 524-537.
    18. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    19. Gupta, Shipra & Coskun, Merve, 2021. "The influence of human crowding and store messiness on consumer purchase intention– the role of contamination and scarcity perceptions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    20. Jacob L Orquin & Sonja Perkovic & Klaus G Grunert, 2018. "Visual Biases in Decision Making," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 523-537, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice architecture; decision-making; consumer decision process; health insurance choice; consumer welfare;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ems:eureri:117879. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

    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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

    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.