A big fish or a small pond? Framing effects in percentages

Li, Meng; Chapman, Gretchen B.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.003

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Descriptive and presentational aspects of product attributes also affect choice. A nonexhaustive list includes positive or negative framing (Levin, Schneider, & Gaeth, 1998), the unit of magnitude (Lembregts & Pandelaere, 2013), the denominator for basing a percentage (Li & Chapman, 2013), compatibility (Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013), salience (Enax, Krajbich, & Weber, 2016), attentional attraction (Mackenzie, 1986), the emotional content of presentations (Lee, Amir, & Ariely, 2009), and ease of perceptual processing (Shah & Oppenheimer, 2007). Large experimental literatures also demonstrate context effects specific to choices that involve risk (e.g., investments; for discussion, see Vlaev, Chater, & Stewart, 2008) or partitioned prices (Greenleaf, Johnson, Morwitz, & Shalev, 2016).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The surplus identification task and limits to multiattribute consumer choice.

Lunn

Bohacek

McGowan

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use:Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes.You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public.If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.

show abstract

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The surplus identification task and limits to multiattribute consumer choice.

Lunn

Bohacek

McGowan

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted above, only a few studies provide empirical evidence of consumers' responses to 100% claims; these responses, as might be expected, are generally positive (Berry et al, 2017; Li & Chapman, 2009, 2013). However, works in this vein have focused on claims in which the perfection implied by the term 100% is compatible with the associated product attribute (e.g., a vaccine that is “100% effective” against the virus strains it targets, meaning that it completely prevents infection with those viruses; Li & Chapman, 2009).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Previous research suggests that people attribute excessive weight to the advantages offered by “perfect” attributes ( perfection premium ; Isaac & Spangenberg, 2021), which may motivate marketers to use perfection to advance their products (Spurgin, 2003). In the context of product claims, a study has shown that the use of the term “100%” can successfully elicit a perfection premium; consumers evaluated coffee more favorably when one of its ingredients was described as “100% organic” (compared with 25%, 40%, 50%, 80%, or 95% organic; Li & Chapman, 2013).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of pseudo‐relevant 100% claims

Munichor,

Levontin

2023

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “100%” represents perfection. Thus, it is not surprising that marketers believe that claims that contain this term (e.g., “100% organic”) can make products more appealing. This intuition is reflected in the extensive use of 100% claims to describe products' qualities. We discuss how the term 100% can be used to create a claim about perfection that seems to, but does not, provide meaningful information about a product's benefits (e.g., “100% juice”). By appearing to be, but actually not being, relevant to the judgment at hand, these so‐called pseudo‐relevant 100% claims may mislead consumers into making baseless positive assumptions regarding the focal product. Three studies examine how consumers respond to pseudo‐relevant 100% claims. Our results suggest that pseudo‐relevant 100% claims lead to lower product evaluations and consumption intentions than similar claims that include adjacent percentages or no numerical terms. Interestingly, they also suggest spillover effects onto evaluations of the products' customers. Our findings show that consumers pick up on the meaninglessness of the promise of perfection implied by the term “100%” in pseudo‐relevant 100% claims, which causes them to perceive the product as less appealing.

show abstract

“…Studies of framing demonstrate that people routinely accept information as it is given rather than actively processes it with multiple frames (Kühberger, 1998;Levin, Schneider & Gaeth, 1998;Li & Chapman, 2013;Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Framing effects can reverse preferences.…”

Section: Trade-upgrade Framing Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade-upgrade framing effects: Trades are losses, but upgrades are improvements

Sun

Mellers

2016

Judgm. decis. mak.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two studies, people were reluctant to trade items they own, but glad to accept upgrades with identical end states. The framing of the transaction makes a difference. A mediational analysis suggests that the relationship between the frame of the transaction and measures of value (willingness to accept, WTA) depends on perceived losses. Losses are perceived as greater when the transaction is a trade than as an upgrade. We manipulated perceptions of loss across descriptions of transactions and found that, when the difference in perceptions of losses with trades versus upgrades was large, framing effects were strong. But when the difference was small, framing effects disappeared. These framing effects with identical end states influence WTA because trades are associated with perceived losses, while upgrades are associated with perceived costs.

show abstract

A big fish or a small pond? Framing effects in percentages

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

The surplus identification task and limits to multiattribute consumer choice.

The surplus identification task and limits to multiattribute consumer choice.

The effects of pseudo‐relevant 100% claims

Trade-upgrade framing effects: Trades are losses, but upgrades are improvements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About