Choosing What I Want versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions

Abstract

The authors examine the effects of using a subtractive versus an additive option-framing method on consumers' option choice decisions in three studies. The former option-framing method presents consumers with a fully loaded product and asks them to delete options they do not want. The latter presents them with a base model and asks them to add the options they do want. Combined, the studies support the managerial attractiveness of the subtractive versus the additive option-framing method. Consumers tend to choose more options with a higher total option price when they use subtractive versus additive option framing. This effect holds across different option price levels (Study 1) and product categories of varying price (Study 2). Moreover, this effect is magnified when subjects are asked to anticipate regret from their option choice decisions (Study 2). However, option framing has a different effect on the purchase likelihood of the product category itself, depending on the subject's initial interest in buying within the category. Although subtractive option framing offers strong advantages to managers when product commitment is high, it appears to demotivate category purchase when product commitment is low (Study 3). In addition, the three studies reveal several other findings about the attractiveness of subtractive versus additive option framing from the standpoint of consumers and managers. These findings, in turn, offer interesting public policy and future research implications.

Can indifference make the world greener?

“…Conducting an experiment in the field is warranted given that previous evidence on the impact of defaults is almost exclusively based on either laboratory experiments, often with hypothetical questions, (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988;Johnson et al, 1993;Park et al, 2000;Brown and Krishna, 2004;McKenzie et al, 2006;Fleming et al, 2010;Dinner et al, 2011), or observational data (Madrian and Shea, 2001;Johnson and Goldstein, 2003;Abadie and Gay, 2006;Pichert and Katsikopoulos, 2008;Haggag and Paci, forthcoming).…”

Default options and training participation

“…Default options 1 have been shown to strongly influence choices regarding organ donations Goldstein 2003, Abadie andGay 2006), car insurances (Johnson, Hershey, Meszaros, and Kunreuther 1993), car purchases (Park, Yun, and MacInnis 2000), consent with e-mail marketing (Johnson, Bellman, and Lohnse 2002) and pensions with 401(k) saving (Carroll, Choi, Laibson, Madrian, and Metrick 2009). A likely explanation for this tendency to accept defaults is that people consider them to be an advice, which emphasizes the responsibility of those who set defaults.…”

Product Development – Managing a Dispersed Process

“…For example, as shown in Figure 15, customers may appreciate a highly visual interface in which product features are literally dragged and dropped into place. Park, Jun, and MacInnis (1999) demonstrate that customers arrive at different "ideal configurations" depending on whether they are asked to add options to a base model or subtract options from a fully loaded model, suggesting that the initial configuration of a user design web site may have high impact on the data collected (in the case of market research) or sales effectiveness (in the case of mass-customized e-commerce). …”