2013
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20666
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Option Framing and Product Feature Recommendations: Product Configuration and Choice

Abstract: When configuring a customized product, consumers must decide which product features to include. While many times firms allow consumers to add features to a base item (hereinafter referred to as additive option framing), it is also possible in some settings to remove undesired features from a fully equipped product (subtractive option framing). At the same time, companies not only provide different option-framing formats, but also include recommendations from different sources such as what other customers have … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This research makes several theoretical contributions. First, it bridges the gap between the domain of product customization and the emerging field of choice architecture (Goldstein et al 2008; Johnson et al 2012; Lamberton and Diehl 2013; Thaler and Sunstein 2008) while advancing prior work on option framing (Herrmann et al 2013; Park, Jun, and MacInnis 2000). Specifically, we introduce a novel choice architecture for consumers' product customization decisions— CvSS—as an alternative to the standard attribute-by-attribute format.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This research makes several theoretical contributions. First, it bridges the gap between the domain of product customization and the emerging field of choice architecture (Goldstein et al 2008; Johnson et al 2012; Lamberton and Diehl 2013; Thaler and Sunstein 2008) while advancing prior work on option framing (Herrmann et al 2013; Park, Jun, and MacInnis 2000). Specifically, we introduce a novel choice architecture for consumers' product customization decisions— CvSS—as an alternative to the standard attribute-by-attribute format.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior research has examined the effects of either presenting people with a fully loaded alternative and asking them to remove options they do not want (“subtractive option framing”) or presenting them with the most basic alternative and asking them to add any options they desire (“additive option framing”) (Park, Jun, and MacInnis 2000). The result of such framing is that starting from a fully loaded (most basic) alternative leads to the choice of more (fewer) options (Herrmann et al 2013; Park, Jun, and MacInnis 2000), in line with reference dependence and loss aversion (Kahneman and Tversky 1984; Smith, Goldstein, and Johnson 2013). The initially presented alternative in a subtractive versus additive framing paradigm could be viewed as a starting solution.…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is an aspect where consumers can modify their current situation according to their needs and wants (Sparks & Chung, 2016). CUST is a component that provides consumers with the ability to alter the position according to their preferences (Herrmann et al, 2013). CUST is an essential element and can provide usability, convenience, and improved performance (S. Kim et al, 2016).…”
Section: Perceived Cust Of Ai-powered Avatarmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, the current work also contributes to prior research on product customization (Dellaert and Stremersch 2005;Franke et al 2010;Herrmann et al 2013). The majority of this prior research has examined outcomes such as a greater willingness-to-pay for self-designed products (Franke et al 2010), consumers' satisfaction with these products (Hildebrand et al 2014), or the cognitive difficulty of selfdesign processes relative to off-the-shelf alternatives (Levav et al 2010).…”
Section: Conventionalmentioning
confidence: 94%