The role of idiosyncratic attribute evaluation in mass customization

Abstract

The growing use of mass customization necessitates an understanding of consumers' evaluations of mass customization platforms. We hypothesize that consumers' objective and subjective knowledge of the customized product moderate the influence of idiosyncratically evaluated (i.e., personalizable) attributes on satisfaction with a customization platform. Consistent with our theoretical framework, results from three experiments show that offering greater variety in idiosyncratically evaluated attribute options increases consumers' satisfaction to a greater extent for: (1) novices than experts (2) consumers with more subjective knowledge, and (3) miscalibrated consumers whose subjective knowledge does not match their objective knowledge, than calibrated consumers whose subjective and objective knowledge match.

Local Building Regulators’ Institutionalised Behaviour Towards Mass Customised Housing (MCH)

“…In Japan, for instance, house manufacturers offer an almost pure MCH model. To illustrate, Sekisui Heim Ltd has been manufacturing customised housing at a mass scale since after the Second World War (Puligadda et al, 2010). At the other end of the MCH spectrum is limited customisation; an example is Optional Component Scheme (OCS) by the Housing Development Authority of Singapore that offers some specification options for its new flats (Singapore HDB, 2015).…”

The Effect of Overconfidence and Underconfidence on Consumer Value

“…On the one hand, overconfident consumers “act presumptuously” (Pillai & Hofacker, , p. 263; i.e., engage in actions that are too difficult to perform), as they think they have enough knowledge to handle these actions. Acting presumptuously might lead to inappropriate purchase decisions (Alba & Hutchinson, ; Hansen & Thomsen, ; Kidwell, Hardesty, & Childers, ), risky investment decisions (Hadar, Sood, & Fox, ), a lack of flow state of mind (i.e., an optimal state of mind where there is a deep engagement with a consumption task [Csikszentmihalyi, ]; Pillai & Hofacker, ), frustration (Pillai & Hofacker, ), and satisfaction with the variety of personalizable product‐attribute options (i.e., those attribute options that are evaluated based on personal preferences, such as mobile phone color; Puligadda et al., ). On the other hand, this paper suggests that underconfident consumers act timidly (i.e., engage in actions that are too easy to perform) due to the fact that they think they do not have enough knowledge to engage with challenging actions.…”

“…Although the antecedents of knowledge miscalibration have been researched (e.g., Coupey & Narayanan, 1996;Frankenberger & Albaum, 1997;Pillai & Hofacker, 2007;Poynor & Wood, 2010), the consequences have had less attention (Puligadda, Grewal, Rangaswamy, & Kardes, 2010). The paper identifies three broad categories of consequences of overconfidence and underconfidence (Table 1): (1) allocation of resources to consumption, (2) the approach to act in consumption, and (3) consumption outcome expectations.…”

“…Superoptimal allocation of resources may lead to negative consequences such as frustration (Pillai & Hofacker, 2007). Puligadda et al (2010) Second, knowledge miscalibration influences the way to act in consumption. On the one hand, overconfident consumers "act presumptuously" (Pillai & Hofacker, 2007, p. 263;i.e., engage in actions that are too difficult to perform), as they think they have enough knowledge to handle these actions.…”

The effect of expertise on the relation between implicit and explicit attitude measures: An information availability/accessibility perspective

“…For example, Nosek (2005) argues that sports fans (that is, experts in their favorite sport) may set the norm with their attitudes as opinion leaders. A promising avenue for the clarification of these relations is to distinguish between objective expertise and subjective confidence in that knowledge (Puligadda et al, 2010). We could for example argue that highly confident experts would more likely act as opinion leaders than their more hesitant peers.…”