When and Why Consumers “Accidentally” Endanger Their Products

Abstract

In this article, we examine whether consumers may “accidentally” endanger a product they own when a new version of the product is introduced. We propose that owners endanger their product when they want to upgrade to a new version but have difficulty justifying the upgrade and that owners find justification more difficult when a new version offers an improved design but does not offer a significant technological improvement. Owners endanger their product hoping that it will be fortuitously damaged. Product damage provides owners with a good reason to upgrade. Focusing on iPhone as a case study, field data and experiments provide evidence for product endangering, and they support the role of justification in three ways. First, as hypothesized, endangering occurs when the new product offers an improved design but does not offer a significant technological improvement. Second, owners are less likely to endanger a product that is under warranty; therefore, damage to it will not enable upgrading. Third, owners are more likely to endanger their product when their justification concerns are heightened. This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.

Perception bias, social embedding and consumer willingness to pay for chilled pork packaging: empirical analysis based on multiple experiments

“…Perception bias is a negative factor for consumers' chilled meat packaging WTP. Manufacturers correct the consumer perception bias and strive for higher WTP of consumers through measures including consumer education (Shani et al, 2020) and information intervention (Breda et al, 2020). "Sensory experience" is an ignorable but effective method to correct perception bias, encouraging consumers to renew their knowledge about product quality and performance (Ajzen, 1996;Tezer and Bodur, 2020).…”

The role of electronic waste management solutions and message framing in influencing consumer behaviours: Exploring the crowdfunding context

“…To conclude, it is worth noting that current literature on consumer decisions related to e‐waste management mainly analyses individual products such as mobile phones (e.g., Baxter & Gram‐Hanssen, 2016; Makov et al, 2019; Mugge et al, 2017; Penners et al, 2018; Shani et al, 2020; Van Weelden et al, 2016) and computers (e.g., Yamamoto & Murakami, 2022), neglecting other devices.…”

Is repairability enough? big data insights into smartphone obsolescence and consumer interest in repair

“…In contrast, replacing a product before it has been fully depreciated mentally, is harder since it forces the consumer to write off the residual value as a loss in the mental accounting book. This psychological mechanism makes it easier for consumers to retire products that are not functioning properly, and search for a functional justification even when one does not really exist (Shani et al, 2020).…”

“…Despite inferences that modern society has adopted a 'throwaway culture" (Cooper, 2005), research suggests that people prefer to avoid the guilt associated with unnecessary or wasteful consumption (Bolton and Alba, 2012), and seek to justify their purchases, preferably on the basis of utilitarian and/or functional reasons (Keinan et al, 2016;Okada, 2001;Shani et al, 2020). In other words, when considering whether or not to upgrade, consumers feel the need to justify not only why they should buy a new smartphone but also why it is reasonable and/or acceptable for them to let go of their current one.…”

“…This "upgrade effect" stems from consumers' need to justify the purchase of a replacement product when they haven't gotten all 'their money's worth' out of what they already own. More recently, Shani et al (2020) used smartphones as a case study to demonstrate that consumers can more easily justify an upgrade purchase when the new model offers functional improvements over their current device compared to when the new model offers only stylistic or aesthetic improvements. They argue that differences in functional performance between the incumbent and newer model, give consumers just cause, or a "functional alibi," to purchase a smartphone they desire yet feel wastefully guilty to buy (Keinan et al, 2016).…”