The effects of option framing on consumer choices: Making decisions in rational versus experiential processing modes

Journal of Consumer Behaviour

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 284-299

  Biswas, Dipayan ^a  

^a BENTLEY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349789865     PISSN: 14720817     EISSN: 14791838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cb.288     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Aggarwal P, Law S. 2005. Role of relationship norms in processing brand information. Journal of Consumer Research 32: 453-464.
2. Biswas D, Grau SL. 2008. Consumer choices under product option framing: loss aversion principles or sensitivity to price differentials? Psychology & Marketing 25(5): 399-415.
3. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(1): 116-131.
4. Donovan S, Epstein S. 1997. The difficulty of the linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33: 1-20.
5. Edwards K. 1990. The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(2): 202-216.
6. Epley N, Gilovich T. 2004. Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 447-460.
7. Epley N, Gilovich T. 2006. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science 17(4): 311-318.
8. Epstein S, Lipson A, Holstein C, Huh E. 1992. Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(2): 328-339.
9. Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V. 1996. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 390-405.
10. Fischhoff B. 1982. Pebiasing. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds). Cambridge University Press: New York; 422-444.
11. Foard CF, Nelson DGK. 1984. Holistic and analytical modes of processing: the multiple determinants of perceptual analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1): 94-111.
12. Gilbert DT, Pelham BW, Krull DS. 1988. On cognitive busyness: when person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 733-740.
13. Hardie BGS, Johnson EJ, Fader PS. 1993. Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Science 12(4): 378-394.
14. Huber J, Neale M, Northcraft G. 1987. Decision bias and personnel selection strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 40(1): 136-147.
15. Kermer DA, Driver-Linn E, Wilson TD, Gilbert D. 2006. Loss aversion is an affective forecasting error. Psychological Science 17(8): 649-653.
16. Krauss DA, Lieberman JD, Olson J. 2004. The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22: 801-822.
17. Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ. 1998. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76(2): 149-188.
18. Levin IP, Schreiber J, Lauriola M, Gaeth GJ. 2002. A tale of two pizzas: building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully loaded product. Marketing Letters 13(4): 317-333.
19. Lieberman JD. 2002. Head over heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(12): 2526-2553.
20. Luce MF, Payne JW, Bettman JR. 1999. Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice. Journal of Marketing Research 36: 143-159.
21. McElroy T, Seta JJ. 2003. Framing effects: an analytical-holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39(6): 610-617.
22. Menon G, Block LG, Ramanathan S. 2002. We're at much risk as we are led to believe: effects of message cues on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research 28: 533-549.
23. Menon S, Kahn B. 2002. Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing 78(1): 31-40.
24. Novak TP, Hoffman DL, Duhachek A. 2003. The influence of goal-directed and experiential activities on online flow experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13(1&2): 3-16.
25. Park CW, Jun SY, MacInnis DJ. 2000. Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: an application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 37: 187-202.
26. Pelham BW, Sumarta TT, Myaskovsky L. 1994. The easy path from many to much: the numerosity heuristic. Cognitive Psychology 26: 103-133.
27. Schoemaker PJ. 1982. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 20: 529-563.
28. Schul Y, Mayo R. 2003. Searching for certainty in an uncertain world: the difficulty of giving up the experiential for the rational mode of thinking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16: 93-106.
29. Shiv B, Fedorikhin A. 1999. Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 26: 278-292.
30. Simonson I, Drolet A. 2004. Anchoring effects on consumers' willingness-to-pay and willingness- to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research 31: 681-690.
31. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2002. Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics 31(4): 329-342.
32. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24(2): 311-322.
33. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1131.
34. Wansink B, Kent RJ, Hoch SJ. 1998. An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 35: 71-81.
35. Wilson TD, Houston CE, Etling KM, Brekke N. 1996. A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125(4): 387-403.