Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (5) : 625-636     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00625
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Quality or price? The effect of stock-out middle option on consumer choices
YAO Qing1,CHEN Rong2()
1 Donlinks School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
2 School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Download: PDF(441 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Consumers in real world sometimes face situations in which information about unavailable products is still present in the decision contexts. For example, consumers may find that certain options are sold out and thus marked by an out-of-stock stamp in such a way that consumers can still examine their attributes information. Traditional models of consumer choices have assumed that the addition of an unavailable alternative to a choice set has no impact on the shares among the original alternatives. However, recent studies on asymmetrical dominance choice sets suggest that adding an alternative that asymmetrically dominates a targeted alternative and is declared to be unavailable increases preference for the target in the original choice set. Three categories of theories, range-weighting, similarity-substitution and relative-advantage, have been used to explain the phenomenon.
Despite prior research interest in extending attraction effect in unavailability context, little is understood about how unavailable options influence preferences among available options in other choice settings. Dominant literature have advocate for the preference for the compromised option in a three-option set. Thus, it is typical that the unavailable option is the compromised one. The above three explanations all fail to predict the preference on the remaining options in this situation.
We propose that consumers are experiencing increasing decision difficulty or feeling greater conflict deciding in the unavailable compromise set than in the two-option set, and thus are likely to alleviate this negative task-related emotion by engaging in conflict-reducing heuristics. In particular, if choice of the compromise option that is associated with smallest maximum error or likelihood of being criticized is impossible, consumers forced to make difficult trade-offs among extremes are likely to rely more on the unambiguous attribute in the evaluations, because unambiguous outcome is associated with a lower likelihood of criticism. Thus, consumers seek to guarantee (avoid) advantages (disadvantages) of their selected option in precision rather than in ambiguity. Based on findings that attributes in quantitative nature (e.g., price) are easier to trade-off than attributes (e.g., quality) in qualitative nature, we predict that the relative preferences for low-quality, low-price option which has a precise and certain advantage will be stronger in presence than in absence of an unavailable intermediate option.
Study 1 establishes that the addition of an unavailable compromise option into a two-option local set can increase the relative share of the cheaper option. In Study 2, we demonstrate that the degree to which the quality advantage (disadvantage) can be ambiguously evaluated moderates this effect. When the value of quality becomes less ambiguous to evaluate (providing experts’ quality evaluations, Study 2A) or more ambiguous to evaluate (describing product quality by a range of performance, Study 2B), the effect that the cheaper option fares better in the unavailable middle option set attenuates or strengthens. Study 3 further examines the underlying mechanism by testing the moderating effect of consumer product knowledge, and the mediating effect of decision conflict. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications.

Keywords compromise option      unavailable      decision conflict      consumer preference     
ZTFLH:  B849: F713.55  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: Rong CHEN     E-mail: chenr@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn
Issue Date: 20 March 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YAO Qing
CHEN Rong
Cite this article:   
YAO Qing,CHEN Rong. Quality or price? The effect of stock-out middle option on consumer choices[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(5): 625-636.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00625     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I5/625
  
  
  
选项 %对照组
{A, C}
%折衷商品不可得组
{A, B不可得, C}
%三选组
{A, B, C}
数码相机 N = 60 N = 62 N = 60
A 46.7 66.1 13.3
B 46.7
C 53.3 33.9 40.0
租车服务 N = 58 N = 62 N = 60
A 37.9 58.1 11.7
B 48.3
C 62.1 41.9 40.0
  
选项 %无专家质量评分 %有专家质量评分
{A, C} N = 60 {A, B不可得, C} N = 60 {A, B, C} N = 60 {A, C} N = 58 {A, B不可得, C} N = 58 {A, B, C} N = 56
A 36.7 65 8.3 40 36.7 13.3
B 55 36.7
C 63.3 35 36.7 60 63.3 50
  
选项 % 模糊范围 % 精确数值
{A, C} N = 60 {A, B不可得, C} N = 60 {A, B, C} N = 60 {A, C} N = 60 {A, B不可得, C} N = 60 {A, B, C} N = 60
A 43.3 75 21.1 38.3 56.7 20
B 42.1 45
C 56.7 25 36.8 61.7 43.3 35
  
选项 %专业知识较少 %专业知识丰富
{A, C} N = 56 {A, B不可得, C} N = 57 {A, B, C} N = 46 {A, C} N = 54 {A, B不可得, C} N = 58 {A, B, C} N = 60
A 42.9 70.2 10.9 35.2 34.5 13.3
B 56.5 35
C 57.1 29.8 32.6 64.8 65.5 51.7
  
1 Ang S. H., Leong S. M., & Tey W. L . ( 1997). Effects of price reduction sale ads on consumer responses. Pricing Strategy and Practice, 5( 3), 116-125.
2 Armitage, C. J., & Arden, M. A . ( 2007). Felt and potential ambivalence across the stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology, 12( 1), 149-158.
3 Baumeister R. F., Sparks E. A., Stillman T. F., & Vohs K. D . ( 2008). Free will in consumer behavior: Self-control, ego depletion, and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18( 1), 4-13.
4 Berlyne, D. E . ( 1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill series in psychology. New York, US.
5 Campo K., Gijsbrechts E., & Nisol P . ( 2000). Towards understanding consumer response to stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 76( 2), 219-242.
6 Carmon Z., Wertenbroch K., & Zeelenberg M . ( 2003). Option attachment: When deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. Journal of Consumer Research, 30( 1), 15-29.
7 Chatterjee, S., & Heath, T. B . ( 1996). Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: The effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67( 2), 144-155.
8 Choplin, J. M., & Hummel, J. E . ( 2005). Comparison-induced decoy effect. Memory & Cognition, 33( 2), 332-343.
9 Chuang H. H. C., Oliva R., & Liu S . ( 2015). On-shelf availability, retail performance, and external audits: A field experiment. Production and Operations Management, 25( 5), 935-951.
10 Clarkson J. J., Janiszewski C., & Cinelli M. D . ( 2013). The desire for consumption knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 39( 6), 1313-1329.
11 d’Astous, A., & Landreville, V . ( 2003). An experimental investigation of factors affecting consumers’ perceptions of sales promotions. European Journal of Marketing, 37( 11-12), 1746-1761.
12 Dhar, R. ( 1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24( 2), 215-231.
13 Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M . ( 1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25( 4), 369-384.
14 Dhar R., Nowlis S. M., & Sherman S. J . ( 2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 ( 4), 189-200.
15 Dhar, R., & Simonson, I . ( 1999). Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: Highlighting versus balancing. Journal of Marketing Research, 36( 1), 29-44.
16 Dhar, R., & Simonson, I . ( 2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40( 2), 146-160.
17 Festinger, L. ( 1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207( 4), 93-107.
18 Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R . ( 2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32( 3), 370-377.
19 Fitzsimons, G. J . ( 2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27( 2), 249-266.
20 Ge X., Messinger P. R., & Li J . ( 2009). Influence of soldout products on consumer choice. Journal of Retailing, 85( 3), 274-287.
21 Gierl, H., & Huettl, V . ( 2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of different types of scarcity signals with products’ suitability for conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27( 3), 225-235.
22 Ha, Y. W., & Hoch, S. J . ( 1989). Ambiguity, processing strategy, and advertising-evidence interactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 16( 3), 354-360.
23 Hedgcock, W., & Rao, A. R . ( 2009). Could Ralph Nader’s entrance and exit have helped Al Gore? The impact of decoy dynamics on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46( 3), 330-343.
24 Hsee, C. K . ( 1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67( 3), 247-257.
25 Huang Y. H., & Zhang, Y. C . ( 2016). The out-of-stock (OOS) effect on choice shares of available options. Journal of Retailing, 92( 1), 13-24.
26 Huber J., Payne J. W., & Puto C . ( 1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9( 1), 90-98.
27 Inman, J. J., & Zeelenberg, M . ( 2002). Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: The attenuating role of decision justifiability. Journal of Consumer Research, 29( 1), 116-128.
28 Jung J. M., & Kellaris, J. J . ( 2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: The moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology & Marketing, 21( 9), 739-753.
29 Khan U., Zhu M., & Kalra A . ( 2011). When trade-offs matter: The effect of choice construal on context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 48( 1), 62-71.
30 Kim, M., & Lennon, S. J . ( 2011). Consumer response to online apparel stockouts. Psychology & Marketing, 28( 2), 115-144.
31 Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I . ( 2000). The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 37( 4), 427-448.
32 Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I . ( 2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant of customer preferences toward frequency program rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39( 2), 155-170.
33 Krishna A., Briesch R., Lehmann D. R., & Yuan H . ( 2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78( 2), 101-118.
34 Ku H. H., Kuo C. C., Fang W. L., & Yu Y. W . ( 2014). The impact of retail out-of-stock options on preferences: The role of consumers’ desire for assimilation versus differentiation. Marketing Letters, 25( 1), 53-66.
35 Levav J., Kivetz R., & Cho C. K . ( 2010). Motivational compatibility and choice conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 37( 3), 429-442.
36 Li D. J., Zheng J., Jin H. Z., & Zhang C. B . ( 2017). A study on phantom decoy effects of consumer decision-making context cue-based on priming strategy model in double attribute space. Management Review, 29( 6), 189-201.
36 [ 李东进, 郑军, 金慧贞, 张初兵 . ( 2017). 消费者决策情境线索的虚位诱导效应研究——基于双属性空间启动策略模型, 管理评论, 29( 6), 189-201.]
37 Luce M. F., Payne J. W., & Bettman J. R . ( 1999). Emotional tradeoff difficulty and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 36( 2), 143-159.
38 Mishra S., Umesh U. N., & Stem D. E . ( 1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30( 3), 331-349.
39 Morimoto, M., & Chang, S . ( 2006). Consumers’ attitudes toward unsolicited commercial e-mail and postal direct mail marketing methods. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7( 1), 1-11.
40 Muthukrishnan, A. V., & Kardes, F. R . ( 2001). Persistent preferences for product attributes: The effects of the initial choice context and uninformative experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 28( 1), 89-104.
41 Muthukrishnan A. V., Wathieu L., & Xu A. J . ( 2009). Ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands. Management Science, 55( 12), 1933-1941.
42 Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H . ( 2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81( 2), 300-328.
43 Pettibone J. C., & Wedell, D. H . ( 2007). Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20( 3), 323-341.
44 Pratkanis A. R., & Farguhar, P. H . ( 1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 13( 1), 103-122.
45 Preacher K. J., Rucker D. D., & Hayes A. F . ( 2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42( 1), 185-227.
46 Shafir, E., Simonson, I. & Tversky, I . ( 1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49( 1-2), 11-36.
47 Sheng S. B., Parker A. M., & Nakamoto K . ( 2005). Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22( 7), 591-609.
48 Simonson, I. ( 1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16( 2), 158-174.
49 Simonson I., Nowlis S., & Lemon K . ( 1993). The effects of local consideration sets on global choice between lower price and higher quality. Marketing Science, 12( 4), 357-377.
50 Simonson, I., & Tversky, A . ( 1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29( 3), 281-295.
51 Sloot L. M., Verhoef P. C., & Franses P. H . ( 2005). The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 81( 1), 15-34.
52 Spiller S. A., Fitzsimons G. J., Lynch J. G., & Mcclelland G. H . ( 2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50( 2), 277-288.
53 Stafford M. R., & Stafford, T. F . ( 2000). The effectiveness of tensile pricing tactics in the advertising of services. Journal of Advertising, 29( 2), 45-60.
54 Trautmann S. T., Vieider. F. M., & Wakker P. P . ( 2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36( 3), 225-243.
55 Tversky, A., & Simonson, I . ( 1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39( 10), 1179-1189.
56 Wang J., Novemsky N., Dhar R., & Baumeister R. F . ( 2010). Trade-offs and depletion in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 47( 5), 910-919.
57 Yao Q., Chen R., & Zhao P . ( 2013). Precise versus imprecise promotional rewards at small probabilities: Moderating from purchase value and promotion budget. European Journal of Marketing, 47 ( 5-6), 1006-1021.
58 Xu J., Jiang Z. X., & Dhar R . ( 2013). Mental representation and perceived similarity: How abstract mindset aids choice from large assortments. Journal of Marketing Research, 50( 4), 548-559.
59 Zhao X. S., Lynch J. G., & Chen Q. M . ( 2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37( 2), 197-206.
[1] DING Ying; GONG Xiushuang. he influence of social exclusion on consumer preference for products with different textures and its underlying process[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(10): 1302-1313.
[2] LI Xiao-Ming;XIE Jia. The Influence Mechanism of Incidental Emotions on Choice Deferral[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(12): 1641-1650.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech