IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v117y2012i2p341-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What do these clinical trial results mean? How product efficacy judgments are affected by data partitioning, framing, and quantification

Author

Listed:
  • Biswas, Dipayan
  • Pechmann, Cornelia

Abstract

Organizations often present data related to clinical trials, and other product efficacy information, in partitioned or aggregated formats, as successes or failures, and as frequencies or percentages. We examine how such different data presentation formats might interact to influence product efficacy judgments. The results of five experiments indicate that partitioned (vs. aggregated) frequency data affect judgments regarding perceived product efficacy and these effects are moderated by data frames (success vs. failure) and quantification (frequencies vs. percentages). Specifically, success-framed, partitioned, frequency data enhance product efficacy judgments and choice, while failure-framed, partitioned, frequency data have the opposite effects. However, these effects get attenuated when data are aggregated or presented as percentages.

Suggested Citation

  • Biswas, Dipayan & Pechmann, Cornelia, 2012. "What do these clinical trial results mean? How product efficacy judgments are affected by data partitioning, framing, and quantification," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 341-350.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:341-350
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811001348
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    2. William Boulding & Ajay Kalra & Richard Staelin, 1999. "The Quality Double Whammy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 463-484.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:6:p:435-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    5. Cara L. Cuite & Neil D. Weinstein & Karen Emmons & Graham Colditz, 2008. "A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 377-384, May.
    6. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    7. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    8. Yinlong Zhang & Vikas Mittal, 2005. "Decision Difficulty: Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 465-472, December.
    9. repec:bla:econom:v:58:y:1991:i:232:p:417-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Menon, Geeta & Block, Lauren G & Ramanathan, Suresh, 2002. "We're at As Much Risk As We Are Led to Believe: Effects of Message Cues on Judgments of Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, March.
    11. Ratneshwar, S & Chaiken, Shelly, 1991. "Comprehension's Role in Persuasion: The Case of Its Moderating Effect on the Persuasive Impact of," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(1), pages 52-62, June.
    12. Hoch, Stephen J & Ha, Young-Won, 1986. "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 221-233, September.
    13. Pechmann, Cornelia & Ratneshwar, S, 1992. "Consumer Covariation Judgments: Theory or Data Driven?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(3), pages 373-386, December.
    14. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    15. Janiszewski, Chris & Silk, Tim & Cooke, Alan D J, 2003. "Different Scales for Different Frames: The Role of Subjective Scales and Experience in Explaining Attribute-Framing Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 311-325, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jain, Gaurav & Gaeth, Gary J. & Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay & Levin, Irwin P., 2020. "Revisiting attribute framing: The impact of number roundedness on framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 109-119.
    2. Kuo, Ying-Feng & Lin, Cathy S. & Liu, Li-Te, 2022. "The effects of framing messages and cause-related marketing on backing intentions in reward-based crowdfunding," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:390-397 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. L. Robin Keller & Rakesh K. Sarin & Jayavel Sounderpandian, 2007. "An examination of ambiguity aversion: Are two heads better than one?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 390-397, December.
    5. Á. Ní Choisdealbha & P. D. Lunn, 2020. "Green and Simple: Disclosures on Eco-labels Interact with Situational Constraints in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 699-722, December.
    6. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    7. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2014. "Search for the underlying mechanism of framing effects in multi-alternative and multi-attribute decision situations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 378-385.
    8. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robert Mauro & Paul Slovic, 2010. "The Effects of Presenting Imprecise Probabilities in Intelligence Forecasts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 987-1001, June.
    9. Grappe, Cindy G. & Lombart, Cindy & Louis, Didier & Durif, Fabien, 2022. "Clean labeling: Is it about the presence of benefits or the absence of detriments? Consumer response to personal care claims," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Loïc Berger, 2014. "The Impact of Ambiguity Prudence on Insurance and Prevention," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-08, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    12. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    13. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    14. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    15. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    16. Wong, Kit Pong, 2024. "Optimal nonlinear pricing by a monopoly with smooth ambiguity preferences," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 594-604.
    17. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    18. Ronald Klingebiel & Feibai Zhu, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion and the degree of ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 299-324, December.
    19. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    20. Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Ockenfels, Peter & Wilde, Christian, 2014. "Measuring ambiguity aversion: A systematic experimental approach," SAFE Working Paper Series 55, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    21. Cindy Grappe & Cindy Lombart & Didier Louis & Fabien Durif, 2022. "Clean labeling: Is it about the presence of benefits or the absence of detriments? Consumer response to personal care claims," Post-Print hal-04293232, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:341-350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.