IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v18y2011i6p483-491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of default options on choice—Evidence from online product configurators

Author

Listed:
  • Herrmann, Andreas
  • Goldstein, Daniel G.
  • Stadler, Rupert
  • Landwehr, Jan R.
  • Heitmann, Mark
  • Hofstetter, Reto
  • Huber, Frank

Abstract

Many firms use product configurators to enable customers to specify their desired products online. In such systems, defaults are pre-specified for levels of product features by the manufacturer or dealer. For example, when configuring a racing bike online, a default is predefined (e.g., the Shimano Ultegra model) for all required features (e.g., the gearshift levers). Such defaults, which may even adapt to previous choices, ensure that a functional and fully defined product emerges at the end of the configuration process. However, when designing sales systems, companies often fail to realize that these defaults also affect customer decision-making. We demonstrate the effect by a study that makes use of a fully simulated racing bike configurator. We find the following results: Moving the default of one feature (e.g. wheels) from the lowest to the highest level results in an increase in sales. In addition, the feature level defined as the default also acts as a reference point by increasing the sales of levels near to it. In order to maximize sales, the default should be set at the level of a feature that is between the medium and the highest price level. To conclude we discuss how manufacturers and dealers subtly yet powerfully influence the decision-making process with their sales systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Herrmann, Andreas & Goldstein, Daniel G. & Stadler, Rupert & Landwehr, Jan R. & Heitmann, Mark & Hofstetter, Reto & Huber, Frank, 2011. "The effect of default options on choice—Evidence from online product configurators," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 483-491.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:18:y:2011:i:6:p:483-491
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698911000592
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.005?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. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    2. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    3. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    4. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    7. Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision-making," Other publications TiSEM 38371d1b-31fd-45b0-860f-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    9. McGuire, William J, 2000. "Standing on the Shoulders of Ancients: Consumer Research, Persuasion, and Figurative Language," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 109-114, June.
    10. Nikolaus Franke & Martin Schreier & Ulrike Kaiser, 2010. "The "I Designed It Myself" Effect in Mass Customization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 125-140, January.
    11. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1995. "Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People's and Researchers' Beliefs about the Psychology of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(1), pages 62-74, June.
    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. Matzke, Andreas & Volling, Thomas & Spengler, Thomas S., 2016. "Upgrade auctions in build-to-order manufacturing with loss-averse customers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 470-479.
    2. Coker, Brent & Nagpal, Anish, 2013. "Building-Up versus Paring-Down: Consumer Responses to Recommendations When Customizing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 190-206.
    3. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    4. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    5. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    6. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    7. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2003. "The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: Asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 342-359, March.
    8. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    9. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    10. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    11. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Young, Diana L. & Goodie, Adam S. & Hall, Daniel B. & Wu, Eric, 2012. "Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 179-188.
    15. Domenico Colucci & Chiara Franco & Vincenzo Valori, 2021. "Endowment effects at different time scenarios: the role of ownership and possession," Discussion Papers 2021/279, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Basu, Anup K. & Drew, Michael E., 2010. "The appropriateness of default investment options in defined contribution plans: Australian evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 290-305, June.
    17. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    18. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Anbarci, Nejat & Arin, K. Peren & Kuhlenkasper, Torben & Zenker, Christina, 2018. "Revisiting loss aversion: Evidence from professional tennis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-18.
    20. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    21. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    22. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.

    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:joreco:v:18:y:2011:i:6:p:483-491. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-retailing-and-consumer-services .

    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.