IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i13p5484-d381468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Default Option and Lateral Presentation on Consumer Choice of the Sustainable Option in an Online Choice Task

Author

Listed:
  • Gerrit Antonides

    (Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Michelle Welvaarts

    (Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In order to reduce the environmental impact of products, sustainability must be improved in many industries. One way to accomplish this aim is to influence consumers by means of nudging in order to choose more sustainable products in online choices. We investigated whether the lateral presentation of products from left to right or from right to left, along with using a status quo default option, influence sustainable choices of make-up products. A pilot study has been conducted in order to obtain background information on make-up choices. Next, an online, quantitative experiment has been conducted in which 330 women together made 1094 hypothetical make-up product choices. Making the sustainable option the default resulted in more sustainable choices than making unsustainable products the default. The left–right versus right–left presentation of products did not significantly influence consumer choices. Furthermore, higher educated people and those finding sustainability important relatively often chose a sustainable make-up product. People frequently wearing make-up and those finding a low price important relatively often chose an unsustainable make-up product. Our experiment suggests that making sustainable products the default choice makes a sustainable choice about 8% more likely than making unsustainable products the default choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerrit Antonides & Michelle Welvaarts, 2020. "Effects of Default Option and Lateral Presentation on Consumer Choice of the Sustainable Option in an Online Choice Task," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5484-:d:381468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5484/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5484/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    2. Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch, 2013. "Green by Default," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 398-402, August.
    3. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    4. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    6. 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.
    7. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    8. Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Hobman, Elizabeth V., 2015. "Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1385-1394.
    9. Grunert, Klaus G., 2011. "Sustainability in the Food Sector: A Consumer Behaviour Perspective," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    11. Ynte Dam & Janneke Jonge, 2015. "The Positive Side of Negative Labelling," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 19-38, March.
    12. Thomas Dyllick & Kai Hockerts, 2002. "Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 130-141, March.
    13. Sungchul Choi & Alex Ng, 2011. "Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price Effects on Consumer Responses," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 269-282, December.
    14. Marisabel Romero & Dipayan Biswas, 2016. "Healthy-Left, Unhealthy-Right: Can Displaying Healthy Items to the Left (versus Right) of Unhealthy Items Nudge Healthier Choices?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(1), pages 103-112.
    15. S. Salman Hussain, 2000. "Green Consumerism and Ecolabelling: A Strategic Behavioural Model," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 77-89, January.
    16. Thorndike, A.N. & Sonnenberg, L. & Riis, J. & Barraclough, S. & Levy, D.E., 2012. "A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(3), pages 527-533.
    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. J. M. Bauer & L. A. Reisch, 2019. "Behavioural Insights and (Un)healthy Dietary Choices: a Review of Current Evidence," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 3-45, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    4. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    5. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    6. Jie, Yun, 2018. "Prepayment effect: Prepayment with clawback increases task participation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 210-218.
    7. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    8. Sherman, Arie & Shavit, Tal, 2013. "The immaterial sustenance of work and leisure: A new look at the work–leisure model," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 10-16.
    9. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    10. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    11. Julia Blasch & Claudio Daminato, 2018. "Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 18/300, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    12. Jens Weghake & Fabian Grabicki, 2017. "The Qwerty Phenomenon: Its Relevance In A World With Creative Destruction," Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 20, pages 157-173, December.
    13. Tamara Dinev & Allen R. McConnell & H. Jeff Smith, 2015. "Research Commentary—Informing Privacy Research Through Information Systems, Psychology, and Behavioral Economics: Thinking Outside the “APCO” Box," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 639-655, December.
    14. Schruff-Lim, Eva-Maria & Van Loo, Ellen J. & van Kleef, Ellen & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2023. "Turning FOP nutrition labels into action: A systematic review of label+ interventions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Rabaa, Simon & Geisendorf, Sylvie & Wilken, Robert, 2022. "Why change does (not) happen: Understanding and overcoming status quo biases in climate change mitigation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 45(1), pages 100-134.
    16. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    17. Miriam Krieger & Stefan Felder, 2013. "Can Decision Biases Improve Insurance Outcomes? An Experiment on Status Quo Bias in Health Insurance Choice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5484-:d:381468. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.