IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v24y2005i2p194-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Narrow Focusing: Why the Relative Position of a Good in Its Category Matters More Than It Should

Author

Listed:
  • France Leclerc

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 S. Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Christopher K. Hsee

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 S. Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Joseph C. Nunes

    (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Accounting 304, Los Angeles, California 90089-0443)

Abstract

This research examines whether a low-ranking member in a high-status category (e.g., a low-end model of a high-end brand) or a high-ranking member in a low-status category (e.g., a high-end model of a low-end brand) is favored, holding the objective qualities of the items constant. Brand equity research suggests that the quality of a brand is more important than the ranking of a product within a brand. Our research documents a robust —whereby a high-ranking product in a low-status category is favored over a low-ranking product in a high-status category even when information on competing categories is made available. We explain this effect in terms of narrow focusing and evaluability, and we identify boundary conditions of the effect.

Suggested Citation

  • France Leclerc & Christopher K. Hsee & Joseph C. Nunes, 2005. "Narrow Focusing: Why the Relative Position of a Good in Its Category Matters More Than It Should," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 194-205, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:24:y:2005:i:2:p:194-205
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0090
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1040.0090?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
    2. 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..
    3. Cremer, Helmuth & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1991. "Location Models of Horizontal Differentiation: A Special Case of Vertical Differentiation Models," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 383-390, June.
    4. Itamar Simonson & Stephen Nowlis & Katherine Lemon, 1993. "The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower Price and Higher Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 357-377.
    5. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    6. Taylor Randall & Karl Ulrich & David Reibstein, 1998. "Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 356-379.
    7. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    8. Hsee, Christopher K & Leclerc, France, 1998. "Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 175-186, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marco Bertini & Luc Wathieu, 2008. "Research Note—Attention Arousal Through Price Partitioning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 236-246, 03-04.
    2. Chadwick J. Miller & Daniel C. Brannon & Jim Salas & Martha Troncoza, 2021. "Advertising, incentives, and the upsell: how advertising differentially moderates customer- vs. retailer-directed price incentives’ impact on consumers’ preferences for premium products," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1043-1064, November.
    3. Jie Zhang, 2006. "An Integrated Choice Model Incorporating Alternative Mechanisms for Consumers' Reactions to In-Store Display and Feature Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 278-290, 05-06.
    4. Eugene J. S. Won, 2007. "—A Theoretical Investigation of the Effects of Similarity on Brand Choice Using the Elimination-by-Tree Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 868-875, 11-12.
    5. Olga M. Khessina & Samira Reis, 2016. "The Limits of Reflected Glory: The Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Product Name Similarity in the U.S. Network TV Program Industry, 1944–2003," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 411-427, April.
    6. Sevdalis, Nick & Harvey, Nigel, 2006. "Determinants of willingness to pay in separate and joint evaluations of options: Context matters," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 377-385, June.
    7. Tansev Geylani & J. Jeffrey Inman & Frenkel Ter Hofstede, 2008. "Image Reinforcement or Impairment: The Effects of Co-Branding on Attribute Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 730-744, 07-08.
    8. José Luis Pinto‐Prades & José Antonio Robles‐Zurita & Fernando‐Ignacio Sánchez‐Martínez & José María Abellán‐Perpiñán & Jorge Martínez‐Pérez, 2017. "Improving scope sensitivity in contingent valuation: Joint and separate evaluation of health states," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 304-318, December.
    9. Harald Van Heerde & Kristiaan Helsen & Marnik G. Dekimpe, 2007. "The Impact of a Product-Harm Crisis on Marketing Effectiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 230-245, 03-04.
    10. Sharif, Marissa A. & Oppenheimer, Daniel M., 2021. "The effect of categories on relative encoding biases in memory-based judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Cleeren, Kathleen, 2015. "Using advertising and price to mitigate losses in a product-harm crisis," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 157-162.
    12. Anne Bowers, 2015. "Relative Comparison and Category Membership: The Case of Equity Analysts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 571-583, April.
    13. Christopoulos, George & Kokkinaki, Flora & Harvey, Nigel & Sevdalis, Nick, 2011. "Paying for no reason? (Mis-)perceptions of product attributes in separate vs. joint product evaluation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 857-864.
    14. Ben W. Lewis & W. Chad Carlos, 2023. "The risk of being ranked: Investor response to marginal inclusion on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 117-140, January.
    15. Anocha Aribarg & Neeraj Arora, 2008. "—Interbrand Variant Overlap: Impact on Brand Preference and Portfolio Profit," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 474-491, 05-06.
    16. Kristina Shampanier & Nina Mazar & Dan Ariely, 2007. "Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 742-757, 11-12.
    17. Ikuo Ishibashi & Noriaki Matsushima, 2009. "The Existence of Low-End Firms May Help High-End Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 136-147, 01-02.

    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. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    2. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    3. Christopoulos, George & Kokkinaki, Flora & Harvey, Nigel & Sevdalis, Nick, 2011. "Paying for no reason? (Mis-)perceptions of product attributes in separate vs. joint product evaluation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 857-864.
    4. Palmeira, Mauricio M. & Krishnan, H. Shanker, 2008. "Criteria instability and the isolated option effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 153-167, July.
    5. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    6. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    7. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2021. "Free-riding and cost-bearing in discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 80-90.
    8. Prieto, Marc & Caemmerer, Barbara & Baltas, George, 2015. "Using a hedonic price model to test prospect theory assertions: The asymmetrical and nonlinear effect of reliability on used car prices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 206-212.
    9. Charles Changchuan Jiang & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "The Influence of Varying Cost Formats on Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 17-26, January.
    10. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    11. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    12. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    13. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.
    14. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    15. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
    16. Kwon, Kyoung-Nan & Lee, Jinkook, 2009. "The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 719-725, July.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:425-434 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    19. Robert Slonim & Ellen Garbarino, 2009. "Similarities and differences between stockpiling and reference effects," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 351-371.
    20. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Y.Y., 2005. "Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 54-65, September.
    21. Wells, Rachael E. & Iyengar, Sheena S., 2005. "Positive illusions of preference consistency: When remaining eluded by one's preferences yields greater subjective well-being and decision outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 66-87, September.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:24:y:2005:i:2:p:194-205. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.