IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/bmsjnl/v5y2019i2p64-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Similarity Between a Product¡¯s Shape Properties and the Benefit Offered on Judgments and Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Saporta Sorozon

Abstract

Studies show a product's shape affects consumer judgments. Yet, the basic principle that governs shape effects is unclear. In this study, we fill this gap by demonstrating that causal-reasoning considerations govern shape effects. Specifically, people expect cause (e.g., an energy drink) and its effect (e.g., fat burning) to exhibit some degree of resemblance or congruency (¡°like causes like¡±). This expectation leads them to use the ¡°law of similarity¡± heuristic when judging artifacts. In two studies, we focused on a product's shape. For half of the products, the shape was an intrinsic property of the product (i.e., had the causal power to produce the effect), and for the other half, the shape was an extrinsic property of the product. For both kinds of properties (extrinsic and intrinsic), we demonstrate that the same ad (e.g., an energy drink that "claims" to produce fat burning) is more persuasive (willingness to purchase the product, and choice between products) when the product's shape is congruent rather than incongruent (e.g., a ¡°tall¡± can vs. a ¡°short¡± can) with the effect promised. We strengthen the notion that leaning on a cause-effect-similarity heuristic is very basic, by showing that choice situations accelerate the effect of congruency more for products for which the focal property is extrinsic than for products for which it is intrinsic. In line with other studies that show causal reasoning considerations govern judgment and choice on artifacts (products), the present study demonstrates causal-reasoning considerations govern judgment and choice concerning the cause-effect-similarity heuristic as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Saporta Sorozon, 2019. "The Effect of Similarity Between a Product¡¯s Shape Properties and the Benefit Offered on Judgments and Preferences," Business and Management Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 64-75, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:rfa:bmsjnl:v:5:y:2019:i:2:p:64-75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/bms/article/view/4239/4420
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/bms/article/view/4239
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Robert E. Krider & Priya Raghubir & Aradhna Krishna, 2001. "Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 405-425, March.
    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. Szocs, Courtney & Lefebvre, Sarah, 2017. "Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 249-257.
    2. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Charles Changchuan Jiang & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "The Influence of Varying Cost Formats on Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 17-26, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1464-1484 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Ch'ng, Kean Siang & Loke, Yiing Jia, 2010. "Inconsistency of fairness evaluation in simulated labot market," MPRA Paper 21527, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    17. 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.
    18. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2009. "A characterization of the 2-additive Choquet integral through cardinal information," Post-Print halshs-00445132, HAL.
    19. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Momi Dahan & Tehila Kogut & Moshe Shalem, 2009. "Do Economic Policymakers Practice what they Preach? The Case of Pension Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2783, CESifo.

    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:rfa:bmsjnl:v:5:y:2019:i:2:p:64-75. 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: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.