IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/eee/jbrese/v32y1995i1p11-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
  2. 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.
  3. Gächter, Simon & Orzen, Henrik & Renner, Elke & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 443-446, June.
  4. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
  5. Jeffrey Radighieri & Babu John Mariadoss & Yany Grégoire & Jean Johnson, 2014. "Ingredient branding and feedback effects: The impact of product outcomes, initial parent brand strength asymmetry, and parent brand role," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 123-138, June.
  6. Neyse, Levent & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Ring, Patrick & Probst, Catharina & Kaernbach, Christian & Eimeren, Thilo van & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2020. "Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue 60, pages 29-51.
  7. Roland G. Fryer, Jr & Steven D. Levitt & John List & Sally Sadoff, 2012. "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 18237, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Björn Hofman & Gerdien de Vries & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
  9. Michal Krawczyk, 2011. "To answer or not to answer? A field test of loss aversion," Framed Field Experiments 00695, The Field Experiments Website.
  10. Patrick Ring & Ulrich Schmidt, 2019. "Skin conductance responses in anticipation of gains and losses," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 38-50, August.
  11. Tomoki Fujii & Christine Ho & Rohan Ray & Abu S. Shonchoy, 2021. "Conditional Cash Transfer, Loss Framing, and SMS Nudges: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Bangladesh," Working Papers 2109, Florida International University, Department of Economics.
  12. 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.
  13. Keller, Tamás & Szakál, Péter, 2023. "The Framing of Information Nudge Affects Students' Anticipated Effort: A Large-Scale, Randomized Survey Experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
  14. Michał Krawczyk, 2012. "To answer or not to answer? A field test of loss aversion," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 29.
  15. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Susanne Neckermann & Sally Sadoff, 2016. "The Behavioralist Goes to School: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Educational Performance," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 183-219, November.
  16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
  17. Christopher Roby, 2021. "Can loss framing improve coordination in the minimum effort game?," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 16(3), pages 557-588, July.
  18. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
  19. Elbæk, Christian T. & Lystbæk, Martin Nørhede & Mitkidis, Panagiotis, 2022. "On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
  20. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & De Bock, Ombeline & Gelade, Wouter, 2017. "The Demand for Microinsurance: A Literature Review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 139-156.
  21. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Michaela Satzinger, 2000. "Die Wirkung positiver und negativer Aussagen in der Werbung vor dem Hintergrund des Message Framing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 234-256, May.
  22. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
  23. Stenner, Karen & Frederiks, Elisha R. & Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Cook, Stephanie, 2017. "Willingness to participate in direct load control: The role of consumer distrust," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 76-88.
  24. Geoffrey Fisher & Matthew McGranaghan & Jura Liaukonyte & Kenneth C. Wilbur, 2023. "Price promotions, beneficiary framing, and mental accounting," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 147-181, June.
  25. Sandro Casal & Nives Della Valle & Luigi Mittone & Ivan Soraperra, 2016. "Feedback and consumption behavior," CEEL Working Papers 1608, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
  26. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Stefan Stumpp, 2001. "Wertfunktion der Prospect-Theorie, Produktpräferenzen und Folgerungen für das Marketing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 559-588, September.
  27. Pau Balart & Lara Ezquerra & Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, 2022. "Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1268-1297, September.
  28. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
  29. Ahyoung Yoon & Daeyoung Jeong & Jinhyung Chon & Ji-Hwan Yoon, 2019. "A Study of Consumers’ Intentions to Participate in Responsible Tourism Using Message Framing and Appeals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, February.
  30. Sandro Casal & Nives DellaValle & Luigi Mittone & Ivan Soraperra, 2017. "Feedback and efficient behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
  31. Saulitis, Andris & Chapkovski, Philipp, 2023. "Investigating Tax Compliance with Mixed-Methods Approach: The Effect of Normative Appeals Among the Firms in Latvia," MPRA Paper 116560, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  32. 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.
  33. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
  34. Peter Gál, 2018. "Marketing Implications of Framing in the Decision-Making," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 66(5), pages 1267-1273.
  35. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2016. "Changing Food Safety Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Message Framings & Media Food Safety Information," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230106, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  36. Gelbrich, Katja & Schröder, Eva-Maria, 2008. "Werbewirkung von Furchtappellen: Stand der Forschung," Ilmenauer Schriften zur Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, volume 2, number 22008, September.
  37. Hasseldine, John & Hite, Peggy A., 2003. "Framing, gender and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 517-533, August.
  38. Holler, Marianne & Hoelzl, Erik & Kirchler, Erich & Leder, Susanne & Mannetti, Lucia, 2008. "Framing of information on the use of public finances, regulatory fit of recipients and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 597-611, August.
  39. Mathur, Pragya & Jain, Shailendra Pratap & Hsieh, Meng-Hua & Lindsey, Charles D. & Maheswaran, Durairaj, 2013. "The influence of implicit theories and message frame on the persuasiveness of disease prevention and detection advocacies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 141-151.
  40. Ganzach, Yoav & Weber, Yaacov & Or, Pinchas Ben, 1997. "Message framing and buying behavior: On the difference between artificial and natural environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 91-95, October.
  41. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
  42. Nguyen, Stephanie & Nicod, Lionel & Llosa, Sylvie, 2024. "Preventing bypass on sharing economy platforms: The impact of message framing on users’ bypass intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.