The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect
- PDF / 263,402 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 40 Downloads / 149 Views
The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect Sungeun (Ange) Kim & Jungkeun Kim
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This article reports the influence of two specific consumption situations— hedonic and utilitarian—on the magnitude of the compromise effect. Based on the literatures of different valuation processes (valuation by calculation vs. valuation by feeling) and hedonic versus utilitarian consumption, the authors suggest that the compromise effect will be stronger under the utilitarian (vs. hedonic) consumption situation due to different valuation processes. Three experimental studies were conducted, and the results have supported the prediction. In addition, the authors successfully excluded alternative explanations such as differences in willingness to pay, justification, and attribute importance. The authors concluded with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implication of this research. Keywords Hedonic consumption . Utilitarian consumption . Compromise effect . Justification . Different types of valuation Over the past decade, researchers have continued to seek a richer understanding of consumers’ product choices; in particular, the compromise effect has been one of the most important research topics (Chernev 2005; Dhar et al. 2000; Dhar and Simonson 2003; Larson and Billeter 2013; Mourali et al. 2007; Pocheptsova et al. 2009; Simonson 1989; Roy and Ng 2012; Simonson and Nowlis 2000; Simonson and Tversky 1992). The compromise effect implies the share of a product that is enhanced when it is in the middle (versus extreme) option of the choice set. In the domain of the context effect, earlier researchers focused on understanding the underlying mechanism of the compromise effect. They found that when people need to justify their choice, they choose the middle option in an attempt to avoid others’ criticism (Simonson 1989; Sungeun (Ange) Kim and Jungkeun Kim contributed equally.
S. (. Kim (*) : J. Kim Department of Marketing, Advertising, Retailing, and Sales, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] J. Kim e-mail: [email protected]
Mark Lett
Simonson and Tversky 1992). Since then, a great deal of recent research has shown how various factors influence the compromise effect: regulatory focus (Mourali et al. 2007), the need for uniqueness (Simonson and Nowlis 2000), attribute balance (Chernev 2005), availability of the no-choice option (Dhar and Simonson 2003), time pressure (Lin et al. 2008), physical balance (Larson and Billeter 2013), and resource depletion (Pocheptsova et al. 2009), to name a few. This research adds to the current understanding of the compromise effect by examining the relationships between two specific consumption situations—hedonic and utilitarian—and the compromise effect. What is the impact of different types of consumption situations on the compromise effect? Will the compromise effect vary, depending on the consumption situation? We have addressed these que
Data Loading...
