Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Less is more: How the number of insurance options influences customers’ default acceptance

Weniger ist mehr: Wie die Anzahl der Versicherungsoptionen die Default-Akzeptanz von Kunden beeinflusst

  • Abhandlung
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für die gesamte Versicherungswissenschaft

Abstract

Insurance companies often use defaults in the online presentation of their offers. A default is a preselected product option that a customer accepts unless he explicitly rejects that option. In this experimental study, we analyze the effect of defaults when insurance companies offer a different number of product options. In addition, we examine how customers’ choice behavior is influenced by their perception of the default. The study shows that defaults have a greater influence when fewer rather than more product options are presented. Moreover, customers’ acceptance of the default depends on their level of skepticism toward the default and on their perception of other customers’ behavior.

Zusammenfassung

Versicherungsunternehmen verwenden im Rahmen ihrer Produktpräsentation im Internet häufig Defaults. Ein Default ist die Voreinstellung einer Produktoption, die der Kunde erhält, sofern er sich nicht aktiv gegen diese Voreinstellung entscheidet. Mit Hilfe einer experimentellen Studie wird untersucht, wie Defaults bei einem unterschiedlich großen Produktangebot von Versicherungsunternehmen wirken. Zudem wird analysiert, wie sich die kundenseitige Wahrnehmung des Defaults auf das Wahlverhalten der Kunden auswirkt. Es wird gezeigt, dass Defaults einen größeren Einfluss bei einem kleineren im Vergleich zu einem größeren Produktangebot haben. Des Weiteren wird deutlich, dass die Akzeptanz des Defaults von dem Misstrauen gegenüber dem Default und der Einschätzung des Verhaltens anderer Kunden abhängt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, C.J.: The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol Bull 129(1), 139–167 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S.E.: Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. 70(9), 1–70 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M.: Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J Consum Res 20(4), 644–656 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., Ritov, I.: Reference points and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 59(3), 475–498 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W.J., Ide, E.A.: Variety in retailing. Manage. Sci. 3(1), 93–101 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Draganska, M., Simonson, I.: The influence of product variety on brand perception and choice. Mark Sci 26(4), 460–472 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D.E., Bahn, K.D.: When do large product assortments benefit consumers? An information-processing perspective. J Retail 85(3), 288–297 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C.L., Krishna, A.: The skeptical shopper: a metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. J Consum Res 31(3), 529–539 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.F.: Herd behavior in purchasing books online. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(5), 1977–1992 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A.: When more is less and less is more: the role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. J Consum Res 30(2), 170–183 (2003a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A.: Product assortment and individual decision processes. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(1), 151–162 (2003b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A.: The role of purchase quantity in assortment choice: the quantity-matching heuristic. J Mark Res 45(2), 171–181 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A.: Product assortment and consumer choice: an interdisciplinary review. Found Trends Mark 6(1), 1–61 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R.: Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J Consum Res 24(2), 215–231 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, K., Poynor, C.: Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. J Mark Res 47(2), 312–322 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Williams, P., Alba, J.W., Chartrand, T.L., Huber, J., Kardes, F.R., Menon, G., Raghubir, J., Russo, E., Shiv, B., Tavassoli, N.T.: Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Mark Lett 13(3), 269–279 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gfk: Global trust report 2017 (2017). http://www.gfkverein.org/forschung/studien/studienuebersicht/2017-global-trust-report, Accessed 23 Jan 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Grösch, M., Steul-Fischer, M.: Defaults and advice in self-customization procedures of insurance. Z. Ges. Versicherungswiss. 106(3), 325–341 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, G.A.: Testing the boundaries of the choice overload phenomenon: the effect of number of options and time pressure on decision difficulty and satisfaction. Psychol Mark 26(3), 204–212 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, A., Goldstein, D.G., Stadler, R., Landwehr, J.R., Heitmann, M., Hofstetter, R., Huber, F.: The effect of default options on choice – evidence from online product configurators. J Retail Consum Serv 18(6), 483–491 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, C., Kahn, B.E.: Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion? J Retail 74(4), 491–513 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S.S., Lepper, M.R.: When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6), 995 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E.J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., Kunreuther, H.: Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J. Risk Uncertain. 7(1), 35–51 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E.J., Bellman, S., Lohse, G.L.: Defaults, framing and privacy: why opting in – opting out. Mark Lett 13(1), 5–15 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B.E., Lehman, D.R.: Modeling choice among assortments. J Retail 67(3), 274–299 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B.E., Weingarten, E., Townsend, C.: Assortment variety: too much of a good thing? Rev Mark Res 10, 1–23 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H.: Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 5(1), 193–206 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I.P., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., Gaeth, G.J.: A tale of two pizzas: building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Mark Lett 13(4), 335–344 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G.: Is more choice always better. Soc Secur Brief 7(1), 1–8 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Madrian, B.C., Shea, D.F.: The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401 (k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ 116(4), 1149–1187 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N.K.: Information load and consumer decision making. J Consum Res 8(4), 419–430 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., Iyengar, S.S.: The mere categorization effect: how the presence of categories increases choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. J Consum Res 35(2), 202–215 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak, B., Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M., Einhorn, M.: Die Macht des Defaults – Wirkung von Empfehlungen und Vorgaben auf das individuelle Entscheidungsverhalten. Z Betriebswirtsch 78(10), 1033–1060 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D.A., Shafir, E.: Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. J Am Med Assoc 273(4), 302–305 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I., Baron, J.: Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Mak 3(4), 263–277 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I., Baron, J.: Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 64(2), 119–127 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagi, A., Friedland, N.: The cost of richness: the effect of the size and diversity of decision sets on post-decision regret. J Pers Soc Psychol 93(4), 515–524 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R.: Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1(1), 7–59 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., Todd, P.M.: What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychol Mark 26(3), 229–253 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sela, A., Berger, J., Liu, W.: Variety, vice, and virtue: how assortment size influences option choice. J Consum Res 35(6), 941–951 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A.: Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1–2), 11–36 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., Tversky, A.: Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J Mark Res 29(3), 281–295 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N.C., Goldstein, D.G., Johnson, E.J.: Smart defaults: from hidden persuaders to adaptive helpers. INSEAD business school research paper 3. (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Shafir, E.: Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychol Sci 3(6), 358–361 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P.: Consumer choice strategies: simplifying vs. optimizing. J Mark Res 12(1), 60–67 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P.: Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence. J Consum Res 28(4), 677–682 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für BWL, insb. Versicherungsmarketing, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany

    Michaela Grösch & Martina Steul-Fischer

Authors
  1. Michaela Grösch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Steul-Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela Grösch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grösch, M., Steul-Fischer, M. Less is more: How the number of insurance options influences customers’ default acceptance. ZVersWiss 107, 517–529 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12297-018-0415-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12297-018-0415-4

Search

Navigation