Skip to main content
Log in

Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? The effect of changes in product features over time

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines how feature additions and removals affect consumers' preferences and the attributions they make regarding why these changes occurred. In two experiments, using a range of hypothetical and real products, we find that consumers' preferences for current product formulations are influenced by prior formulations and that changes in consumer preference are more extreme for feature removals than for feature additions. We further find that consumers attribute feature additions to causes that are more external to the firm and more stable over time than those for feature removals. Consumers' product evaluations are more negative when the cause of a feature removal is attributed more internally to the firm. However, consumers' product evaluations are not significantly affected by their attributions for feature additions. Finally, the degree to which the changing feature is linked to a brands' equity moderates these findings.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali, Adbul. (1994). “Pioneering Versus Incremental Review and Research Propositions.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 11, 46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, William G., and Gertrude M.Cox. (1957). Experimental Designs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, Valerie S. (1988). “Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions.” Journal of Consumer Research 14, 548–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaski, John F., and Michael J.Etzel. (1986). “The Index of Consumer Sentiment Toward Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 50, 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelb, Betsy D., and Gabriel M. Gelb. (1986). “New Coke's Fizzle: Lessons for the Rest of Us.” Sloan Management (Fall), 71–76.

  • Hardie, Bruce G. S., Eric J.Johnson, and Peter S.Fader. (1993). “Modelling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice.” Marketing Science 12, 378–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, Reid. (1984). “Causes and Effects of Causal Attribution.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajendran, K. N., and Gerald J.Tellis. (1994). “Contextual and Temporal Components of Reference Price.” Journal of Marketing 58, 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, Al. (1994). “Marketers, Stop Your Tinkering.” New York Times, June 19, F11.

  • Swasy, Alecia. (1990). “How Innovations at P&G Restored Luster to Washed Up Pert and Made It Number 1.” Wall Street Journal, December 6, B1, B6.

  • Tversky, Amos, and DanielKahneman. (1991). “Loss Aversion and Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model.“ Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039–1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, Bernard. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, Youjae. (1991). “A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction.” In Valarie A.Zeithmal (Ed.), Review of Marketing 1989, Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sen, S., Morwitz, V.G. Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? The effect of changes in product features over time. Market Lett 7, 225–235 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435739

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435739

Key words

Navigation