Abstract
Compromise effect is a typical marketing measure that induces consumer cognitive bias. When choices are presented in three grades, consumers tend to choose the middle grade. However, in existing research, there are few examples that focus on the product features of high value-added and low-priced products within the same manufacturer's brand, as conditions for the appearance of compromise effects. This study examined web quotations in the Japanese automobile industry for differences in the compromise effect due to product features. As a result, it became clear that the compromise effect appears in low-priced products such as microcars and compact cars, whereas for high value-added products such as SUVs and minivans, the highest grade is likely to be selected. Compromise choices were also likely to occur in the answers given using smartphones, but no compromises were seen when using personal computers. During the survey, respondents’ power of concentration was less in the case of smartphones probably due to its small screen and because they tended to operate it while moving. Therefore, as a decoy for low-priced products, it is effective to set the upper and lower grades. Conversely, high value-added products should be designed with the highest grade as the main product.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Simonson, I.: Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consum. Res. 16(2), 158–174 (1989)
Huber, J., Payne, J.W., Puto, C.: Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consum. Res. 9(1), 90–98 (1982)
Pratkanis, A.R., Farquhar, P.H.: A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 13(1), 103–122 (1992)
Pinger, P., Ruhmer-Krell, I., Schumacher, H.: The compromise effect in action: lessons from a restaurant’s menu. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 128, 14–34 (2016)
Lichters, M., Müller, H., Sarstedt, M., Vogt, B.: How durable are compromise effects? J. Bus. Res. 69(10), 4056–4064 (2016)
Munro, A., Popov, D.: A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households. Exp. Econ. 16(3), 335–348 (2013)
Neumann, N., Böckenholt, U., Sinha, A.: A meta-analysis of extremeness aversion. J. Consum. Psychol. 26(2), 193–212 (2016)
Kim, J.: The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect. Mark. Lett. 28(3), 397–409 (2017)
Kim, J., Spence, M.T., Marshall, R.: The color of choice: the influence of presenting product information in color on the compromise effect. J. Retail. 94(2), 167–185 (2018)
Sinn, F., Milberg, S.J., Epstein, L.D., Goodstein, R.C.: Compromising the compromise effect: brands matter. Mark. Lett. 18(4), 223–236 (2007)
Chang, C.C., Chuang, S.C., Cheng, Y.H., Huang, T.Y.: The compromise effect in choosing for others. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 25(2), 109–122 (2012)
Müller, H., Kroll, E.B., Vogt, B.: Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings. Mark. Lett. 23(1), 73–92 (2012)
Yoo, J., Park, H., Kim, W.: Compromise effect and consideration set size in consumer decision-making. Appl. Econ. Lett. 25(8), 513–517 (2018)
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. Passenger car market trends in Japan: summary of results of JAMA’s fiscal 2015 survey (2016). http://www.jama-english.jp/release/release/2016/160426-1.html. Last accessed 2020/12/1
Mavletova, A.: Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31(6), 725–743 (2013)
Couper, M.P., Peterson, G.J.: Why do web surveys take longer on smartphones? Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 35(3), 357–377 (2017)
Lugtig, P., Toepoel, V.: The use of PCs, smartphones, and tablets in a probability-based panel survey: effects on survey measurement error. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 34(1), 78–94 (2016)
Dhar, R., Simonson, I.: Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: highlighting versus balancing. J. Mark. Res. 36(1), 29–44 (1999)
Simonson, I., Rosen, E.: Absolute Value: What Really Influences Customers in the Age of (Nearly) Perfect Information. Harper Business, New York (2014)
Kato, T., Tsuda, K.: Contribution to purchase behavior of voluntary search compared to web advertisement. Procedia Comput. Sci. 126, 1329–1335 (2018)
Cobanoglu, C., Cobanoglu, N.: The effect of incentives in web surveys: application and ethical considerations. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45(4), 1–13 (2003)
Laguilles, J.S., Williams, E.A., Saunders, D.B.: Can lottery incentives boost web survey response rates? Findings from four experiments. Res. High. Educ. 52(5), 537–553 (2011)
Kato, T., Kishida, N., Umeyama, T., Jin, Y., Tsuda, K.: A random extraction method with high market representation for online surveys. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 22(4), 569–584 (2020)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kato, T. (2021). Verification of the Compromise Effect’s Suitability Based on Product Features of Automobiles. In: Czarnowski, I., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds) Intelligent Decision Technologies. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 238. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2765-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2765-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2764-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2765-1
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)