Skip to main content

Verification of the Compromise Effect’s Suitability Based on Product Features of Automobiles

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Decision Technologies

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 238))

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Simonson, I.: Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consum. Res. 16(2), 158–174 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lichters, M., Müller, H., Sarstedt, M., Vogt, B.: How durable are compromise effects? J. Bus. Res. 69(10), 4056–4064 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Munro, A., Popov, D.: A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households. Exp. Econ. 16(3), 335–348 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Neumann, N., Böckenholt, U., Sinha, A.: A meta-analysis of extremeness aversion. J. Consum. Psychol. 26(2), 193–212 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim, J.: The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect. Mark. Lett. 28(3), 397–409 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sinn, F., Milberg, S.J., Epstein, L.D., Goodstein, R.C.: Compromising the compromise effect: brands matter. Mark. Lett. 18(4), 223–236 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yoo, J., Park, H., Kim, W.: Compromise effect and consideration set size in consumer decision-making. Appl. Econ. Lett. 25(8), 513–517 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

  15. Mavletova, A.: Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 31(6), 725–743 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Couper, M.P., Peterson, G.J.: Why do web surveys take longer on smartphones? Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 35(3), 357–377 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dhar, R., Simonson, I.: Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: highlighting versus balancing. J. Mark. Res. 36(1), 29–44 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Simonson, I., Rosen, E.: Absolute Value: What Really Influences Customers in the Age of (Nearly) Perfect Information. Harper Business, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kato, T., Tsuda, K.: Contribution to purchase behavior of voluntary search compared to web advertisement. Procedia Comput. Sci. 126, 1329–1335 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cobanoglu, C., Cobanoglu, N.: The effect of incentives in web surveys: application and ethical considerations. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45(4), 1–13 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takumi Kato .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics