Advertisement

Behavioral biases in marketing

  • Katharina Dowling
  • Daniel Guhl
  • Daniel Klapper
  • Martin SpannEmail author
  • Lucas Stich
  • Narine Yegoryan
Review Paper

Abstract

Psychology and economics (together known as behavioral economics) are two prominent disciplines underlying many theories in marketing. The extensive marketing literature documents consumers’ nonrational behavior even though behavioral biases might not always be consistently termed or formally described. In this review, we identify and synthesize empirical research on behavioral biases in marketing. We document the key findings according to three classes of deviations (i.e., nonstandard preferences, nonstandard beliefs, and nonstandard decision making) and the four phases of consumer purchase decision making (i.e., need recognition, pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase). Our organizing framework allows us to (1) synthesize instructive marketing papers in a concise and meaningful manner and (2) identify connections and differences within and across categories in both dimensions. In our review, we discuss specific implications for management and avenues for future research.

Keywords

Marketing Consumer purchase decision making Behavioral economics Behavioral biases Review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dirk Engelmann, Michael Steiner, Ossama Elshiewy, Vlada Pleshcheva, three anonymous reviewers, the associate editor, and the editors of the Special Issue for helpful comments and suggestions. Financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through CRC TRR 190 is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Acland, D., & Levy, M. R. (2015). Naiveté, projection bias, and habit formation in gym attendance. Management Science, 61, 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S. (2011). Conscious and nonconscious comparisons with price anchors: effects on willingness to pay for related and unrelated products. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal, S., Driscoll, J. C., Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2013). Learning in the credit card market. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1091623. Accessed 7 September 2019.
  4. Ailawadi, K. L., Gedenk, K., Langer, T., Ma, Y., & Neslin, S. A. (2014). Consumer response to uncertain promotions: an empirical analysis of conditional rebates. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akerlof, G. A. (1991). Procrastination and obedience. American Economic Review, 81, 1–19.Google Scholar
  6. Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Americaine. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. André, Q., Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., Crum, A., Frank, D., Goldstein, W., Huber, J., van Boven, L., Weber, B., & Yang, H. (2018). Consumer choice and autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Customer Needs and Solutions, 5, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1998). Consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2008). Positive consumer contagion: responses to attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 690–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balasubramanian, S. K., & Cole, C. (2002). Consumers' search and use of nutrition information: the challenge and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. Journal of Marketing, 66, 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. Handbook of the Economics of Finance, 1.Google Scholar
  13. Berger, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: how cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: how the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2019). Uniting the tribes: using text for marketing insight. Journal of Marketing, published online, 002224291987310.Google Scholar
  16. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bruno, H. A., Che, H., & Dutta, S. (2012). Role of reference price on price and quantity: insights from business-to-business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 640–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brynjolfsson, E., & Smith, M. D. (2000). Frictionless commerce? A comparison of internet and conventional retailers. Management Science, 46, 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buchheim, L., & Kolaska, T. (2016). Weather and the psychology of purchasing outdoor movie tickets. Management Science, 63, 3718–3738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Busse, M. R., Pope, D. G., Pope, J. C., & Silva-Risso, J. (2012). Projection bias in the car and housing markets. NBER Working Paper. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w18212. Accessed 7 September 2019.
  22. Busse, M. R., Pope, D. G., Pope, J. C., & Silva-Risso, J. (2015). The psychological effect of weather on Car purchases. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 371–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2005). The dirt on coming clean: perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: an experimental approach. American Economic Review, 89, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of Price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chark, R., & Muthukrishnan, A. V. (2013). The effect of physical possession on preference for product warranty. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 424–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cheema, A., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Anytime versus only: mind-sets moderate the effect of expansive versus restrictive frames on promotion evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 462–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: a conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Christopher, R. M., & Machado, F. S. (2019). Consumer response to design variations in pay-what-you-want pricing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 879–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chung, K. (2019). Incorporating a “better” behavioral Bias for both consumers and firms in rebate programs. Management Science, published online. Available at https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3257
  32. Conick, H. (2017). Read this story to learn how behavioral economics can improve marketing. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/read-story-learn-how-behavioral-economics-can-improve-marketing.aspx. Accessed 7 September 2019
  33. Conlin, M., O'Donoghue, T., & Vogelsang, T. J. (2007). Projection bias in catalog orders. The American Economic Review, 97, 1217–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cowley, E. (2006). Processing exaggerated advertising claims. Journal of Business Research, 59, 728–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cox, A. D., & Cox, D. (1990). Competing on price: the role of retail price advertisements in shaping store-price image. Journal of Retailing, 66, 428–445.Google Scholar
  36. Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2001). Communicating the consequences of early detection: the role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing, 65, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dadwal, S. S., & Hassan, A. (2015). The augmented reality marketing: A merger of marketing and Technology in Tourism. In Emerging innovative marketing strategies in the tourism industry. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  38. Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). Investor psychology and security market under- and overreactions. The Journal of Finance, 53, 1839–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 315–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. DellaVigna, S. (2018). Structural Behavioral Economics. In: Bernheim, D. B., DellaVigna, S., and Laibson, D. (eds.). Handbook of Behavioral Economics, Volume 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 613–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. DellaVigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2006). Paying not to go to the gym. The American Economic Review, 96, 694–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dhami, S. (2016). Judgment heuristics. The foundations of behavioral economic analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: an analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Diehl, K. (2005). When two rights make a wrong: Searching too much in ordered environments. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ding, M., Eliashberg, J., Huber, J., & Saini, R. (2005). Emotional bidders—an analytical and experimental examination of consumers' behavior in a Priceline-like reverse auction. Management Science, 51, 352–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Dowling, K., Manchanda, P., & Spann, M. (2018). The existence and persistence of the pay-per-use Bias in Car sharing services. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3204233. Accessed 7 September 2019.
  50. Dubé, J.-P., Hitsch, G. J., & Jindal, P. (2014). The joint identification of utility and discount functions from stated choice data: an application to durable goods adoption. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12, 331–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Dubé, J.-P., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2017). Self-signaling and prosocial behavior: a cause marketing experiment. Marketing Science, 36, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G. (2019). Marketing in the Sharing Economy. Journal of Marketing, 83, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gardete, P. M. (2015). Social effects in the in-flight marketplace: characterization and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gershoff, A. D., Kivetz, R., & Keinan, A. (2012). Consumer response to versioning: how brands’ production methods affect perceptions of unfairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 382–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ghose, A., Goldfarb, A., & Han, S. P. (2013). How is the Mobile internet different? Search costs and local activities. Information Systems Research, 24, 613–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: a source of durability Bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: on the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., & Lauga, D. O. (2014). A reference-dependent model of the Price–quality heuristic. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Goldsmith, K., & Amir, O. (2010). Can uncertainty improve promotions? Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1070–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Goodman, J. K., & Irmak, C. (2013). Having versus consuming: failure to estimate usage frequency makes consumers prefer multifeature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Goukens, C., Dewitte, S., Pandelaere, M., & Warlop, L. (2007). Wanting a bit(e) of everything: extending the valuation effect to variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 386–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Grewening, E., Lergetporer, P., Werner, K., & Smarzynska Javorcik, B. (2019). Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments. CESifo Working Paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3357133. Accessed 7 September 2019
  65. Guercini, S., La Rocca, A., Runfola, A., & Snehota, I. (2015). Heuristics in customer-supplier interaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 48, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Guha, A., Biswas, A., Grewal, D., Verma, S., Banerjee, S., & Nordfält, J. (2018). Reframing the discount with a comparison to the sale price: does it make the discount more attractive? Journal of Marketing Research, 55, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hagenbuch, D. J., Wiese, M. D., Dose, J. J., & Bruce, M. L. (2008). Understanding satisfied and affectively committed clients' lack of referral intent. Services Marketing Quarterly, 29, 24–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hainmueller, J., Hiscox, M. J., & Sequeira, S. (2015). Consumer demand for fair trade: evidence from a multistore field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97, 242–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (2008). Contracts as reference points. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hauser, J. R., Urban, G. L., Liberali, G., & Braun, M. (2009). Website morphing. Marketing Science, 28, 202–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hilken, T., Ruyter, K. d., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., & Keeling, D. I. (2017). Augmenting the eye of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 884–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ho, T. H., Lim, N., & Camerer, C. F. (2006). Modeling the psychology of consumer and firm behavior with behavioral economics. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  74. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Hui, S. K., Inman, J. J., Huang, Y., & Suher, J. (2013). The effect of in-store travel distance on unplanned spending: applications to Mobile promotion strategies. Journal of Marketing, 77, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Huyghe, E., Verstraeten, J., Geuens, M., & van Kerckhove, A. (2017). Clicks as a healthy alternative to bricks: how online grocery shopping reduces vice purchases. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Imai, K., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2013). Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176, 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Iyer, G. R., Blut, M., Xiao, S. H., & Grewal, D. (2019). Impulse buying: a meta-analytic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science published online.Google Scholar
  80. Javornik, A. (2016). "It's an illusion, but it looks real!" consumer affective, cognitive and behavioural responses to augmented reality applications. Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Jindal, P. (2015). Risk preferences and demand drivers of extended warranties. Marketing Science, 34, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Johnson, J., & Tellis, G. J. (2005). Blowing bubbles: Heuristics and biases in the run-up of stock prices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 486–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Johnson, J., Tellis, G. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (2005). Losers, winners, and biased trades. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Jung, M. H., Nelson, L. D., Gneezy, U., & Gneezy, A. (2017). Signaling virtue: charitable behavior under consumer elective pricing. Marketing Science, 36, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo Bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kalra, A., & Shi, M. (2010). Consumer value-maximizing sweepstakes and contests. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kalyanaram, G., & Winer, R. S. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science, 14, G161–G169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kivetz, R. (2003). The effects of effort and intrinsic motivation on risky choice. Marketing Science, 22, 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-control for the righteous: toward a theory of Precommitment to indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Kocher, M. G., Pahlke, J., & Trautmann, S. T. (2013). Tempus fugit: time pressure in risky decisions. Management Science, 59, 2380–2391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lacetera, N., Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. R. (2012). Heuristic thinking and limited attention in the car market. American Economic Review, 102, 2206–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and Mobile marketing: research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80, 146–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lambrecht, A., & Skiera, B. (2006). Paying too much and being happy about it: existence, causes, and consequences of tariff-choice biases. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. E. (2015). Field experiments in marketing. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2630209. Accessed: 7 September 2019.
  99. Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Algorithmic Bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. Management Science, 65, 2966–2981.Google Scholar
  100. Larrick, R. P., Burson, K. A., & Soll, J. B. (2007). Social comparison and confidence: when thinking you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Lee, L., Lee, M. P., Bertini, M., Zauberman, G., & Ariely, D. (2015). Money, time, and the stability of consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Lee, L., Inman, J. J., Argo, J. J., Böttger, T., Dholakia, U., Gilbride, T., van Ittersum, K., Kahn, B., Kalra, A., Lehmann, D. R., McAlister, L. M., Shankar, V., & Tsai, C. I. (2018). From browsing to buying and beyond: the needs-adaptive shopper journey model. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Loewenstein, G. (1988). Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Management Science, 34, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1209–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Louro, M. J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). Negative returns on positive emotions: the influence of pride and self-regulatory goals on repurchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 833–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Malmendier, U., & Taylor, T. (2015). On the verges of overconfidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Matz, S. C., & Netzer, O. (2017). Using big data as a window into consumers’ psychology. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Meloy, M. G. (2000). Mood-driven distortion of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Meyer, R. J., Zhao, S., & Han, J. K. (2008). Biases in valuation vs. usage of innovative product features. Marketing Science, 27, 1083–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers’ beliefs about product benefits: the effect of obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 618–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Highbrow films gather dust: time-inconsistent preferences and online DVD rentals. Management Science, 55, 1047–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). I’ll have the ice cream soon and the vegetables later: a study of online grocery purchases and order Lead time. Marketing Letters, 21, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Miravete, E. J. (2003). Choosing the wrong calling plan? Ignorance and learning. American Economic Review, 93, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Mohr, G. S., Lichtenstein, D. R., & Janiszewski, C. (2012). The effect of marketer-suggested serving size on consumer responses: the unintended consequences of consumer attention to calorie information. Journal of Marketing, 76, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115, 502–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Morwitz, V. G., Greenleaf, E. A., & Johnson, E. J. (1998). Divide and prosper: consumer's reactions to partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 453–463.Google Scholar
  125. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: a randomized experiment. Science, 341, 647–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Narayanan, S., & Manchanda, P. (2012). An empirical analysis of individual level casino gambling behavior. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10, 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Neumann, N., & Böckenholt, U. (2014). A meta-analysis of loss aversion in product choice. Journal of Retailing, 90, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Neumann, N., Böckenholt, U., & Sinha, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of extremeness aversion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26, 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Odean, T. (1999). Do Investors trade too much? American Economic Review, 89, 1279–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Coupey, E., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). A constructive process view of decision making: multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Acta Psychologica, 80, 107–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Phillips, D. M., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). The role of consumption emotions in the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Pope, D. G., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. American Economic Review, 101, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 11–46.Google Scholar
  135. Rabin, M. (2002). A perspective on psychology and economics. European Economic Review, 46, 657–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Read, D., & van Leeuwen, B. (1998). Predicting hunger: the effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Dalli, D. (2012). Emotions that drive consumers away from brands: measuring negative emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Rooderkerk, R. P., van Heerde, H. J., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2011). Incorporating context effects into a choice model. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 767–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Schmidt, K. M., Spann, M., & Zeithammer, R. (2015). Pay what you want as a marketing strategy in monopolistic and competitive markets. Management Science, 61, 1217–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 253–283.Google Scholar
  142. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Simonson, I. (2008). Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Soman, D. (1998). The illusion of delayed incentives: evaluating future effort-money transactions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 427–437.Google Scholar
  146. Steiner, M., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., & Backhaus, K. (2016). Do customized service packages impede value capture in industrial markets? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Stenstrom, E. P., Saad, G., & Hingston, S. T. (2018). Menstrual cycle effects on prosocial orientation, gift giving, and charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 84, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Sunstein, C. R. (2015). The ethics of nudging. Yale Journal on Regulation, 32, 413–450.Google Scholar
  149. Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Tarrahi, F., Eisend, M., & Dost, F. (2016). A meta-analysis of price change fairness perceptions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economic Letters, 8, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: past, present and future. American Economic Review, 106, 1577–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Thaler, R. H. (2018). Nudge, not Sludge. Science, 361, 431 Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6401/431. Accessed 7 September 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. G. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: the left-digit effect in Price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Tully, S. M., & Winer, R. S. (2014). The role of the beneficiary in willingness to pay for socially responsible products: a meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Tversky, A. (1974). Assessing uncertainty. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 36, 148–159.Google Scholar
  161. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. VanEpps, E. M., Downs, J. S., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Advance ordering for healthier eating? Field experiments on the relationship between time delay and meal content. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Wedel, M., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). Marketing analytics for data-rich environments. Journal of Marketing, 80, 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice. Marketing Science, 17, 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Windschitl, P. D., & O'Rourke, J. (2015). Optimism biases: types and causes. The Wiley Blackweel Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Wood, S. L. (2001). Remote purchase environments: the influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated environments: research synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing, 78, 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Yadav, M. S., de Valck, K., Hennig-Thurau, T., Hoffman, D. L., & Spann, M. (2013). Social commerce: a contingency framework for assessing marketing potential. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Yang, Y., Vosgerau, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Framing influences willingness to pay but not willingness to accept. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Yaoyuneyong, G., Foster, J. K., & Flynn, L. R. (2014). Factors impacting the efficacy of augmented reality virtual dressing room technology as a tool for online visual merchandising. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 5, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (1999). Comparing service delivery to what might have been: behavioral responses to regret and disappointment. Journal of Service Research, 2, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Zhang, J., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2004). Customizing promotions in online stores. Marketing Science, 23, 561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Electronic Commerce and Digital Markets, Munich School of ManagementLudwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Marketing, School of Business and EconomicsHumboldt-University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations