Advertisement

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

  • Michaela GröschEmail author
  • Martina Steul-Fischer
Abhandlung
  • 61 Downloads

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.

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

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.

References

  1. Anderson, C.J.: The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol Bull 129(1), 139–167 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S.E.: Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. 70(9), 1–70 (1956)Google Scholar
  3. 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)Google Scholar
  4. Baron, J., Ritov, I.: Reference points and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 59(3), 475–498 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W.J., Ide, E.A.: Variety in retailing. Manage. Sci. 3(1), 93–101 (1956)Google Scholar
  6. Berger, J., Draganska, M., Simonson, I.: The influence of product variety on brand perception and choice. Mark Sci 26(4), 460–472 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, D.E., Bahn, K.D.: When do large product assortments benefit consumers? An information-processing perspective. J Retail 85(3), 288–297 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 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)Google Scholar
  9. Chen, Y.F.: Herd behavior in purchasing books online. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(5), 1977–1992 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 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)Google Scholar
  11. Chernev, A.: Product assortment and individual decision processes. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(1), 151–162 (2003b)Google Scholar
  12. Chernev, A.: The role of purchase quantity in assortment choice: the quantity-matching heuristic. J Mark Res 45(2), 171–181 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. Chernev, A.: Product assortment and consumer choice: an interdisciplinary review. Found Trends Mark 6(1), 1–61 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. Dhar, R.: Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J Consum Res 24(2), 215–231 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. Diehl, K., Poynor, C.: Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations, and satisfaction. J Mark Res 47(2), 312–322 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 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)Google Scholar
  17. Grösch, M., Steul-Fischer, M.: Defaults and advice in self-customization procedures of insurance. Z. Ges. Versicherungswiss. 106(3), 325–341 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 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)Google Scholar
  19. 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)Google Scholar
  20. Huffman, C., Kahn, B.E.: Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion? J Retail 74(4), 491–513 (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 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)Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, E.J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., Kunreuther, H.: Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J. Risk Uncertain. 7(1), 35–51 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, E.J., Bellman, S., Lohse, G.L.: Defaults, framing and privacy: why opting in – opting out. Mark Lett 13(1), 5–15 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. Kahn, B.E., Lehman, D.R.: Modeling choice among assortments. J Retail 67(3), 274–299 (1991)Google Scholar
  25. Kahn, B.E., Weingarten, E., Townsend, C.: Assortment variety: too much of a good thing? Rev Mark Res 10, 1–23 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 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)Google Scholar
  27. 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)Google Scholar
  28. Loewenstein, G.: Is more choice always better. Soc Secur Brief 7(1), 1–8 (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 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)Google Scholar
  30. Malhotra, N.K.: Information load and consumer decision making. J Consum Res 8(4), 419–430 (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 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)Google Scholar
  32. 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)Google Scholar
  33. Redelmeier, D.A., Shafir, E.: Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. J Am Med Assoc 273(4), 302–305 (1995)Google Scholar
  34. Ritov, I., Baron, J.: Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Mak 3(4), 263–277 (1990)Google Scholar
  35. Ritov, I., Baron, J.: Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 64(2), 119–127 (1995)Google Scholar
  36. 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)Google Scholar
  37. Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R.: Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1(1), 7–59 (1988)Google Scholar
  38. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., Todd, P.M.: What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychol Mark 26(3), 229–253 (2009)Google Scholar
  39. Sela, A., Berger, J., Liu, W.: Variety, vice, and virtue: how assortment size influences option choice. J Consum Res 35(6), 941–951 (2009)Google Scholar
  40. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A.: Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1–2), 11–36 (1993)Google Scholar
  41. Simonson, I., Tversky, A.: Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J Mark Res 29(3), 281–295 (1992)Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Tversky, A., Shafir, E.: Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychol Sci 3(6), 358–361 (1992)Google Scholar
  44. Wright, P.: Consumer choice strategies: simplifying vs. optimizing. J Mark Res 12(1), 60–67 (1975)Google Scholar
  45. Wright, P.: Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence. J Consum Res 28(4), 677–682 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für BWL, insb. VersicherungsmarketingFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergNurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations