Skip to main content

Material Distortion of Economic Behaviour and Everyday Decision Quality

Abstract

Misleading information and unfair commercial practices have to be viewed against the background of what consumers otherwise do, i.e., what their purchase decisions look like when no misleading information or no unfair commercial practices are in place. This article provides some of this background by studying how consumers sample information when making an in-store purchase decision. This was done by an eye-tracking study which reveals to what extent consumers succeed in purchasing the products that best meet their purchase intentions when only a representative amount of misleading information is present. The study shows that decisions were suboptimal in relation to what the consumers claimed they wanted to purchase. Only in one product category did consumers in this study actually look at products that were slightly better than average, and as a result, they mainly selected products that were just as often poor as good. If the proportion of bad purchase decisions based on misleading information is small enough, perhaps it might be better to direct the authors’ attention to other ways of improving the decision environments that consumers encounter. In addition, the eye-tracking study provides some insight into how consumers sample information when making an in-store purchase decision. The present data show that consumers invested on average of less than 1 s to look at products.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The sample of this study is fairly small; this has to do with the technique at this point being new and not functioning ideally in this environment and we therefore had to exclude many participants. The sample size is however not small in comparison to most studies using eye tracking (see Holmqvist et al. 2011). In addition, the radio interference that made some recordings so bad that they could not be used was random, and thus we have no reason to assume that the participants that were excluded in this way differed from the participants included in the subsequent analysis.

References

  1. Bar-Gill, O. (2012). Seduction by contract. law, economics and psycholgy in consumer markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Bar-Gill, O., & Ben-Shahar, O. (2013). Regulatory techniques in consumer protection: A critique of the Common European Sales Law. Common Market Law Review (in press).

  3. Ben-Shahar, O., & Schneider, C. E. (2011). The failure of mandated disclosure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 647, 101–204.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 170–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2010). Commentary on Scheibehenne, Grefeneder and Todd. Choice overload: Is there anything to it? Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 426–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clement, J. (2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence on packaging design. Journal of Marketing Management, 23, 917–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Broniarczyk, S. M., Hoyer, W. D., & McAlister, L. (1998). Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category: The impact of item reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. European Parliament and Council. (2005). Council Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 on unfair business to consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Luxembourg: European Council.

  10. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, D., Jarodzska, H., & van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Howells, G. G., Micklitz, H.-W., & Wilhelmsson, T. (2006). European fair trading law, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Aldershot, England. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Company.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hoyer, W. D. (1984). An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 822–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Incardona, R., & Poncibò, C. (2007). The average consumer, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and the cognitive revolution. Journal of Consumer Policy, 30, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Iyengar, S. S., Jiang, W., & Huberman, G. (2004). How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. In O. S. Mitchell & S. Utkus (Eds.), Pension design and structure: New lessons from behavioural finance (pp. 83–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R. W., & Fisher, W. A. (1978). A behavioural process approach to information acquisition in nondurable purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 532–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn Berning, C. (1974). Brand choice behaviour as a function of information load: Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decision with multiple objectives, preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mogilner, C., Tamar, R., & Iyengar, S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: How the presence of categories increase choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 202–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Micklitz, H.-W., Reich, N., & Rott, P. (2009). Understanding EU Consumer Law. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Møgelvang-Hansen, P. (2010). Misleading presentation of food. Methods of legal regulation and real-life case scenarios. In H.-W. Micklitz, V. Smith, & M. Ohm Rørdam (Eds.), New challenges for the assessment of fairness in a common market (pp. 49–59). Florence: European University Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  24. Ramsey, F. P. (1926). Truth and probability. In: Ramsey, F. P. & D. H. Mellor (Eds.). Philosophical Papers (pp. 52–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  25. Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2005). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When “goods satiate.” Psychology and Marketing, 26, 197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reich, N. (2008). Crisis and Future of Consumer Law. In: D. Parry, A. Nordhausen, G. Howells, and C. Twigg-Flesner (Eds.) Yearbook of Consumer Law 2009 (pp. 3–68). Burlington: Ashgate Pub. Company.

  27. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice—Why more is less. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shah, A. M., & Wolford, G. (2007). Buying behaviour as a function of parametric variation of number of choices. Psychological Science, 18, 369–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 59, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith, V., Clement, J., Møgelvang-Hansen, P., & Selsøe Sørensen, H. (2011). Assessing in-store food-to-consumer communication from a fairness perspective: An integrated approach. Fachsprache-International Journal of Specialized Communication, 1(2), 84–106.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Selsøe Sørensen, H., Holm, L., Møgelvang-Hansen, P., Barratt, D., Qvistgaard, F., & Smith, V. (2013). Consumer understanding of food labels: Toward a general tool for identifying the average consumer. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research.

  33. Trzaskowski, J. (2011). Behavioural economics, neuroscience and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the cross-disciplinary project “Spin or fair speak—when foods talk” funded by the Programme Committee on Health, Food, and Welfare under the Danish Council for Strategic Research (Grant No. 09-061379/DSF). The project is carried out as a collaboration between the FairSpeak Group, Copenhagen Business School, and researchers from The Humanities Lab and Cognitive Science, Lund University (Sweden). See www.fairspeak.org.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Gidlöf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gidlöf, K., Wallin, A., Holmqvist, K. et al. Material Distortion of Economic Behaviour and Everyday Decision Quality. J Consum Policy 36, 389–402 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9228-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Consumer behaviour
  • Consumer decision making
  • Unfair commercial practices directive
  • Information search
  • Decision quality