Die Macht des Defaults — Wirkung von Empfehlungen und Vorgaben auf das individuelle Entscheidungsverhalten

The power of defaults — Effect of defaults on decision making

Zusammenfassung

Bei der Wahl vieler Produkte ist der Kunde mit Empfehlungen und Vorgaben der Hersteller und Händler (Defaults) konfrontiert. Bei der online-Konfiguration eines Erzeugnisses (z. B. Pkw) ist für alle zwingend erforderlichen Merkmale (z. B. Motor) jeweils ein Default (d. h. eine Ausprägung, z. B. 3.2 Liter) vorgegeben. Zudem geben die Anbieter Empfehlungen bezüglich bestimmter Merkmalsausprägungen ab, an denen sich die Nachfrager orientieren. Obgleich der grundsätzliche Einfluss von Defaults auf das Entscheidungsverhalten unbestritten ist, sind wichtige Fragen etwa nach dem Effekt unterschiedlicher Default-Varianten noch nicht beantwortet. Anhand einer empirischen Studie, in deren Mittelpunkt ein Car-Konfigurator steht, kann gezeigt werden, wie verschiedene Defaults das Entscheidungsverhalten der Individuen beeinflussen. Die Befunde erlauben Rückschlüsse über den Prozess der Herausbildung von Produktpräferenzen.

Summary

Defaults are those options that customers automatically receive unless they expressly choose an alternative. Should this presetting not correspond to customers’ needs, then they must deliberately replace it with an alternative. A key factor in this situation is the individual effort that must be exerted to deselect the default in favour of a more satisfactory alternative product and/or feature. In this paper it is clarified whether the intensity of the default effect changes over varying default steps. In addition, decision-making behavior involves various communicators (e.g., manufacturer, retailer, other customers) that have varying effects on consumer choice of a product, product feature, or feature option (in terms of price and quality), both the default type and the default step are of central significance in explaining such behavior. Finally, customers do not always select the manufacturer and/or retailer defaults, a default may be considered an anchor point that leads consumers to choose a product or product feature options in its proximity. Thus, this default effect is of central significance to the development of a product line and feature options.

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

Literatur

  1. Ahearne, M./ Gruen, T. W./ Jarvis, C. B. (1999): If Looks Could Sell: Moderation and Mediation of the Attractiveness Effect on Salesperson Performance, in: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, S. 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Backhaus, K./ Erichson, B./ Plinke, W./ Weiber, R. (2003): Multivariate Analysemethoden, 10. Aufl., Berlin.

  3. Baron, J./ Ritov, I. (1994): Reference Points and Omission Bias, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 59, S. 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bearden, W. O./ Netemeyer, R. G./ Teel, J. E. (1989): Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, S. 473–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellman, S./ Johnson, E. J./ Lohse, G. (2001): To opt-in or opt-out: That depends on the Question, in: Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44, S. 25–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyle, B. F./ Dwyer, F. R./ Robicheaux, R. A./ Simpson, J. T. (1992): Influence Strategies in Marketing Channels: Measures and Use in Different Relationship Structures, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, S. 462–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, C. L./ Krischna, A. (2004): The Skeptical Shopper: A Metacognitive Account for the Effects of Default Options on Choice, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, S. 529–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, S. P. (1990): Use of Closed Influence Tactics by Salespeople: Incidence and Buyers Attributions, in: Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 10, S. 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell, M. C./ Kirmani, A. (2000): Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, S. 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapman, G. B./ Johnson, E. J. (1999): Anchoring, Activation and the Construction of Values, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 79, S. 115–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Del Veccio, S. K./ Zemanek, J. E./ McIntyre, R. P./ Claxton, R. P. (2003): Buyers Perception of Salesperson Tactical Approaches, in: Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 23, S. 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Desmeules, R. (2002): The Impact of Variety on Consumer Happiness: Marketing and the Tyranny of Freedom, in: Academy of Marketing Science Review, [Online] http://www.amsreview.org/articles/desmeules12-2002.pdf.

  13. Dhar, R./ Wertenbroch, K. (2000): Consumer choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, S. 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dubois, B./ Laurent, G./ Czellar, S. (2004): Segmentation Based on Ambivalent Attitudes, Arbeitspapier, HEC Paris

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzsimons, G. J./ Lehmann, D. R. (2004): Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 23, S. 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friestad, M./ Wright, P. (1994): The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, S. 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Friestad, M./ Wright, P. (1995): Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People’s and Researchers’ Beliefs about the Psychology of Persuasion, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, S. 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Friestad, M./ Wright, P. (1999): Everyday Persuasion Knowledge, in: Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16, S. 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gedenk, K. (2002): Verkaufsförderung, München.

  20. Hair, J./ Anderson, R./ Tatham, R./ Black, W. (1998): Multivariate Data Analysis, 5. Aufl., Upper Saddle River.

  21. Heitmann, M./ Herrmann, A. (2006): Produktkonfiguration als Präferenzkonstruktion, in: Die Unternehmung, Vol. 60, S. 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hsee, C. K./ Rottenstreich, Y. (2004): Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 133, S. 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jain, S. P./ Posavac, S. S. (2001): Prepurchase Attribute Verifiability, Source Credibility, and Persuasion, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 11, S. 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson, E. J./ Bellman, S./ Lohse, G. L. (2002): Defaults, Framing, and Privacy: Why Opting In — Opting Out, in: Marketing Letters, Vol. 13, S. 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson, E. J./ Goldstein, D. (2003): Do Defaults Save Lifes?, in: Science, Vol. 302, S. 1338–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson, E. J./ Herrmann, A./ Gächter, S. (2005): The Why, Where and What of Loss Aversion, Arbeitspapier, Columbia University New York.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson, E. J./ Hershey, J./ Meszaros, J./ Kunreuther, H. (1993): Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions, in: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 7, S. 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kahneman, D./ Knetsch, J. L./ Thaler, R. (1990): Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem, in: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, S. 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahneman, D./ Tversky, A. (1979): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, in: Econometrica, Vol. 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kahneman, D./ Tversky, A. (1991): Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. S. 1039–1062.

  31. Khan, U./ Dhar, R./ Wertenbroch, K. (2004): A Behavioral Decision Theoretic Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice, Arbeitspapier, Insead, Fontainbleau.

  32. Kivetz, R./ Simonson, I. (2002a): Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of Customer Preferences towards Frequency Program Rewards, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, S. 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kivetz, R./ Simonson, I. (2002b): Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulge, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, S. 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Levav, J./ Heitmann, M./ Herrmann, A./ Iyengar, S. (2006): The Effect of Variety on sequential Choice, in: Conference of the Institute on Emotions and Decision Making, auf CDrom ohne Seitenangaben.

  35. Levav, J./ Heitmann, M./ Herrmann, A./ Iyengar, S. (2007): The Effect of Attribute Order and Variety on Choice Demotivation: A Field Experiment on German Car Buyers, erscheint in: Advances in Consumer Research.

  36. Madrian, B. C./ Shea, D. F. (2001): The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 66, S. 1149–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McFarland, R. G./ Challagalla, G. N./ Shervani, T. A. (2006): Influence Tactics for effective adaptive Selling, in: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, S. 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McGuire, W. J. (2000): Standing on the Shoulders of Ancients: Consumer Research, Persuasion, and Figurative Language, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, S. 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McKenzie, C. R. M. (2004): Framing Effects in Inference Tasks — and why they are normatively defensible, in: Memory and Cognition, Vol. 32, S. 874–885.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McKenzie, C. R. M./ Liersch, M. J./ Finkelstein, S. R. (2006): Recommendations Implicit in Policy Defaults, in: Psychological Science, Vol. 17, S. 414–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McKenzie, C. R. M./ Nelson, J. D. (2003): What a Speaker’s Choice of Frame Reveals: Reference Points, Frame Selection, and Framing Effects, in: Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 10, S. 596–602.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Novemsky, N./ Kahneman, D. (2005a): The Boundaries of Loss Aversion, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, S. 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Novemsky, N./ Kahneman, D. (2005b): How Do Intentions Affect Loss Aversion?, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, S. 139–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Obermiller, C./ Spangenberg, E. R. (1999): Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism of Advertising, in: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7, S. 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Park, C. W./ Jun, S./ MacInnis, D. (2000): Choosing What I Want Versus Rejecting What I do not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions, in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, S. 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Payne, J. W./ Bettman J. R./ Johnson, E. J. (1993): The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge.

  47. Pham, M. T. (1998): Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, S. 144–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Polak, B./ Herrmann, A./ Heitmann, M. (2006): Einfluss der Händler auf die Produktspezifikation durch die Kunden, Arbeitspapier, Universität St. Gallen, Forschungsstelle für Business Metrics.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004): The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of five Decades’ Evidence, in: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, S. 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Roese, N. J. (1997): Counterfactual Thinking, in: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 121, S. 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Samuelson, W./ Zeckhauser, R. (1988): Status Quo Bias in Decision-Making, in: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1, S. 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sanna, L. J. (1999): Mental Simulations, Affect, and subjective Confidence: Timing is everything, in: Psychological Science, Vol. 10, S. 339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schkade, D./ Kahneman, D. (1998): Does Living in California make People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgements of Life Satisfaction, in: Psychological Science, Vol. 9, S. 340–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shiv, B./ Huber, J. (2000): The Impact of Anticipating Satisfaction on Choice, in: Journal of Consumer resarch, Vol. 27, S. 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schweitzer, M. (1994): Disentangling Status Quo and Omission Effects: An Experimental Analysis, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58, 457–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wallsten, T. S./ Barton, C. (1982): Processing Probabilistic Multidimensional Information for Decisions, in: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 8, S. 361–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wright, P. (2002): Marketplace Metacognition and Social Intelligence, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, S. 677–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zeelenberg, M. (1999): Anticipated Regret, Expected Feedback and Behavioral Decision Making, in: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 12, S. 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Benjamin Polak or Andreas Herrmann or Mark Heitmann.

Additional information

Koordinator Trendforschung für die Audi AG bis Mai 2008. Leiter Marktforschung der Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG ab Juni 2008

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Polak, B., Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M. et al. Die Macht des Defaults — Wirkung von Empfehlungen und Vorgaben auf das individuelle Entscheidungsverhalten. Z. Betriebswirtsch 78, 1033–1060 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-008-0111-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Default
  • decision making
  • experimental design
  • car configurator

JEL

  • M30
  • M31