Economia Politica

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 239–250 | Cite as

The interaction between frames and numeracy in the evaluation of price reductions

Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

In this study we examine two factors which strongly influence the perception of the value of a discount: its presentation format and numeracy (the ability to use and attach meaning to numbers). We described a product on sale with two presentation formats (money-off, e.g. 11€ less and percentage, e.g. 36% less) and we compared the preferences for these formats, presented jointly and separately. The experimental results indicate that the consumers consider the percentage format more attractive than money-off format, but when they are presented jointly the attractiveness of the percentage format decreases, reaching the level of the money-off format. This effect is modulated by the numeric ability of the consumers: the preferences of the highly numerate consumers are not modified by the presentation formats. On the contrary, low numerate consumers are highly attracted by the percentage format but they change radically their preferences once the percentage discount is presented with the money-off format, which indicates the actual amount of saved money. These results indicate that a class of consumers—those with low numeracy—is particularly vulnerable to messages presented with certain specific forms. However, at the same time, it is possible to mitigate this effect by providing pieces of information which can compensate the excessive attractiveness of the percentage format.

Keywords

Numeracy Framing Heuristic choice Consumer attitudes & behavior Consumer protection 

JEL Classification

C91 D12 D18 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors contributed in equal measure to the development of the paper. Michele Graffeo gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the European Union and of the Provincia Autonoma di Trento (7th Framework Program “People”, Marie Curie Action—COFUND, project PEOCC). The authors wish to thank M. Pisoni and D. Schönsberg for their help in the data collection of the experiment.

References

  1. Chen, S. F. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Del Vecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Della Bitta, A. J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, J. M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2011). Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 638–650.Google Scholar
  5. Estelami, H. (2003). The effect of price presentation tactics on consumer evaluation effort of multi-dimensional prices. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2003). Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research (pp. 327–364). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. doi: 10.1257/089533005775196732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graffeo, M., & Bonini, N. (2015). On the evaluation of savings: The role of numeracy. Neuropsychological Trends, 17, 31–35. doi: 10.7358/neur-2015-017-graf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graffeo, M., Polonio, L., & Bonini, N. (2015). Individual differences in competent consumer choice: the role of cognitive reflection and numeracy skills. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00844.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, J., & Peters, E. (2009). Medicaid consumers and informed decision making. Health Care Financing Review, 30(3), 25–40.Google Scholar
  11. Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: The moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hibbard, J. H., Peters, E., Dixon, A., & Tusler, M. (2007). Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: it isn’t just about literacy. Medical Care Research and Review, 64(4), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipkus, I. M., & Peters, E. (2009). Understanding the role of numeracy in health: Proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Education & Behavior, 36(6), 1065–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson, W., Reyna, V. F., Fagerlin, A., Lipkus, I. M., & Peters, E. (2008). Clinical implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters, E., Dieckmann, N., Dixon, A., Hibbard, J. H., & Mertz, C. K. (2007a). Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research and Review, 64(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters, E., Hart, S. P., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., & Dieckmann, N. (2007b). Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs, 26(3), 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schapira, M. M., Davids, S. L., McAuliffe, T. L., & Nattinger, A. B. (2004). Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 24(3), 665–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scholz, F. W., & Stephens, M. A. (1987). K-sample Anderson–Darling tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(399), 918–924.Google Scholar
  29. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Ritov, I. (2002). Predictably incoherent judgments. Stanford Law Review, 1153–1215.Google Scholar
  33. Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Moncur, M., Gabriel, S., & Tosteson, A. N. A. (2001). Assessing values for health: Numeracy matters. Medical Decision Making, 21(5), 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yin, W., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2004). Framing effects of coupon face value on coupon redemption: A literature review with propositions. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7–8), 877–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations