Skip to main content

The Rationality of Consumer Decisions to Adopt and Utilize Product-Attribute Enhancements: Why Are We Lured by Product Features We Never Use?

  • Conference paper
  • 1257 Accesses

Abstract

The ability of consumers to optimally anticipate the value they will draw from new product features that are introduced to enhance the performance of existing technologies is explored. The work tests a hypothesis that when consumers are given the opportunity to buy a new generation of a products that offers enhanced features consumer will overvalue them, a bias the accrues to a tendency to overestimate both the extent that they will utilize these new features and the impact they will have on utility. This general hypothesis is tested in the context of a computer simulation in which subjects are trained to play one three different forms of an arcade game where icons are moved over a screen by different forms of tactile controls. Respondents are then given the option to play a series of games for money with either with their incumbent game platform or pay to play with an alternative version that offered an expanded set of controls. As hypothesized, subjects displayed an upwardly-biased valuation for the new sets of controls; adopters underutilized them and displayed a level of game performance that was not better than those who never upgraded. A follow-up study designed to resolve the process underlying the bias indicated that while adopters indeed over-forecast the degree to which they would make use of the new control, they did not over-forecast performance gains. Hence, the key driver of adoption decisions appeared to be an exaggerated belief of the hedonic pleasure that would be derived from owning and utilizing the new control as opposed to any objective value it might provide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ariely, Dan (1998). “Combining experiences over time: The effects of duration, intensity changes & on-line measurements on retrospective pain evaluations.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, Dan, and George Loewenstein (2000). “The Importance of Duration in Ratings of, and Choices Between, Sequences of Outcomes.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 508–523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Gordon. M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marschak (1964). “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method.” Behavioral Science, 9(July), 226–232.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna, Stefano, and Ulrike Malmendier (2002). “Self Control in the Market: Evidence from the Health Club Industry.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, Ravi (1997). “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option.” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., and Daniel Kahneman (1993). “Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 45–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Daniel, and J. B. Ebert (2002). “Decisions and Revisions: The Affective Forecasting of Changeable Outcomes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 502–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Daniel T., M. J. Gill, and Timothy D. Wilson (2002). “The Future is Now: Temporal Correlation and Affective Forecasting.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 690–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Daniel, Elizabeth C. Pinel, Timothy D. Wilson, Stephen J. Blumberg, and Thalia P. Wheatley (1998). “Immune Neglect: A Source of Durability Bias in Affective Forecasting.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617–638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gourville, John, and Dilip Soman (1998). “Payment Depreciation: The Behavioral Effect of Temporally Separating Payments.” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 160–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. Paul (1975). “Logic and Conversation,” in J. Cole and P. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3, Speech Acts, pp. 43–58. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, Robin M. (1981). “Beyond Discrete Biases: Functional and Dysfunctional Aspects of Judgment Heuristics.” Psychological Bulletin, 90, 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric J., Steven Bell, Gerald L. Lhose, Jerald (2003). “Cognitive Lock-in and the Power Law of Practice.” Journal of Marketing, 67 (April).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, and J. Snell (1992). “Predicting Future Taste: Do People Know What they Will Like?” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 1987–2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Namwoon, Jae H. Pae, Jin K. Han, and Rajendra K. Strivastava (2002). “Institutionalization of Technologies for Technology Markets: A Buyer-Seller Approach.” Working Paper, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer, Paul (1987). “Markets With Consumer Switching Costs.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(May), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, George, and D. Alder (1996). “A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes.” Economic Journal, 105, 929–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, George, and David Schkade (1999). “Wouldn’t it be Nice? Predicting Future Feelings,” in Daniel Kahneman, Edward Diener, and Norbert Schwartz (eds.), Well Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, George, Ted O’Donoghue, and Matthew Rabin (2002). “Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility.” Working PaperEOO-284, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Robert J., and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1994). “Dynamic Decision Making.” Marketing Letters, XX, 000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Robert J., and J. Wesley Hutchinson (2001). “Bubbling Geniuses: The Power of Everyday Reasoning in Mulitstage Decision Making”, in S. Hoch and H. Kunreuther (eds), Wharton on Making Decisions”, New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Robert J., and Young Shi (1995). “Intuitive Solutions to the Armed-Bandit Problem.” Management Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, C. Page (2001). Donald R. Lehmann, and Arthur B. Markman, “Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to Really New Products.” Journal of Marketing Research 38(February), 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Elizabeth, and Barbara E. Kahn (2003). “The Effect of Color and Flavor Names on Consumer Choices”. Working Paper, Department of Marketing, the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, Donald A. (1998). The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products can Fail, the Personal Computer is so Complex, and Information Appliances are the Answer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, Ted, and Mathew Rabin (1999). “Doing it Now or Later.” American Economic Review, 89, 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. and B. van Leeuwen “Predicting Hunger: the Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, John (1992). “Do People Behave According to Bellman’s Principle of Optimality? Working Paper E92-10, the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Jiwoong, and Dan Ariely (2003). “Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable”, Working Paper, Sloan School of Business, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivardi, Fabiano, and Martin Schneider, “Strategic Experimentation and Disruptive Technological Change.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, Robert, Judy DeLoache, and Nancy Eisenberg (2003). How Children Develop. New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, Itamar (1990). “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soman, Dilip (2003). “Prospective and Retrospective Evaluations of Experiences: How you Evaluate and Experience Depends on When you Evaluate it.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 36–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science, 4(Summer), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, and Eldar Shafir (1992). “Choice under conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision.” Psychological Science, 3(6), 358–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Timothy D. and Daniel Gilbert (2003). “Active Forecasting,” in M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345–411. New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Stacy L., and John G. Lynch (2002). “Prior Knowledge and Complacency in New Product Learning.” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(Decembert), 416–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zauberman, Gal (2003). “Lock-In from an Inter-temporal Choice Perspective: The Combined Effect of the Information Cost Structure and Time Preferences.” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), in press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhao, S., Meyer, R.J., Han, J. (2005). The Rationality of Consumer Decisions to Adopt and Utilize Product-Attribute Enhancements: Why Are We Lured by Product Features We Never Use?. In: Zwick, R., Rapoport, A. (eds) Experimental Business Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24244-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics