Heuristics and Biases in Timing the Replacement of Durable Products

The process by which individuals make recurrent decisions about when to replace durable goods is examined. Two experiments are reported in which subjects play the role of purchasing agents who must repeatedly decide whether to keep a currently owned manufacturing device or replace it with a superior new one, given uncertainty about the future performance of new and currently owned machines. Replacement patterns are compared with those that would be predicted if subjects made decisions as rational economic agents, following the principles of optimal replacement theory. This comparison reveals a number of systematic departures from optimality that do not vanish with experience. Among these are a tendency to replace at a slower rate than would be predicted by normative theory and a tendency to weigh opportunity costs arising from obsolescence greater than those arising from product deterioration. In addition, subjects display a bias against making replacement purchases given short lapses of time since the previous replacement. The findings are interpreted in terms of known biases in decision making under uncertainty in dynamic and static settings.

[1]  J. Raymond,et al.  Modelling the consumer's decision to replace durable goods: a hazard function approach , 1993 .

[2]  R. Thaler Quasi Rational Economics , 1991 .

[3]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Dynamic Programming , 1966 .

[4]  H. Arkes,et al.  The Psychology of Sunk Cost , 1985 .

[5]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences , 1992 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[7]  B. Brehmer In one word: Not from experience. , 1980 .

[8]  Y. S. Sherif,et al.  Optimal maintenance models for systems subject to failure–A Review , 1981 .

[9]  J. McCall Maintenance Policies for Stochastically Failing Equipment: A Survey , 1965 .

[10]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions , 1986 .

[11]  Kent B. Monroe,et al.  The Influence of Price Differences and Brand Familiarity on Brand Preferences , 1976 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[13]  B. Bayus The Consumer Durable Replacement Buyer , 1991 .

[14]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[15]  Bruce G. S. Hardie,et al.  Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice , 1993 .

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[17]  Don N. Kleinmuntz,et al.  Cognitive Heuristics and Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Environment , 1985 .

[18]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Daniel H. McQuiston Novelty, Complexity, and Importance as Causal Determinants of Industrial Buyer Behavior , 1989 .

[20]  C. Fornell,et al.  Patterns of Information Source usage among Durable Goods Buyers , 1979 .

[21]  R. Staelin,et al.  Prepurchase Information Seeking for New Cars and Major Household Appliances , 1972 .

[22]  Yves Balcer,et al.  Technological expectations and adoption of improved technology , 1984 .

[23]  Peter R. Dickson,et al.  Buyer Uncertainty and Information Search , 1989 .

[24]  William P. Pierskalla,et al.  A survey of maintenance models: The control and surveillance of deteriorating systems , 1976 .

[25]  Robert J. Meyer,et al.  The Optimality of Consumer Stockpiling Strategies , 1990 .

[26]  Russell S. Winer,et al.  Technical Note---A Price Vector Model of Demand for Consumer Durables: Preliminary Developments , 1985 .

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .