The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect

The current research examines how different types of information representation mode (graphical vs. numerical) influence the compromise effect. We posit that the compromise effect will be relatively stronger in the graphical versus numerical information presentation mode. Four empirical studies reported in this research provide the following: (1) support for these predictions, (2) the moderating role of time pressure, and (3) the moderating role of explicit relational information for the above prediction. The empirical results reveal that individuals employ different kinds of information processing and judgments, depending on the type of information representation mode.

[1]  Michael L. Donnell,et al.  Human cognition and the expert system interface: mental models and inference explanations , 1993, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[2]  A. Kalra,et al.  When Trade-Offs Matter: The Effect of Choice Construal on Context Effects , 2011 .

[3]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice , 1990 .

[4]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Graphic displays in decision making — the visual salience effect , 1990 .

[5]  Eric R. Stone,et al.  Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. , 1997 .

[6]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice , 2000 .

[7]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[8]  U. Böckenholt,et al.  Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations , 2007 .

[9]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Minds and Managers: On the Dual Nature Of Human Information Processing And Management , 1981 .

[10]  Ginger Rosenkrans,et al.  The Creativeness and Effectiveness of Online Interactive Rich Media Advertising , 2009 .

[11]  J. Pettibone.  Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice , 2012 .

[12]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Conditions for a Picture-Superiority Effect on Consumer Memory , 1984 .

[13]  Jungkeun Kim,et al.  The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect , 2016 .

[14]  Keith S. Coulter,et al.  Size Does Matter: The Effects of Magnitude Representation Congruency on Price Perceptions and Purchase Likelihood , 2005 .

[15]  Kent B. Monroe,et al.  The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers' Judgments of Prices and Products , 2003 .

[16]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice , 2003 .

[17]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[18]  I. Simonson,et al.  Correction Processes in Consumer Choice , 1999 .

[19]  Darron M. Billeter,et al.  Consumer Behavior in “Equilibrium”: How Experiencing Physical Balance Increases Compromise Choice , 2013 .

[20]  Don N. Kleinmuntz,et al.  Information Displays and Decision Processes , 1993 .

[21]  J. Payne,et al.  Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[22]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[23]  B. Kahn,et al.  The "visual preference heuristic": The influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload , 2014 .

[24]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment , 2008 .

[25]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions , 1998 .

[26]  A. Paivio.  Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[27]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[28]  R. Dhar,et al.  Deciding without Resources: Resource Depletion and Choice in Context , 2009 .

[29]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[30]  S. Frederick,et al.  The Limits of Attraction , 2014 .

[31]  E. Thorson,et al.  The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites , 2001 .

[32]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations , 1981 .

[33]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs , 1998 .