Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2014.12.12.233

The Effect of Bundle Framing on Purchase Intention  

Lee, So-Young (Dept. of Information Management, Hoseo Graduate School of Venture)
Kim, Hyang-Mi (kt Economics & Management Research Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.12, no.12, 2014 , pp. 233-241 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study explore how framing affects the consumer's attitude toward the bundle products. On the basis of the framing theory, response compatibility hypothesis and regulatory focus theory, this study examine the impact of framing on the consumer's choice in multi-alternative set and analyzes the manner in which he/she selects or rejects an alternative. The data obtained from experiment shows that : 1. Consumers focus on the positive attributes of in selection task, however, in rejection task he/she will focus on negative attributes. 2. Consumers are not influenced by prevention framing when he/she selects an alternative however, he/she is not influenced by promotion framing when reject an alternative. Understanding the underlying cognitive process of choosing abd rejecting in multiple alernatives can help marketers to create effective framing strategies for the bundle product.
Keywords
Bundle Product; Response Compatibility Theory; Framing; Regulatory Focus; mere categorization;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Chakravarti, D., Rajan K, Pallab P, Joydeep Srivastava, Partitioned Presentation of Multicomponent Bundle Prices: Evaluation, Cjoice and Underlying Processing Effects, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.12, No.3, pp.215-229, 2002.   DOI
2 Drumwright, M. E., A Demonstration of Anomalies in Evaluations of Bundling, Marketing Letters, Vol.3, No.4, pp.311-321, 1992.
3 Johnson, M. D., Andreas H. and Hans H., Bauer, The Effects of Price Bundling on Consumer Evaluations of Product Offerings," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.16, June, pp.129-142, 1999.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Yadav, M. S., How buyers evaluate product bundles: A model of anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, pp.342-353. 1994   DOI   ScienceOn
5 William Baumol and E. A. Ide, Variety in Retailing, Vol.3, No.1, pp.93-101, Marketing Science, 1986.
6 Langer, E J, & Rodin, J. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged; A field experiment in an institutional setting, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.34, pp.191-198. 1976.   DOI
7 Jonah Berger, Michaela Draganska and Itamar Simonson, The Influence of Product Variety on on Brand Perception and Choice, Marketing Science, Vol.26, No.4, pp.260-472, 2007.
8 Lavengar, Sheena S and M. R. Lepper, When Choice is Demotivating; Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.79, December, pp.995-1006, 2000.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Dhar Ravi, Consumer Preference for a no Chioce Option, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, September, pp.215-231. 1997.
10 Grreenleaf, E. A., R. Lehmann, Reasons for Substential daley in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, September, pp.196-199, 1995.
11 Schalensee, Richard, Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling, Journal of Business, Vol. 57, January, pp.211-230, 1984.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Venkatesh, R. and Vijay Mahajan, A Probanilist Approach to Pricing a Bundle of Products and Services, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.30, November, pp.494-508, 1993.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory; An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrics, Vol.47, No.2, pp.263-291, 1984.
14 Kahnemen, D., Jack L. K., Richard H. and Thaler, Freeman, R., E., Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking; Entitlements in the Market, American Economic Review, Vol.78, pp.728-741, 1986.
15 Paul Slovic, The Construction of Preference, American Psychologist, Vol.50, No.5, pp.364-371, 1995.   DOI
16 Sarah Lichtenstein and Paul Slovic, Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol.89, pp.46-55, 1971.   DOI
17 Gourville, J. T. Pennies‐a‐Day: The Effects of Temporal Reframing on Transaction Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.24, No.4, pp.395-403, 1998.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Hansen Ward and R. K. Martin, Optimal Bundle Pricing, Management Science, Vol.36, February, pp.155-174, 1987.
19 William Boumol and E. A. Ide, Variety in Retailing, Vol.3, No.1, pp.93-101, Marketing Science, 1986.
20 Langer, E J, & Rodin, J. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged; A field experiment in an institutional setting, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.34, pp.191-198, 1976.   DOI
21 Yadav, M. S., Bundle evaluation in different market segments: The effects of discount framing and buyers' preference heterogeneity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.23, No.3, pp.206-215, 1995.   DOI
22 Y. W. Ha, H. J. Han, The Influence of Framing of Price Information on the Purchase Intension of a consumer, Korean Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.213, No.2, pp.145-163, 2002.
23 S. J. Park, The Effect of Pricing Framing of Bundle Product on Attention to a Sunken Cost, Korean Marketing Research, Vol.24, No.3, pp.95-118, 2009
24 I. P. Levin and G. J. Gaeth, How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.15, No.3, pp.374-378. 1988.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Mogilner, C., T. Rudnick, and S. S. Iyenga, The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers' Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.35, No.2, pp.202-215. 2008.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Bettman, J. R., M. F. Luce, and J. W. Payne, Constructive Consumer Choice Processes, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.25, No.3, pp.187-217. 1998.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Broniarczyk, S. M., W. D. Hoyer, and L. McAlister, Consumers' Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.35, No.2, pp.166-176, 1998.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Hoch, S., E. Bradlow, and B. Wansink, The Variety of an Assortment, Marketing Science, Vol.18, No.4, pp.527-546, 1999.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Kahn, B. E. and B. Wansink. The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.30, No.4, pp.519-533, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Dhar, R., Context and Task Effects on Choice Deferral, Marketing letters, Vol.8, No.1, pp.119-130, 1997.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Luce, M. F., J. R. Bettman, and J. W. Payne, Choice Processing in Emotionally Difficult Decisions, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol.23, March, pp.384-405, 1997.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Tversky, A. and E. Shafir. Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision, Psychological Science, Vol.3, No.6, pp.358-361, 1992.   DOI
33 Shafir, E., Choosing versus Rejecting: Why Some Options are both Better and Worse than Others, Memory & Cognition, Vol. 21, pp.546-556, 1993.   DOI
34 Slovic, P., D. Griffin, and A. Tversky, Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp.5-27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1990.
35 Wedell, D. H., Another Look at Reasons for Choosing and Rejecting, Memory & Cognition, Vol.25, pp.873-887, 1997.   DOI
36 Higgins, E. T., From Expectancies to World-view: Regulatory Focus in Socialization and Cognition, in J. M. Darley and J. Cooper(Eds.). Attribution and Social Interaction: The Legacy of Edward E. Jones. (pp. 243-309), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1998.
37 Neale, V. L., M. A. Huber, and G. B. Nrothcraft, The Framing of Negotiations: Contextual versus Task Frames, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.39, No.2, pp.228-241, 1987.   DOI
38 Liberman, N., L. C. Idson, C. J. Camacho, and E. T. Higgins, Promotion and Prevention Choices Between Stability and Change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.77, No.6, pp.1135-1145, 1999.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Higgins, E. T., Beyond Pleasure and Pain, American Psychologist, Vol.52, pp.1280-1300, 1997.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Aaker, J. L. and A. Y. Lee, "I" Seek Pleasures and "We" Avoid Pains: The Role of Self‐Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.28, No.1, pp.33-49, 2001.   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Higgins, E. T., How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making?, Journal of Customer Psychology, Vol.12, No.3, pp.177-191, 2002.
42 Lee, A. Y. and J. L. Aaker, Bringing the Frame into Focus : The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.86, No.2, pp.205-218, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Cesario, J., H. Grant and E. T. Higgins, Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from Feeling Right?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.86, No.3, pp.388-404, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Higgins, E. T., Value From Regulatory Fit, Psychological Science, Vol.14, No.4, pp.209-213, 2000.
45 Higgins, E. T., L. C. Idon, A. L. Freitas, S. Spiegel and D. C. Molden, Transfer of Value From Fit, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.84, No.6, pp.1140-1153, 2003.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Avent, T. and E. T. Higgins, How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.43, No.1, pp.1-10, 2006.   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Freitas, A. L., N. Liberman, and E. T. Higgins, Regulatory Fit and Resisting Temptation during Goal Pursuit, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.38, No.3, pp.291-298, 2002.   DOI   ScienceOn
48 Higgins, E. T., C. Roney, E. Crowe. and C. Hymes, Ideal versus Ought Predilections for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.66, pp.276-286, 1994.   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Lpckwood, P., C. H. Jordan, and Z. Kunda, Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.83, No.4, pp.854-864, 2002.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Markman, A. B. and C. M. Brendle, The Influence of Goals on Value and Choice?, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 39, ed. Douglas L. Medin, SanDiego, CA: Academic Press, pp.97-128, 2000.
51 Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. Theory of games and economic behavior (2d rev. ed.). Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press, xviii pp.641. 1947.