Format Neglect: How the Use of Numerical Versus Percentage Rank Claims Influences Consumer Judgments

Abstract

Marketers often claim to be part of an exclusive tier (e.g., “top 10”) within their competitive set. Although recent behavioral research has investigated how consumers respond to rank claims, prior work has focused exclusively on claims having a numerical format. But marketers often communicate rankings using percentages (e.g., “top 20%”). The present research explores how using a numerical format claim (e.g., “top 10” out of 50 products) versus an equivalent percentage format claim (e.g., “top 20%” out of 50 products) influences consumer judgments. Across five experiments, the authors find robust evidence of a shift in evaluations whereby consumers respond more favorably to numerical rank claims when set sizes are smaller (i.e., <100) but more favorably to percentage rank claims when set sizes are larger (i.e., >100), even when the claims are mathematically equivalent. They further show that this change in evaluations occurs because consumers commit format neglect when making their evaluations by relying predominantly on the nominal value conveyed in a rank claim and insufficiently accounting for set size.