To advance theory, this study details how consumers evaluate multiple percentage price changes (discounts or surcharges). If they consider two discounts—for example, take 18% off the list price, then take an additional 12% off—consumers weight the two percentages to make their evaluations. Cues endogenous to the communication of those percentages also influence the weights applied, according to whether the two percentages appear presented at the same time (simultaneously) or temporally separated (sequentially) and whether the first percentage is larger or smaller. Depending on both the presentation mode and the ordering, consumers use different processes. In addition to providing practical guidance, this article extends understanding of anchoring and adjustment processes; information presented simultaneously leads consumers to anchor on the first piece of information. Sequential presentation instead induces surprise and shifts attention to the latter percentage change, which serves as the anchor in subsequent judgments. In addition to the underlying theory for these effects, this article delineates some boundary conditions and reveals the effects on consumers’ evaluations and choices, with findings from 11 studies.
BagchiRajeshDavisDerick F. (2012), “$29 for 70 Items or 70 Items for $29? How Presentation Order Affects Package Perceptions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 62–73.
2.
BagchiRajeshDavisDerick F. (2016), “Numerosity and Consumer Decision Making,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 89–93.
3.
BagchiRajeshChandon InceElise (2016), “Is a 70% Prediction More Accurate than a 30% Prediction? How Level of a Forecast Affects Inferences About Forecasts and Forecasters,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (1), 31–45.
4.
CaiFengyanBagchiRajeshGauriDinesh (2016), “Boomerang Effects of Low Price Discounts: How Low Price Discounts Affect Purchase Propensity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 804–16.
5.
ChenHaipeng (Allan)MarmorsteinHowardTsirosMichaelRaoAkshay R. (2012), “When More Is Less: Base Value Neglect and Consumer Preferences for Changes in Price and Quantity,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 64–77.
6.
ChenHaipeng (Allan)RaoAkshay R. (2002), “Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed Hopes,” Marketing Science, 21 (2), 178–96.
7.
ChenHaipeng (Allan)RaoAkshay R. (2007), “When Two Plus Two is Not Equal to Four: Errors in Processing Multiple Percentage Changes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), 327–40.
8.
DavisDerick F.BagchiRajeshBlockLauren G. (2015), “Alliteration Alters: Phonetic Overlap in Promotional Messages Influences Evaluations and Choice,” Journal of Retailing, 92 (1), 1–12.
9.
DehaeneStanislas (1992), “Varieties of Numerical Abilities,” Cognition, 43 (1), 1–42.
10.
DehaeneStanislas (1997), The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
DelVecchioDevon H.KrishnanShankerSmithDaniel C. (2007), “Cents or Percent? The Effects of Promotion Framing on Price Expectations and Choice,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 158–70.
EvangelidisIoannisVan OsselaerStijn M. M. (2018), “Points of (Dis)parity: Expectation Disconfirmation from Common Attributes in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (1), 1–13.
14.
FurnhamAdrianBooHua Chu (2011), “A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 40 (1), 35–42.
15.
GigerenzerGerdHoffrageUlrich (1995), “How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning without Instruction: Frequency Formats,” Psychological Review, 102, 425–30.
16.
GinsburgLyndaManlyMyrnaSchmittMary Jane (2006), The Components of Numeracy, [NCSALL occasional paper].Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL), Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/op_numeracy.pdf.
17.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. London, UK: Guilford Press.
18.
HeathTimothy B.ChatterjeeSubimalFranceKaren Russo (1995), “Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 90–97.
19.
HeilmanCarrie M.NakamotoKentRaoAmbar G. (2002), “Pleasant Surprises: Consumer Response to Unexpected In-Store Coupons,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (May), 242–52.
20.
HogarthRobin M.EinhornHillel J. (1992), “Order Effects in Belief Updating: The Belief-Adjustment Model,” Cognitive Psychology, 24 (1), 1–55.
21.
JonasEvaSchulz-HardtStefanFreyDieterThelenNorman (2001), “Confirmation Bias in Sequential Information Search after Preliminary Decisions: An Expansion of Dissonance Theoretical Research on Selective Exposure to Information,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (4), 557–71.
22.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–92.
23.
KardesFrank R.KalyanaramGurumurthy (1992), “Order-of-Entry Effects on Consumer Memory and Judgment: An Information Integration Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 343–57.
24.
KirschIrwin S.JungeblutAnnJenkinsLynnKolstadAndrew (1993), Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 1993-275.
25.
LattinJames M.BucklinRandolph E. (1989), “Reference Effects of Price and Promotion on Brand Choice Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 299–310.
26.
LevinIrwin P.JohnsonRichard D. (1984), “Estimating Price-Quality Tradeoffs Using Comparative Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (1), 593–600.
27.
LinvillePatricia W.FischerGregory W. (1991), “Preferences for Separating or Combining Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (1), 5–23.
28.
MazumdarTridibJunSung Youl (1993), “Consumer Evaluations of Multiple Versus Single Price Change,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 441–50.
29.
McShaneBlakeley B.BockenholtUlf (2017), “Single-Paper Meta-Analysis: Benefits for Study Summary, Theory Testing, and Replicability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 1048–63.
30.
MeyerWulf-UweNiepelMichaelRudolphUdoSchutzwohlAchim (1991), “An Experimental Analysis of Surprise,” Cognition and Emotion, 5 (4), 295–311.
31.
MeyerWulf-UweReisenzeinRainerSchutzwohlAchim (1997), “Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise,” Motivation and Emotion, 21 (3), 251–74.
32.
MongaAshwaniBagchiRajesh (2012), “Years, Months, and Days Versus 1, 12, and 365: The Influence of Units Versus Numbers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 185–98.
33.
MorwitzVicki G.GreenleafEric A.JohnsonEric J. (1998), “Divide and Prosper: Consumers’ Reactions to Partitioned Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (4), 453–63.
34.
MunnichEdwardRanneyMichael A.SongMirian (2007), “Surprise, Surprise: The Role of Surprising Numerical Feedback in Belief Change,” Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 29, 503–508.
35.
NoordewierMarret K.TopolinskiSaschaVan DijkEric (2016), “The Temporal Dynamics of Surprise,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10 (3), 136–49.
RinneLuke Frederick (2010), “Cognitive and Representational Cues for Assigning Weight to Numerical Information in Decision-Making,” dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
38.
SimonHerbert A. (1990), “Invariants of Human Behavior,” Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19.
39.
SimonsonItamar (1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (2), 150–62.
40.
ThalerRichard H. (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214.
41.
ThalerRichard H.JohnsonEric J. (1990), “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,” Management Science, 36 (6), 643–60.
42.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185 (4157), 1124–31.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
