Consumers' choice is often influenced by numerous reference points, such as the consumers' aspiration for product quality. In this study, the effect of such aspiration in compromise was investigated. Two experiments with 722 participants (309 men and 413 women) indicated that, when the quality of a product was below participants' aspiration level, the compromise effect decreased.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenartziS.ThalerR. (2002) How much is investor autonomy worth?Journal of Finance, 57, 1593–1616.
2.
BroniarczykS. M.AlbaJ. W. (1994) Influence of prior beliefs, frequency cues, and magnitude cues on consumers' perceptions of comparative price data. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 219–235.
3.
ChernevA. (2004a) Extremeness aversion and attribute balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 249–263.
4.
ChernevA. (2004b) Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 557–565.
5.
ChuangS.YenH. R. (2007) The impact of a product's country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18, 279–291.
6.
DharR.NowlisS.ShermanS. (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: an analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189–200.
7.
DroletA. L. (2002) Inherent rule variability in consumer choice: changing rules for change's sake. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 293–305.
HuberJ.PutoC. (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: illustrating attraction and substitution effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31–44.
10.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H. (1991) The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 1325–1347.
11.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
12.
KarlssonN.DellgranR.KlinganderB.GärungT. (2004) Household consumption: influences of aspiration level, social comparison, and money management. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 753–769.
13.
KivetzR.NetzerO.SrinivasanV. (2004) Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 262–268.
14.
LinC.YenH. R.ChuangS. (2006) The effects of emotion and need for cognition on consumer choice involving risk. Marketing Letters, 17, 47–60.
15.
MeyerR. J. (1981) A model of multiattribute judgments under attribute uncertainty and information constraint. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 428–441.
16.
NowlisS. M.SimonsonI. (2000) Sales promotions and choice context as competing influences on consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 1–17.
17.
PayneJ. W.LaughhunnD. J.CrumR. (1980) Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects on risky choice behavior. Management Science, 26, 1039–1060.
18.
PayneJ. W.LaughhunnD. J.CrumR. (1981) Further tests of aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Science, 27, 953–958.
19.
SiegelS. (1957) Level of aspiration and decision making. Psychological Review, 64, 253–262.
20.
SimonsonI. (1989) Choosing based on reason: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.
21.
SimonsonL.TverskyA. (1992) Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.
22.
StarbuckW. H. (1963) Level of aspiration theory and economic behavior. Behavioral Science, 8, 128–136.
23.
StutzerA. (2004) The role of income aspirations in individual happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54, 89–109.
24.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.
WestP. M.BroniarczykS. M. (1998) Integrating multiple opinions: the role of aspiration level on consumer response to critic consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 38–51.
