The choices we make

x Sponsored content on Research Live and in Impact magazine is editorially independent.
Find out more about advertising and sponsorship.

Access to information, personal preference, existing knowledge, a communications prompt, an already established loyalty; the reasons people decide on a particular brand for a product or service they want to purchase are varied.

One might assume that consumers with a strong prior preference apply reasoning that will bolster this preliminary choice – and, indeed, some research has pointed to this.

But what happens when important information needed to complete the purchase is missing during this pre-purchase research period? How will their strength of opinion for their first choice affect their reaction to missing information? 

Research carried out by a team in the US has suggested that those with relatively stronger prior preferences for a product are more likely to abandon it than those with weaker prior preferences. 

The researchers looked at how preference strength plays a part because those with relatively stronger prior preferences experience more cognitive dissonance when information on new attributes is missing on just the first choice, but not on its competitors. 

Caglar Irmak, associate professor, marketing at the School of Business Administration, University of Miami, in the US, led the research, and explains why they embarked on it. “I was looking at confirmation bias and how people make inferences about missing information. Prior research has shown that – when people have an option they prefer – they infer the value of the missing information on the option they prefer in a way to confirm their preference [confirmation bias]. 

“For example, if I have an iPhone and would like to buy the upcoming iPhone 8 – and Apple does not give information about iPhone 8’s power use – I would infer that it should be better than its rivals, such as Samsung Galaxy. I was interested in the factors that would reverse this effect, such that those who prefer iPhone, in the example above, would be more likely to switch to Galaxy if there is missing information on an attribute.”

So, interested in what would reduce the confirmation bias, Irmak started to carry out some studies. 

“To be honest, I expected stronger preference to lead to less switching, as confirmation bias would predict. I measured preference strength as a secondary measure; it was not my focus when I started this research,” he says. “Then, I realised preference strength could be the factor I was looking for, as I repeatedly found that people with stronger preference are more likely to switch to a competitor after encountering missing information on their initial choice. So this was more like a serendipitous finding.”

The initial experiments were run with Irmak’s students in class, using paper-and-pencil surveys. “I gave them the purchase scenario and choice situation, and they made their choice based on the information offered to them. Later, we conducted studies on computers in the behavioural laboratory that included hypothetical and real products.”

If a person has already made up their mind, judging information on the product tends to be biased by motivated reasoning. However, the researchers found that people are more likely to abandon – rather than bolster – their initial choice when choosing from sets where only the first preference has incomplete supportive information.

A contrast arises between consumers’ naturally negative reaction to missing information specific to their preferred choice. The inconsistency leads to cognitive dissonance – discomfort when holding inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes about an option. 

While the researchers expected consumers to use motivated reasoning – a cognitive process – to bolster the first choice when the field isn’t dominated by the completely described competitor on the shared attributes, what actually happens is that they abandon it because of negative effect. 

So does the increased tendency for abandonment mean they give up on the purchase entirely, or switch to a competitor? “We got both types of results [abandonment of choice and switching to a competitor],” Irmak says. “In some of the experiments we did not report in the paper, we gave participants a ‘no-choice option’, and – in line with our theory – people with stronger preferences were more likely to pick that option when it is provided. 

“Essentially, missing information on the initially preferred option turns off those with a stronger preference for that option. As a result, they abandon the purchase or switch to a competitor.”

In some of the tests, the researchers prompted consumers in the process by asking them to infer the value of missing information that affected the outcome.  

“In the Apple-Samsung example, for instance, if the salesperson realises you don’t like the fact Apple doesn’t provide information on a key attribute, they may ask you what you think the power use rate would be for the iPhone [that is, prompt you to infer the value]. You are more likely, then, to infer a positive value for iPhone and stick with it. In other words, making an explicit, conscious inference/guess about the missing information reverses the effect.”

So what can marketers learn from these experiments, and how should they use this in their communications and marketing strategies?

“First, if their products have missing attribute information, they can prompt the consumers to infer the missing value – as in my previous example. This would make consumers infer a more positive value for the missing information if they initially prefer their product. 

“Second, they can make the consumers more involved with the choice process. This is pretty similar to prompting, but it is a more general approach. Prompting makes people think about the choice options more, and elaborate on the information they gather. Confirmation bias is more likely to occur when people think and find reasons to purchase their initially preferred option. 

“Telling consumers how important this choice is, for example, would make them more involved with the purchase decision. Again, with the Apple-Samsung example, by telling consumers that they will live with their new phone for at least two years – and use it every day many times – would emphasise the importance of the decision and increase involvement with the purchase decision. Involvement, in turn, will increase their likelihood of inferring the missing value in a way to support their initial choice.”

So what research needs to be done to build on these findings?

Irmak points to the need to look at the role of emotions in more depth. “The interesting part here is that emotion in our research was about risk feelings. People felt more risk when they received missing information on a strongly preferred option and switched to a competitor as a result,” he says. 

“However, emotions might also make people more involved in certain occasions. People may realise that the decision is an important one after feeling concerned or nervous. This may end up reversing the effect we demonstrate in our research if sufficient time is given to consumers.”

For purchases that people care a lot about, the stronger the preference, the more likely they are to stay with their initial choice. “Our research is interesting in that – when strong preference is coupled with low-involvement purchases – missing information may backfire,” Irmak says. 

Reference:

Choice under incomplete information on incumbents: Why consumers with strong preferences are more likely to abandon their prior choices, by Caglar Irmak, Thomas Kramer and Sanker Sen, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2016