Advertisement

Society

, Volume 55, Issue 5, pp 422–429 | Cite as

Consumer Decision Making in the Information Age

  • Petr Houdek
  • Petr Koblovský
  • Daniel Šťastný
  • Marek Vranka
Social Science and Public Policy
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

Providing people with more information and more options may seem as a good policy. However, because of limited attention and cognitive resources, people are not able to use all available information and freedom of choice effectively to achieve their own best interests. When cognitive resources and attention are depleted, decision making becomes shallow and intuitive, often unable to take important aspects of given situations into account – even though this information is readily available. An intuitive decision making may lead to suboptimal outcomes by overestimating the importance of the most salient cues and disregarding the less obvious future consequences. Although this creates a demand for decision making aides that could be satisfied by markets, policy regulation may be necessary in some areas. We provide specific examples of problems arising from limited attention together with solutions based on behavioral economics approach to policy making known as nudging.

Keywords

Limited attention Cognitive biases Information asymmetry Libertarian paternalism Nudging 

JEL Classification

D03 D82 

Further Reading

  1. Amblee, N., & Bui, T. 2011. Harnessing the influence of social proof in online shopping: The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales of digital microproducts. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 91–114.  https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. 2003. “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.  https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. 1998. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. 2013. Salience and consumer choice. Journal of Political Economy, 121(5), 803–843.  https://doi.org/10.1086/673885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J., Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. 2010. Shrouded attributes and information suppression: Evidence from the field. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 859–876.  https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browne, M. J., & Hoyt, R. E. 2000. The demand for flood insurance: Empirical evidence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(3), 291–306.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007823631497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brustein, J. 2013. The case for wearing productivity sensors on the job. Bloomberg Business. [online]. [cit. 2015-06-19]. Available: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-19/sociometric-solutions-ben-waber-on-workers-wearing-sensors
  8. Campbell, J. Y., Jackson, H. E., Madrian, B. C., & Tufano, P. 2011. Consumer financial protection. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 91–114.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.1.91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Célérier, C., & Vallée, B. 2014. The Motives for Financial Complexity: An Empirical Investigation. HBS working paper. Available: http://ibhf.cornell.edu/docs/Symposium%20Papers/FinancialComplexity.pdf
  10. Chetty, R., Looney, A., & Kroft, K. 2009. Salience and taxation: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1145–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.4.1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidai, S., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. D. 2012. The meaning of default options for potential organ donors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15201–15205.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211695109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dellarocas, C. 2003. The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407–1424.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dellavigna, S. 2009. Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315–372.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demsetz, H. 1969. Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint. The Journal of Law and Economics, 12(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1086/466657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewan, S., & Hsu, V. 2004. Adverse selection in electronic markets: Evidence from online stamp auctions. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 52(4), 497–516.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1821.2004.00237.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drew, T., Vo, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M. 2013. The invisible gorilla strikes again sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1848–1853.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613479386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drexler, A., Fischer, G., & Schoar, A. 2014. Keeping it simple: Financial literacy and rules of thumb. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1257/app.6.2.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elbel, B., Kersh, R., Brescoll, V. L., & Dixon, L. B. 2009. Calorie labeling and food choices: A first look at the effects on low-income people in New York City. Health Affairs, 28(6), w1110–w1121.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Englmaier, F., Schmöller, A., & Stowasser, T. 2013. Price discontinuities in an online used Car market. EconStor working paper. Available: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/79982
  20. Feldman, R., Fresko, M., Goldenberg, J., Netzer, O., & Ungar, L. 2007. Extracting product comparisons from discussion boards. In proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM, 469–474. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2007.27
  21. Finkelstein, E. A., Strombotne, K. L., Chan, N. L., & Krieger, J. 2011. Mandatory menu labeling in one fast-food chain in King County, Washington. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 122–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. 2006. Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 505–540.  https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldin, J., & Homonoff, T. 2013. Smoke gets in your eyes: Cigarette tax salience and Regressivity. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(1), 302–336.  https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.1.302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., et al. 2016. A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hossain, T., & Morgan, J. 2006….Plus shipping and handling: Revenue (non) equivalence in field experiments on eBay. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(2), 1–27. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1429
  26. Houdek, P. 2016. A perspective on consumers 3.0: They are not better decision-makers than previous generations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(848).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00848.
  27. Houdek, P., & Koblovský, P. 2015. Where is my money? New findings in fiscal psychology. Society, 52(2), 155–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9873-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ippisch, T. 2010. Telematics data in motor insurance: Creating value by understanding the impact of accidents on vehicle use. Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Gallen. Available: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b473/33b8850808875a45970fe4ff133ee0e18681.pdf
  29. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. 2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirzner, I. M. 1997. How markets work: Disequilibrium, entrepreneurship and discovery. London: Coronet Books Inc. ISBN: 978-0255364041Google Scholar
  31. Lacetera, N., Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. R. 2012. Heuristic thinking and limited attention in the Car market. American Economic Review, 102(5), 2206–2236.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.5.2206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, D. T., Drivdahl, S. B., Momen, N., & Beck, M. R. 2002. False predictions about the detectability of visual changes: The role of beliefs about attention, memory, and the continuity of attended objects in causing change blindness blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 11(4), 507–527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00020-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, G. 2011. Asymmetric information, adverse selection and online disclosure: The case of eBay motors. The American Economic Review, 101(4), 1535–1546.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.4.1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu, P. J., Wisdom, J., Roberto, C. A., Liu, L. J., & Ubel, P. A. 2014. Using behavioral economics to design more effective food policies to address obesity. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 6–24.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Masum, H., Tovey, M., & Newmark, C. 2012. The reputation society: How online opinions are reshaping the offline world. Cambridge:MIT Press ISBN: 9780262016643.Google Scholar
  36. Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. 2012. Following through on good intentions: The power of planning prompts. Working paper no. w17995. NBER working paper. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3386/w17995
  37. Nosko, C., & Tadelis, S. 2015. The limits of reputation in platform markets: An empirical analysis and field experiment. Working paper no. w20830. NBER working paper. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3386/w20830
  38. Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. 2009. Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344–355.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. 2006. The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment. Experimental Economics, 9(2), 79–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saeedi, M. 2014. Reputation and Adverse Selection, Theory and Evidence from eBay. Working paper no. 2102948. SSRN working paper. doi:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2102948
  41. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. 2010. Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425.  https://doi.org/10.1086/651235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwartz, B. 2005. The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  43. Sexton, S. 2014. Automatic bill payment and salience effects: Evidence from electricity consumption. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 229–241.  https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. 2012. Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simmons-Mosley, T. X., & Malpezzi, S. 2006. Household mobility in New York City’s regulated rental housing market. Journal of Housing Economics, 15(1), 38–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2005.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. 1998. Failure to detect changes to people in a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5(4), 644–649.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stango, V., & Zinman, J. 2009. What do consumers really pay on their checking and credit card accounts? Explicit, implicit, and avoidable costs. The American Economic Review, 99(2), 424–429.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tabarrok, A., & Cowen, T. 2018. The End of Asymmetric Information. Cato Unbound. [online]. [cit. 2015–06-19]. Available: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2015/04/06/alex-tabarrok-tyler-cowen/end-asymmetric-information.
  49. Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. 2004. Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(1), 164–187.  https://doi.org/10.1086/380085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179.  https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Constitutional Political Economy, 19(4), 356–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9056-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trout, J. 2005. Differentiate or die. Forbes. [online]. [cit. 2015-06-19]. Available: http://www.forbes.com/2005/12/02/ibm-nordstrom-cocacola-cx_jt_1205trout.html.
  53. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. 2008. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(S), 883–898.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winston, C. 2007. Government failure versus market failure: Microeconomics policy research and government performance. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press ISBN: 9780815793915.Google Scholar
  55. Wright, J. D. 2007. Behavioral law and economics, paternalism, and consumer contracts: An empirical perspective. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, 2(3), 470–511. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1015899
  56. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. 2015. The impact of the sharing economy on the hotel industry: Evidence from Airbnb’s entry into the Texas market. In proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, ACM. 637–637. ISBN: 978-1-4503-3410-5Google Scholar
  57. Zlatev, J. J., Daniels, D. P., Kim, H., & Neale, M. A. 2017. Default neglect in attempts at social influence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(52), 13643–13648.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712757114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petr Houdek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Petr Koblovský
    • 2
  • Daniel Šťastný
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marek Vranka
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationUniversity of Economics in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of Social and Economic StudiesJ. E. Purkyně University in Ústí nad LabemÚstí nad LabemCzech Republic
  3. 3.School of BusinessUniversity of New York in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.School of ArtsChrales UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations