No abstract

No abstract

In two experiments, decision makers chose between risky and ambiguous gambles under conditions of both single (unrepeated) and multiply repeated choices. The gambles were presented either as modified Ellsberg urn choices or as marketing strategy decisions. In both experiments, decision makers chose the ambiguous options more frequently in the repeated-choice than the single-choice conditions. More decision makers made risky single choices and ambiguous repeated choices than ambiguous single choices and risky repeated choices.Decision makers expressed more self-rated confidence in their repeated than their single ambiguous choices.These findings are interpreted in the light of findings on repeated decision making under risk and theories of loss aversion and ambiguity aversion.

When consumers must make a decision but are uncertain of their preferences, they often select a compromise choice. Early studies emphasized the relational properties of choice alternatives and indicated that the middle option, whose attribute values fall between the values of other alternatives, is always the compromise option. More recent studies have suggested that when consumers rate two attributes with the same metrics, the attribute-balance choice whose two attributes have equal ratings, might represent the compromise choice. We propose that the different characteristics of the middle and attribute-balance options-which may be compatible with certain determinants such as information and task formats-might be more salient and affect the relative attractiveness of each option. The results of three experiments confirmed this prediction: the middle option was more attractive in list-by-attributes and rejecting conditions, whereas the attribute-balance option was more attractive in list-by-alternatives and choosing conditions.

Payment formats have many important influences on consumer behavior. However, few studies have examined how the payment format affects hedonic consumption. This study explores how the transparency of the payment format (e.g., bonus points vs. cash) influences consumers' willingness to pay, budget assignments, and consumption choices through differences in their perceived pain of purchasing (exchanging) hedonic and utilitarian options. Specifically, consumers who pay with highly transparent payment formats (e.g., cash), compared with consumers who pay with less transparent payment formats (e.g., store points, bonus points, and gift certificates), are willing to pay less, assign a lower budget, and are less likely to choose hedonic products. The perceived pain of purchasing (exchanging) a hedonic product plays an important mediating role on the influence of the payment format on hedonic consumption. However, the perceived pain of purchasing (exchanging) a utilitarian option plays a parallel mediating role only when people have paid for the less transparent payment format (e.g., buying store points) rather than when they accumulate the points through previous consumption events. The research findings provide insights that can benefit both theory and practice.