The effect of an anchor number on the price one is willing to pay.

(1)

______________________________

_______________________________

Master of Business Studies

Marketing Track

_______________________________

The effect of an anchor number on the price one is willing to pay

In an online context

Name of author: Jolien Berkel Student number: 6083919

Date of submission: 22 January 2014 First thesis supervisor: F.B. Situmeang Second thesis supervisor:

(2)

Abstract

Arbitrary anchoring numbers are shown to have an effect on what people are willing to pay for different products. This has been examined in many offline settings. However, shopping online has become a popular phenomenon within the world of consumption. This research examines if arbitrary anchor numbers also affect the amount one is willing to pay within an online context, namely a web shop. Different versions of a ‘web shop style’ questionnaire were filled out by 119 participants who were accounted to either a non-anchor group, a low anchor group and a high anchor group. Results show that under particular circumstances, arbitrary anchor numbers seem to have both positive and negative effects on the amount one is willing to pay. Stores that provide the opportunity of buying their merchandise online should consider anchoring certain products against low or high anchor numbers or no anchor numbers at all.

(3)

Introduction

Everyday people are confronted with great amounts of information.

Psychological research has shown that people do not fully process everything they receive as input, but only make a selection of information to submit in their conscious mind (Broadbent, 1985; quoted in Cowan, 1988). From a marketing perspective, people are confronted with numerous amounts of advertisements involving images, prices and numbers. But how much of this information is taken into consideration or is even processed consciously by consumers? How does a marketer know what information is taken into account when people are buying products and therefore should be presented again? According to previous research, some advertised information has an effect on choices people make in consuming even when they are not aware of using this

information. For instance, previous prices of products with a discount or even prices of unrelated goods are found to have an impact on the current price one is willing to pay for a product without consciously processing these prices (Beggs & Graddy, 2009; Nunes & Boatwright, 2002). This phenomenon is called ‘the anchoring effect’.

According to Chapman and Johnson (1999) anchoring is a ‘pervasive judgment bias in which decision makers are systematically influenced by random and

uninformative starting points’. One leading experiment that can exemplify this discussed anchoring effect is the experiment of Tversky and Kahneman (1974; quoted in Tversky & Kahneman, 1982). In their study they showed that people are not able to let go of previous opinions and information when forming new opinions or when producing estimates of quantities (Tversky & Kahneman, 1982). They showed the effect of anchors by asking people the probability that the population of Turkey was either greater than five million or less than 65 million. The answers between the two groups, asked the two

(5)

different questions, were significantly different. The group that was exposed with the low anchor, five million, gave a median estimation of the population of Turkey of 17 Million. The group that was presented the high anchor, 65 million, gave the answer of a median estimate of 35 million. As Tversky and Kahneman (1982) note, people are mostly not aware that they are affected by previous information. The fact that people adjust their answer to a previous given random value shows evidence of anchoring effects (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, quoted in Tversky & Kahneman, 1982). According to the experimenters (1982) it shows the ‘inability to discard uninformative messages’.

Even though these findings regarding the anchoring effect are interesting, imagine what it can mean for other real life situations involving important decisions or even transactions. From a marketing perspective, one can imagine that if people will use this uninformative information during the process of buying products, without them knowing that they are using this information and therefore prices might be influenced by for instance numbers surrounding consumers, this could have major benefits for retailers. This paper will look at the anchoring effect in consumer behavior and

therefore will look at how the amount one is willing to pay will be affected by an anchor. In this research I will look how an anchor has the ability to affect the price a person is willing to pay for a product in an online context, for this context being an upcoming market in consumption. Literature related to this subject has mostly investigated the anchoring effect in an offline context, for instance in real life shopping situations, as next discussed. In this paper I will focus on the anchoring effect in a web shop.

Literature Review

Previous literature has shown how anchors can influence the amount one is willing to pay in an offline context. As among Tversky and Kahneman (1977; 1982), also

(6)

Nunes and Boatwright (2002), Beggs and Graddy (2009) and Ariely (2003) showed that previous product prices, prices of unrelated products or even random numbers, are used as anchors and seem to have an impact on the price one is willing to pay for a product. Nunes and Boatwright (2002) found that in a real-world shopping setting, the anchor, presented as the price of a product unrelated to the product of choice, has an effect on the price one is willing to pay for the product of choice. In their study they showed that people are influenced in their buying decision, in this case willing to pay a lower or higher price for a CD, when the price of an unrelated product was respectively low or high, hence a sweatshirt priced at $10 or $80.

Beggs and Graddy (2009) found that previous prices of a product influence the current price someone is willing to pay for the product. In an auction environment they introduced two groups of people to an identical piece of art, however said to be

previously sold at a high or low price. They researched if the painting previously sold for a high price, would also ‘fetch a higher price at auction’. Their research found that this is the case and therefore they concluded that bids are anchored on previous prices or on presale estimates.

According to previous research of Ariely (2003) in an offline context, the price one is willing to pay for a product or service also depends on an anchor, which in this case is a random number. Ariely (2003) showed that preferences are based on this sort of previous information. He showed that people are willing to pay more money when primed with a high, arbitrary, number versus people who have been primed with a low, arbitrary, number. In his study, people who were primed with a number between ‘0-19’ before deciding what to pay for a product, in this case a book or chocolates, were willing to pay less than people who were primed with the number ’80-99’. All the numbers shown in between, so the numbers ’20-79’, made the price that one was willing to pay

(7)

increase. This experiment shows that people are willing to pay a small or big amount of money for products depending on arbitrary information, hence a number.

The anchoring effect in an online context

As shown, many studies seem to present the anchoring effect in an offline shopping setting. However, more and more stores make the choice of providing the opportunity for clients to shop their merchandise online (Barlow, Siddiqui & Mannion, 2004). This shift from shopping in physical stores to more online retailing has

implications for marketers. With the absence of salespersons and the opportunity to physically assess products, marketers probably have to include different strategies online to evoke customer’s positive responses. Different effects of an online shopping environment on different dependent variables of consumer behavior have been examined. Ballantine (2005) for instance showed that customer satisfaction is influenced by the amount of website information and the level of interactivity on the website. Next to these features, also homepage presentation has an impact on customer satisfaction (Ho & Wu, 1999). Eroglu, Machleit and Davis (2003) showed that

atmospheric cues of an online web shop influence the emotional and cognitive states of consumers, which in turn affect shopping outcomes.

Next to a lot of technology stores and clothing stores, also interior brands and stores entail online shopping opportunities and focus on part of their retail through an online web shop. For customers, this online shopping is a different experience from offline shopping and requires different behavior. When considering an online web shop of interior, different aspects of shopping, like; the real-life interaction with other

shoppers and salespersons, the ability to try, feel or see pieces of interior, lack in comparison to an offline environment. Fang (2012) showed that interactivity between

(8)

seller and buyer in web purchases is more complicated than this interactivity in offline stores because there is a separation between the two in time and place in online

contexts. In an online context consumers are also unable to physically examine the product and have to rely more heavily on information of the website in an online context versus an offline context (Mavlanova & Benbunan-Fich, 2010).

Online shopping also has some advantages over offline shopping, for instance the time one saves when buying products online (Punj, 2012), the ease of searching and usage and easy access to stores and brands of preference (Cheung and Lai, 2005).

As among others, Ariely’s experiment was conducted in an offline context. As shown before, offline and online contexts can be very different, evoking both different experiences as behaviors. Never before did someone conduct a similar study as Ariely (2003) in an online context to see if the anchoring effects found will be the same. Will the arbitrary anchoring effect Ariely (2003) showed be the same within an online context, where one cannot pay as much attention to the real-life details of the product (feel and look), and does not experience a high interaction level with other people and salespersons (Fang, 2012, Mavlanova & Benbunan-Fich, 2010)? The main question than remains: will an arbitrary anchor have an effect on the price one is willing to pay in an online context?

Product features

While this research will examine this effect, it must be considered that people will differ in the way they let non-product related features affect them in their

consuming process. Different circumstances may play a role in the effect anchors have on the price one is willing to pay. For instance, people might view a product as very important to them and will hardly or not at all, let surrounding factors influence their

(9)

buying decision and the amount they are willing to pay for it. One can imagine that the more important a product is to someone, the less other features matter for the price one is willing to pay for it.

Next to product importance, also price can be a factor that can influence the relationship between anchors and the price one is willing to pay for a product. As for importance, features non-related to a product might hardly influence people when the price is very high. When a lot of money is involved, other features than those of the product may not influence the price one is willing to pay.

The set up for this paper will be as following: first, certain expectations will be explained and presented. Then, by the use of an experiment, it will be examined if an anchor will affect the price one is willing to pay. I will then examine the influence of different moderators on this relationship, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The relationship between an anchor number and the price one is willing to pay and possible moderators.

Product importance

(low/high)

Anchor

(control/low/high)

Price one is willing

to pay

Product price

(10)

Online Anchoring Effect and Expectations

As experience and consumer behavior tends to differ between offline and online contexts, consumers that shop online most likely pay attention to other things than when shopping offline. For instance, in an online context one will probably pay more attention to the design and information provided on the website instead of the

salesperson in the store, because these people are absent (Mavlanova & Benbunan-Fich, 2010, quoted in Fang, 2012). Website features probably play a bigger role in the

shopping process online because of the lack of physical feel and sight of the product in an online context.

Looking at these and previous mentioned differences, it could be that people pay more attention to smaller details of the shopping environment in an online context, for instance previous prices of a product or arbitrary numbers displayed on a website, than in an offline context where people deal with other things like salespersons or the feel and look of a product. With this reasoning in mind, I would expect the effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay to be strong in an online context.

Anchoring

In this experimental study an online web shop is used to look at the effect of anchors on the price one is willing to pay. I assume that the effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay will be positive, because if one is anchored with a high

number, I expect people to be willing to pay a higher price for a product than when one is anchored with a low number. On the opposite, I expect people to be willing to pay a lower price when anchored with a low number, than when one is anchored with a high number, hence a positive effect of low anchor on the price one is willing to pay.

(11)

Hypotheses 1: there will be a positive effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay.

Anchoring and Product features

Even though I would expect the effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay to be strong in an online context, this would most likely depend on different product features. As an extra focus point in this paper, I will look at two different moderators that might influence the relationship between an anchor and the price one is willing to pay for a product.

First, I will look at product importance. In the current, online settled, study it will be examined if an anchor has a weaker or stronger effect on the price one is willing to pay, compared to the direct effect, when the product is very important for the buyer or not so important. Because importance is subjective, participants will be asked to imagine that the product is important to them, shown together with a product that is also prone to be more important in general (bed vs. couch pillow).

I argue that the more important a product is for someone, the less one will pay attention to the previous anchor one is given because the focus will most prominently lie on the product itself and less on features surrounding the product. So a weaker

anchoring effect is expected, compared to the direct effect, when the importance of the product is high in an online context.

Hypotheses 2: the effect of an anchor on willingness to pay will be moderated by the importance of the product.

So, as previously explained, I expect that there will be a weaker effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay, compared to the direct effect, when product importance is

(12)

high. The opposite will then be; a stronger effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay, compared to the direct effect, when product importance is low.

The second product feature this study will focus on is the price of the product. It will be examined if the presence of an anchor has a stronger or weaker effect on the price one is willing to pay, compared to the direct effect, when the product is low priced or high priced. When the price of a product is high, one will probably focus less on features or stimulators (the anchor number) in an online context because one will have to invest a lot into a product and take more into consideration than obvious features of a website and therefore will be less influenced by an anchor number than when the price of a product is low. Because price cannot be mentioned in the study, for it could be seen as an anchor, participants will be asked to imagine that the product is normally high priced or low priced, shown together with a product that is also prone to be more expensive or inexpensive in general (bed vs. couch pillow).

Hypotheses 3: the effect of an anchor on willingness to pay will be moderated by the price of the product.

So, as previously explained, it is expected that there will be a weaker effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay, compared to the direct effect, when product price is high. The opposite will then be; a stronger effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay, compared to the direct effect, when product price is low. So, the effect of the moderators that will be researched will show if the anchoring effect is consistent across different product types and price ranges.

(13)

Methodology

The focus of this research is to look at the relationship between an arbitrary anchor number and the price one is willing to pay for particular products. To see if high anchoring numbers really makes people willing to pay more for particular interior products than low anchoring numbers, the effect of these different anchoring numbers had to be compared. To make this possible, a questionnaire in the form of a web shop was set up and it was used to collect the prices participants were willing to pay for particular products, for further details see ‘materials and set up’. This given

questionnaire differed between participants that were anchored with no, a low and a high arbitrary number. In this way, continuous dependent variables could be collected per group in the form of product price one was willing to pay. As for the independent variables, images of different interior products were used upon which the independent variables; the price, was based. The set-up of this study was chosen to see if the

anchoring effect exists within an online context and to collect additional information regarding the anchoring effect.

Participants

A questionnaire was distributed over 160 people within my private network by the use of email. The questionnaire was sent out with an introduction about the reason why the questionnaire was sent, information about me, the time it would take to

complete the survey and a ‘thank you’ for participation. Of the 160 people, 129

responded and 119 completely filled out the questionnaire and were useable for further analysis. All participants were randomly assigned to three different versions of the survey, namely a control survey, a survey with low anchor numbers and a survey with

(14)

high anchor numbers, further information about the different conditions and surveys is provided in the paragraph ‘Design’. General information about the participants was collected with the use of the questionnaire.

To prevent results being influenced by group differences it was tried to keep the groups as equal as possible with regards to their general characteristics by recruiting as many diverse people as possible. The three different groups were compared regarding their ‘descriptive features’. In total, there were 56 male participants and 63 female participants with most participants in age category three (see appendix ‘Questionnaire’, question two), which is graded between 26 and 40 (SD=0.87) years old. The distribution of gender (F(2,116) = 0,380, p=0,685) and age (F(2,116) = 1,504, p=0,227) was

significantly even between the three different groups. About 85% percent of the respondents were not students and also this was evenly distributed among the three groups (F(2,116) = 8,894 , p<0,01). Most respondents are currently following or completed education level ‘university’, in all three groups. Groups did differ on income level (F(2,116) = 0,380, p=0,685). Group one mostly contained participants who work for 29.001-43.500 per annual, group two mostly contained participants who work for 43.501-58.000 per annual and in group three participants mostly work for 14.501-29.000 per annual. As groups did not differ too much besides income level, they could be well compared.

Design and Questionnaire development

The 119 participants were randomly assigned to three groups that participated in three different versions of the experiment. With the use of a computer, the

participants accounted in a ‘fake’ web shop. Disposed to all was the front page of a web shop, see Appendix ‘Questionnaire’, question eight. However, because this experiment

(15)

was designed to show different effects of different anchor points, the groups of

participants were anchored with three different numbers. Group one was not anchored with any number, group two was anchored with number eight and group three was anchored with number 8000. The choice of these two numbers as the numbers of low and high anchor conditions was accounted to previous research of Ariely (2003). In his study the low anchor point was between 0-19 and the high anchor point was between 80-99. However, the participants in Ariely’s research had to decide which price they were willing to pay for a product like chocolate, wine or a book. In the current study these products are not the subject about which decisions about prices have to be made, but interior products. For the high anchor point it was thus decided to look at the average price difference between a piece of chocolate, wine or a book (ten to 15 euros) (Ariely, 2003) and one of the more expensive pieces of interior; a bed (1500 euros) (‘average bed price’, 2013). For the price of a bed being about a 100 times as big as the products in Ariely’s study, a 100 times bigger anchor point was used, namely 8000. As for the low anchor point, in the current study interior products like cushions and blankets are also used, next to beds, therefore Ariely’s low anchor point could not be multiplied by a 100 for it exceeding the average price of these products. For the low anchor point the number 8 was chosen, which does not exceed the boundary of a low anchor point used in multiple previous studies, for examples Ariely’s (2003) and Nunes and Boatwright’s study (2002), and is also in general a fairly low number.

To make the participants think that the numbers were not of any further purpose in the current study, participants were told beforehand that the number showed in between the questions was supposed to be remembered until after the experiment, and that they should also remember how many times the number was displayed because they would have to resolve a math question with this information.

(16)

After participants were shown the first page of the web shop and after this their corresponding anchor number, participants of all groups were asked to fill in the price of what they were willing to pay for the particular product on the screen. Participants could fill in the blank with a particular price number. This question accounted for the first hypotheses, and therefore the direct effect of an anchor on the price one is willing to pay for a product (See Appendix, ‘Questionnaire’, question ten).

Because also moderators are tested in the current study, the next question involved products that were told to be important or not important to the participant. Before shown the certain products of low and high importance, and were asked to fill in the amount one was willing to pay for this, participants were once again shown the anchor number related to the group they were in. In question twelve, 14 and 16 in the Appendix ‘Questionnaire’, it is shown that participants were first asked to imagine that the upcoming products were important to them and were then asked to fill out the amount they were willing to pay for the products. Two times three products were shown of what was accounted for as important and unimportant interior products. So, participants had to fill in an answer to the question ‘what are you willing to pay for this product?’ for three different products which would be important to them and for three products which would not be important to them. As manipulation checks, participants were asked, after each question that contained a situation about importance, to rate in what matter the proposed situations was really important or unimportant to them on a scale from 0% to 100% (see Appendix ‘Questionnaire’).

Before testing the influence of the second moderator, the product price, participants were again shown the anchor numbers corresponding to their group. As seen in, for example, questions 26, 28, 33 and 35 in the Appendix ‘Questionnaire', participants were then again asked to fill in the amount they would be willing to pay for

(17)

a product that was either expensive, or cheap. Again, two times three products were shown. Then, as manipulation checks, participants were asked, after each question that contained a situation about price, to rate in what matter the proposed situations was really expensive or inexpensive to them on a scale from 0% to 100% (see Appendix ‘Questionnaire’).

To test if the importance and the price of the products were dependent of each other, the two moderators were combined into one more question sequence about two times three different products and participants were again asked to fill in the amount of money they were willing to pay for the products. These questions were again asked after participants were shown their corresponding anchor numbers. As seen in questions 15 and 17 in the Appendix ‘Questionnaire’, participants were shown an expensive, a medium and a cheap bed, which was proposed as important and an expensive, a medium and a cheap blanket, which was proposed as unimportant.

Also here, as manipulation checks, participants were asked, after each question that contained a situation about importance or price, to rate in what matter the

proposed situations was really important or unimportant to them or really expensive or inexpensive to them on a scale from 0% to 100%.

At the end of the questionnaire participants were asked if they knew the intention of the current study to see if the manipulations were due to the proposed situations or due to the notion of the purpose of the study. If participants were aware of the intention of the study, their answers were not taken into account for further

analyses.

General information like gender, age, income level, education level and current status (working, student or working student) was all gathered from participants with the use of the questionnaire. As mentioned before, to prevent results being influenced

(18)

by group differences it was tried to keep the groups as equal as possible with regards to these data by collecting the data of many diverse participants concerning age, work status, gender etc.

Analysis and Results

As mentioned before, the three different groups participating in the study had to be compared regarding the mean amounts of money they were willing to pay for the presented interior products. In order to test this difference Anova analysis were used and to compare directly between two out of three groups, independent T-tests were used. Also effects within groups were tested to see if an anchor number would have a stronger or weaker effect after different product features were included in that group’s questionnaire, using a paired samples T-test.

Hypothesis 1 – a direct effect

As hypothesis 1 presents, the effect of anchor numbers on what people are willing to pay was measured for all three groups and I looked if this effect was different between the three groups. To do this, it was necessary to compare the mean amounts of money participants filled out regarding the first question; ‘what are you willing to pay for this table?’ Expected was that participants filled out significantly different amounts, depending on the anchor number that was presented to them before this question. A one way Anova was used for the analysis, and the mean amounts participants were willing to pay did not differ significantly between groups (F(2,116) = 0,100, p=0,905). This result does not support hypothesis 1, which would mean that arbitrary anchor numbers do not have a positive effect on the price one is willing to pay. The price participants are willing to pay for particular interior products seems not to be influenced by arbitrary anchor

(19)

numbers. Even though previous research in offline contexts has found a positive effect of anchor numbers on different dependent variables, in this research this result is not directly found.

The mean plot, showed in figure 1, did however show that participants anchored with a high anchor number seemed to be willing to pay more for the table than did participants anchored with a low anchor number and no anchor number, even though not significant. Participants anchored with a low anchor number seemed to be willing to pay more for the table than did participants that were not presented with an anchor number (See figure 2).

Figure 2. Mean amounts per group of what one is willing to pay for the presented table (in Euros)

To see if the effect of anchor numbers is consistent across different product types (important and unimportant products) and price ranges (inexpensive and expensive

(20)

products), the hypotheses about these different moderators were tested.

Hypothesis 2 & 3 – a moderating effect

To test the influence of product price and product importance on the relationship between anchor numbers and the amount one is willing to pay, means of amounts

respondents were willing to pay for products that were expensive, inexpensive,

important or unimportant had to be compared between groups. Each group was asked to fill out the amount of money they were willing to spend on three products that were important, three products that were unimportant, three that were expensive and three that were inexpensive.

An Anova was used to see if the groups differed in what they were willing to pay for important, unimportant, expensive or inexpensive products. Groups did not seem to differ on the price they were willing to pay for all products, so there was no sign of a (stronger or weaker) anchoring effect when products were either important,

unimportant, inexpensive or expensive, considering that all groups were compared. To compare directly between two out of the three different groups, an

independent T-test was used and a few interesting differences were found (Table 1). When the low anchor group and the high anchor group were compared, it seemed that for one of the three presented products that were important, participants anchored with a low number were willing to pay less than participants anchored with a high anchor number (t(81,69) = -1,091, p=0,068), this was very close to significance and therefore in this paper seen as an effect. It seems the low and high anchoring numbers affected the amount people were willing to pay for this particular important product.

Within the three products that were ‘expensive’, anchor numbers seemed to have an effect on the price one was willing to pay for a chair, however the effect was the

(21)

opposite of the expected (t(80,62) = 2,034, p=0,011). Low anchored participants seemed to be willing to pay more for the chair than high anchored participants. The same was found for a cloth, which was categorized in the sequence of ‘inexpensive’ products (t(80,68) = 1,812, p=0,044).

Table 1. Differences between the mean amounts low anchored and high anchored participants are willing to pay for particular interior products.

Groups

Low Anchor High Anchor t df

Important product 143,82 (99,05) 175,47 (157,78) -1,091 81 Expensive product 243,04 (232,32) 158,53 (129,76) 2,034* 80 Inexpensive product 11,90 (7,94) 9,21 (5,18) 1,812* 80

Note. * = p < .05. Standard Deviations presented below means.

This research indicates that participants anchored with low or high arbitrary numbers do not differ in the amount they are willing to pay when a product is

important, unimportant, inexpensive or expensive to them, with the exception of one important, one inexpensive and one expensive product. It seems that participants anchored with a low number are willing to pay more for particular inexpensive and expensive products than participants anchored with a high number and for one product that was presented as important, participants anchored with a low number are willing

(22)

to pay less than participants anchored with a high anchor number. Hypothesis 2 and 3 can therefore partially be supported.

Even though expectations were based on differences between the low anchored group and the high anchored group, also non-anchored participants were directly compared to both low anchored as well as high anchored participants to look for interesting results. No significant differences were found between the amounts non-anchored and low non-anchored participants were willing to pay for all presented products.

However, when comparing mean amounts non-anchored participants were willing to pay for particular interior products to the mean amounts high anchored participants were willing to pay, using an independent T-test, a few significant differences were found (Table 2). Of one significant difference found, high anchored participants were willing to pay a higher amount for the product than participants who were not anchored with any number. For instance, high anchored participants were willing to pay more for the blanket which was presented as important than non-anchored participants (t(74,63)= -1,558, p=0,058). For the tray however, that was presented as inexpensive, the difference in the amount willing to pay between the groups was also significant (t(71,55) = 1,251, p=0,044) but participants who were not anchored with any number were willing to pay a higher price for this product than high anchored participants.

(23)

Table 2. Differences between the mean amounts non-anchored and high anchored participants are willing to pay for particular interior products.

Groups

No anchor High Anchor t df

Important product 128,97 (81,37) 175,47 (157,78) -1,558* 74 Inexpensive product 19,23 (12,78) 15,96 (9,56) 1,251* 71

It seems that both low anchored participants as well as no anchored participants are willing to pay a higher amount for particular interior products than high anchored participants do, under certain circumstances, for instance when an interior product is low priced.

To look within groups, if participants were willing to pay higher amounts of money for the products when important, unimportant, inexpensive or expensive, a paired samples T-test was used, because this analyses compares means for one single group. To compare the amounts participants were willing to pay for different products, the amounts first had to be standardized to Z values, because for instance, the price for an expensive couch cannot directly be compared to the price of an inexpensive cushion, for the difference in mean amounts would automatically be significantly different.

First, for the high anchor group, means of the amounts of the products that were important were compared to the mean amounts of the so-called ‘neutral’ product, upon which importance did not yet play a role, namely the table seen in the appendix

(24)

differed with the amount high anchored participants were willing to pay for the neutral product. The same was tested for the unimportant, inexpensive and expensive products and the amount high anchored participants were willing to pay for these products did not significantly differ from the amount they were willing to pay for the neutral product.

The same was tested for the low anchored group. Again, none of the amounts that low anchored participants were willing to pay for either the important, unimportant, inexpensive or expensive products significantly differed from the amount they were willing to pay for the neutral product.

Also for the non-anchored group, no significant differences were found. These results indicate that importance or price alone does not strengthen or weaken the relationship between an anchor and the price one is willing to pay within a group.

Extra Findings

With the use of products that were both important and unimportant as well as low or high priced, the two moderators were combined in the used questionnaire. An independent T-test analyses showed that there is a significant difference in the amount participants were willing to pay between the low and high anchor group concerning a low (t(79,40)=-1,203, p= 0,018) and high (t(79,41)=1,400, p= 0,038) priced vase, which was also presented as unimportant (Table 3).

(25)

Table 3. Differences between the mean amounts low anchored and high anchored participants are willing to pay for products with combined moderating features.

Groups

Low Anchor High Anchor t df

Vase 1 10,66 (6,97) 39,46 (151,22) -1,203* 79 Vase 2 24,95 (17,65) 21,51 (16,10) ,916 79 Vase 3 127,93 (314,49) 58,24 (51,25) 1,400* 79

As expected, the group that was anchored with a low number was willing to pay less for the cheapest vase, which was thus also unimportant. However, regarding the vase that was presented as expensive, and also unimportant, participants who were anchored with a low number were willing to pay more than participants anchored with a high number. This result is contrary to expectations but gives us important

information, further explained in ‘implications’. The conceptual model seems to change with the finding of these results. Price seems to have an effect on the effect of

importance on the relationship between anchor numbers and the amount one is willing to pay. A new conceptual model can be formed.

(26)

Figure 3. The new conceptual model: the relationship between an anchor number and the price one is willing to pay and its moderators.

Using again an independent T-test, it was also found that differences between the amounts non-anchored and high anchored participants were willing to pay for the product that was presented with both moderating features, namely unimportance combined with all price ranges, were all significant. For the vase that was presented as unimportant and inexpensive, the non-anchored participants were willing to pay a lower amount than high anchored participants (t(71,41) = -0,955, p=0,053). For both the other vases presented as both unimportant and medium priced and high priced,

participants that were not anchored with any number were willing to pay a higher price than participants anchored with a high number, respectively (t(71,38) = 1,276, p=0,027) and (t(71,42) = 1,095, p=0,026).

Product Importance

Anchor Number Amount one is _{willing to pay}

(27)

Table 4. Differences between the mean amounts non-anchored and high anchored participants are willing to pay for products with combined moderating features.

Groups

No Anchor High Anchor t df

Vase 1 13,77 (17,22) 39,46 (151,22) -,955* 71 Vase 2 30,20 (39,69) 21,51 (16,10) 1,276* 71 Vase 3 78,84 (105,61) 58,24 (51,25) 1,095* 71

It seems that non-anchored participants more often are willing to pay a higher amount for particular interior products than high anchored participants are, namely when the product is presented as unimportant and medium or high priced.

Discussion

This research was set up to answer the question: ‘will an arbitrary anchor

number have an effect on the price one is willing to pay in an online context? Researched hypotheses designed to answer this question showed that this research can partially provide support for the expectations regarding this question. It also provides extra findings upon which expectations were not set up.

Regarding the first hypothesis, this research shows that different anchor numbers do not have a positive effect on the amount a person is willing to pay.

(28)

This means that people that are anchored with either no, a low or a high anchor number, do not seem to differ in the amount they are willing to pay for particular interior

products, namely a table. Even though not statistically proven to be different, this study did show a hinge towards the difference between no, low and high anchored people and respectively the least high, higher and even higher price they are willing to pay.

Second, it was found that for a particular important product, namely a blanket, people anchored with a low number are willing to pay less than people anchored with a high number. Arbitrary anchoring numbers seem to have an effect on the price one is willing to pay in this condition.

Looking at the other feature that could have an effect on the choice about the amount one is willing to pay for particular interior products, this study focused on price differences in products. We found interesting effects regarding the effect of price on the relationship between arbitrary anchor numbers and the amount one is willing to pay. People that are anchored with a low number seem to be willing to pay more for

particular products that are expensive, namely in this case a chair, than people anchored with high arbitrary numbers. The same can be said for particular inexpensive products, namely in this case a tablecloth. Overall, it seems that people anchored with either low or high arbitrary anchor numbers in some cases differ in the amount they are willing to pay when a product is important, inexpensive or expensive to them. It seems however that this effect is often opposite of what is expected regarding previous studies, namely a negative effect instead of a positive effect.

Also interesting results were found regarding the control group. In this research is was found that people anchored with a low number do not differ in the amount they are willing to pay for either important, unimportant, expensive and inexpensive interior products from people who are not anchored with any number. People anchored with no

(29)

number do however seem to differ from people anchored with a high number in the amount willing to pay for important and expensive interior products. In the first case, regarding particular important products, non-anchored people seem to be willing to pay less than high anchored people. However, for particular inexpensive interior products non-anchored people seem to be willing to pay more than high anchored people do.

This study also looked separately at the amount that a person, anchored with a low, high or no number, is willing to pay for different products when these are either inexpensive and expensive or unimportant and important. So, for instance, is a person anchored with a high arbitrary number willing to pay less for a product that is expensive or important versus a product that has no extra specific features? So will these features affect the price one is willing to pay when one is anchored with an arbitrary number? It seems that it does not. This study indicates that importance or price alone does not strengthen or weaken the relationship between an anchor and the price one is willing to pay within a group.

When looking at both price differences and importance differences in interior products combined, this study shows that product price affects the moderating effect of importance on the relationship between an arbitrary anchor number and the amount one is willing to pay. People anchored with a low number seem to be willing to pay less for particular interior products that are both inexpensive and unimportant, namely in this case a vase, than people that are anchored with high arbitrary numbers. This means that arbitrary anchor numbers do have a positive effect on the amount one is willing to pay when a product is both inexpensive and unimportant.

However, when particular interior products, like for instance again a vase, are presented as both expensive and unimportant, people who are anchored with a low arbitrary number are willing to pay more than people who are anchored with a high

(30)

arbitrary number. Here, we see again an opposite effect than expected regarding previous studies, namely a negative effect of arbitrary anchor numbers instead of a positive effect.

Also non-anchored people seem to be willing to pay a lower price for interior products that prone to be unimportant and inexpensive than high anchored people. However, when an unimportant product is also medium and high priced, non-anchored people seem to be willing to pay more than high anchored people.

Implications

The contribution of this study is the fact that it tells us something about the effect of arbitrary anchor numbers on the prices people are willing to pay for products in an online context. The results show implications concerning retailers who provide the opportunity to shop their merchandise online. Results indicate that the amount people are willing to pay for particular interior products on a web shop can be influenced by arbitrary numbers, presented to them throughout the shopping spree.

For instance, one can conclude from the current study that people buying some particular important interior products, like a blanket, are best to be anchored against a high number. Looking at the results in this study, it can be assumed that in this case people are willing to pay more for the particular product than when they are anchored with no number or a low number. However, particular expensive interior products, like a chair, and inexpensive products, like a tablecloth, should be anchored against a low number, because results indicate that people anchored with a low number are willing to pay more for these products than people anchored with a high number. As for other particular inexpensive products, like a tray, retailers are better off not anchoring their consumers against any number then against a high number, for this research shows that

(31)

non-anchored people are willing to pay more for this product than high anchored people are.

As for additional information found within this research, advice can be given towards retailers presenting interior products on their web shop that are both inexpensive as well as unimportant, like used in this study; a vase. Such a product should, according to my findings, be anchored against high anchor numbers to ‘get people to pay more’ for the product than when low anchoring or no anchoring occurs regarding the product. Such a retailer should however avoid anchoring expensive and unimportant products against high anchor numbers. It will cause people to pay less for the particular product then when anchored against a low number or no number at all. A retailer should also think about not anchoring products that are medium priced and unimportant to an arbitrary anchor number at all versus high anchor numbers, for it will cause people to pay less for the particular product than when anchored against no number.

However, this study shows that it does not seem to make a difference regarding the amount one is willing to pay for an interior product if the product is not anchored against an arbitrary number at all or against a low number.

Limitations and Future research

Even though it is tried to rule out as much errors in this research as possible, for instance by trying to keep groups equal to each other, there are some limitations to the current study. First, one could say that the products are evaluated by their appearances. One might just not ‘like’ a striped tablecloth and is not willing to spend much money on it, disregarding the anchor point that was presented to him or her, while someone else

(32)

really likes the way it looks and is willing to spend lots of money on it. Likeableness could therefore be seen as a moderator, for it has potential to change the relationship between anchor numbers and the amount one is willing to pay. As questions were asked regarding other moderators; the importance and price of the products and how much participants believed these characteristics of the products to be true, questions about the likelihood of buying the product in real life could be asked in future research. The current outcomes of the study can namely be accounted to this reason; the likelihood of the product to a person.

A similar possible influential factor in this study could be the fact that

participants were presented with particular choices of products that they were probably not looking for or were not interested in. Mostly when people go to a certain web shop it is because they want to buy something in that particular niche of products, for instance clothing, electronics or it could be interior. However, because participants in this study might not have been interested in the presented products, the presented arbitrary anchor numbers could have been of less or even more influence. When one is searching for a particular product and is therefore highly interested in a product, it could be that, just like expected with importance or price, the effect of an anchor number could be weakened. To prevent possible influences of this in the future, studies could be designed in which the effect of arbitrary anchor numbers is tested in a real online context, using different existing web shops and test people that are really visiting that web shop, probably with an interest in the offered products.

Third, in this study, respondents were given an anchor number before every question sequence. Respondents could however been influenced by other numbers in their surroundings, but this is however the risk when completing a study outside the boundaries of a controlled lab study. The questionnaire was completed whenever

(33)

respondents had the time or felt like completing it. This could have been at home, at work or other places where many arbitrary numbers are present. Especially for the control group, other numbers could have played a significant role because these participants were not asked to watch and remember certain numbers on the screen. Found effects could for this reason be accounted to for instance more than one arbitrary number or distraction and therefore it could have been the case that there was no influence of the shown arbitrary number at all.

Also, the anchor numbers in the low and high anchor group were presented before different product sequences, so before showing three important and unimportant products and three expensive and inexpensive products. The effect of the anchor

number could have been gone after filling out the amount one is willing to pay for the first product of the sequence of products. The filled out price could have been the new anchor number for the following product. I tried to avoid this by asking people to carefully remember the number during the completion of the questionnaire. A perfect influence without error could however not be excluded.

As mentioned before, groups did seem to differ on their income level. Results found in this study can also have been altered and therefore accounted for by this

difference. It seems reasonable to think that people will spend more on certain products when income level is high and less when income level is low. Indeed, when accounting for income differences the control group had an average income level of 29.001-43.500 per annual, the low anchor group had an average income level of 43.501-58.000 and the high anchor group had an average income level of 14.501-29.000 per annual. As seen in the results of the analyses, it is found that both the low anchored group and the non-anchored group often are willing to pay a higher price than the high non-anchored group. These differences could be found because they do have the highest and median mean

(34)

income per annual and are therefore able to spend more money on particular products. In future studies, groups must be equal regarding their income level, for differences in results can therefore not be accounted to income level differences.

(35)

References

Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-106.

Ballantine, P. W. (2005). Effects of interactivity and product information on consumer satisfaction in an online retail setting. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 33(6), 461-471.

Barlow, A. K., Siddiqui, N. Q., & Mannion, M. (2004). Developments in information and communication technologies for retail marketing channels. International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management, 32(3), 157-163.

Beggs, A., & Graddy, K. (2009). Anchoring effects: Evidence from art auctions. The

American Economic Review, 99(3), 1027-1039.

Chang, M. K., Cheung, W., & Lai, V. S. (2005). Literature derived reference models for the adoption of online shopping. Information & Management, 42(4), 543-559.

Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115-153.

Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system.

(36)

Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 139-150.

Fang, Y. (2012). Does online interactivity matter? exploring the role of interactivity strategies in consumer decision making. Computers in Human Behavior,

Hart, C., Doherty, N., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2000). Retailer adoption of the Internet – Implications for retail marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 34(8), 954 – 974.

Ho, C., & Wu, W. (1999). Antecedents of customer satisfaction on the internet: An empirical study of online shopping. Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings

of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 9 pp.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition,

11(2), 123-141.

Mavlanova, T., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010). Counterfeit products on the internet: The role of seller-level and product-level information. International Journal of

Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 79-104.

Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 457-466.

Park, C., & Kim, Y. (2003). Identifying key factors affecting consumer purchase behavior in an online shopping context. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

(37)

Punj, G. (2011). Effect of consumer beliefs on online purchase behavior: The influence of demographic characteristics and consumption values. Journal of Interactive

Marketing, 25(3), 134-144.

Vishwanath, V., & Mulvin, G. (2001). Multi-Channels: The real winners in the B2C internet wars. Business Strategy Review, 12(1), 25-33.

Web references

(38)

Appendix

Questionnaire

1.

Beste Meneer/Mevrouw,

Mijn dank gaat uit naar u voor het participeren aan dit onderzoek. Dit onderzoek is onderdeel van mijn master scriptie, onderdeel van mijn master Marketing aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for participating in this survey. This survey is part of my master thesis, which is part of my Masters of Marketing at the University of Amsterdam.

2.

Wat is uw leeftijd?

What is your age? A) < 19 jaar/years B) 19 - 25 jaar/years C) 26 - 40 jaar/years D) > 40 jaar/years

3.

Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding of huidige opleiding? What type of education are you following or did you follow?

A) Basisschool - Primary Education

B) Middelbare school - Secondary Education C) MBO - Vocational Education

D) HBO - University of Applied Sciences/College E) WO - University

(39)

4.

Wat is uw inkomen per jaar? What is your income p.a.?

A) Minder dan 14.500 - Less than 14.500 B) 14.501 - 29.000

C) 29.001 - 43.500 D) 43.501 - 58.000 E) 58.001 - 72.500

F) Meer dan 72.500 - More than 72.500

5.

Welke is op u van toepassing? Which option is related to you?

A) Ik ben student en werk minder dan 8 uur per week - I am a student and work less than 8 hours a week

B) Ik ben student en werk tussen de 8 - 15 uur per week - I am a student and work between 8 - 15 hours a week

C) Ik ben student en werk meer dan 15 uur per week - I am a student and work more than 15 hours a week

D) Ik ben geen student - I am not a student

6.

Wat is uw sekse?

What is your gender? A) Man/Male B) Vrouw/Female

7.

Ik vraag u in dit onderzoek antwoord te geven op vragen over verschillende

interieurproducten. Denk goed na over uw antwoord en probeer u zo goed mogelijk in te leven in de voorgestelde situaties.

Tijdens het invullen van de vragen zult u tussendoor soms een cijfer zien. Het is belangrijk dat u dit cijfer en hoe vaak het cijfer wordt getoond, onthoud zodat u daar later een rekenkundige vraag mee kunt beantwoorden.

(40)

In this research I ask you to answer multiple questions regarding different interior products. Please consider your answers carefully and try to sympathize with the proposed situation as good as possible.

While answering questions, sometimes a number will be shown. It is important that you try to remember this number, and the amount of times the number is shown, so you can answer a mathematical question about it at the end of the experiment.

8.

Welkom op Jo's webshop waar een assortiment van prachtige meubelen wordt aangeboden!

Welcome to Jo's webshop where an assortment of beautiful furniture is being offered!

(41)

10.

Een eiken houten tafel van 180cm x 80cm

A wooden table of 180cm x 80cm

Wat bent u bereid hiervoor te betalen?

What are you willing to pay for this? 11.

12.

Stelt u zich voor dat u al meer dan een jaar erge last heeft van uw rug. U heeft meerdere dokters bezocht maar u heeft ondekt dat de enige manier waardoor de klachten

verminderen ofwel verdwijnen is door in een stabiele houding te kunnen slapen. Dit bed biedt voor u de perfecte steun en is daarom erg belangrijk voor u.

Imagine that you've been having backproblems for over a year now. U visited multiple doctors but you found out that the only thing that helps to reduce and even make the complaints go away, is lying and sleeping in a stable position. This bed will offer you the perfect support and because of that, this bed is very important to you.

(42)

What are you willing to pay for this?

13.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie over rugproblemen, ben ik van mening dat dit bed belangrijk voor mij is.

Because of the hypothesized back injury, I believe this bed is important for me.

14.

Stelt u zich voor dat u naast het feit dat u erge last heeft van uw rug, u het ook vaak koud heeft! Dit deken zorgt ervoor dat u daar geen last meer van heeft en u ziet dit deken daardoor als iets wat erg belangrijk voor u is.

Imagine that next to the problems u have with your back, you are always very cold! This blanket will make sure that u will be warm and for this reason you see the blanket as something that is very important to you.

(43)

15.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie over het koud hebben, ben ik van mening dat dit deken belangrijk voor mij is.

Because of the hypothesized cold, I believe this blanket is important for me.

16.

Stelt u zich voor dat u gek bent op koken. Deze combinatie van een oven en een 5-pits gasstel zal er voor zorgen dat u heerlijke gerechten op tafel kunt zetten. U heeft altijd van dit product gedroomd en het is in uw ogen dan ook erg belangrijk.

Imagine that you are crazy about cooking. This oven and stove combination will provide you with the opportunity to cook some amazing dishes. This product is something you have dreamt of for many years and therefore this product is very important to you.

(44)

17.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie; het houden van koken, ben ik van mening dat dit fornuis belangrijk voor mij is.

(45)

18.

19.

Op deze webshop ziet u dit kussen. Nou heeft u snel wat kussens nodig voor thuis en omdat u geen ander passend kussen kunt vinden wilt u deze kopen. Het kussen is niet erg belangrijk voor u.

On this webshop you see this pillow. U fastly need some pillows for the couch at home and because you can not find another suited one, you want to buy this one. The pillow is not so important to you.

20.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat dit kussen niet belangrijk voor mij is.

(46)

21.

Als een cadeau voor een kennis wilt u graag deze vaasjes van de webshop kopen. Omdat ze niet voor u zelf zijn maar voor iemand die u niet heel goed kent, zijn de vaasjes niet belangrijk voor u.

As a present for an acquaintance you would like to buy these small vases on the

webshop. Because these vases are not for you but for somebody you do not really know that well, the vases are not so important to you.

22.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat deze vaasjes niet belangrijk voor mij zijn.

(47)

23.

Stelt u zich voor dat u op zoek bent naar het perfecte bijzettafeltje. U kunt er echter geen vinden die u graag wilt kopen. Als oplossing koopt u deze poef om tijdelijk als

bijzettafeltje te gebruiken. De poef dient als noodoplossing en is daarom niet erg belangrijk voor u.

Imagine that you are searching for the perfect small table next to your couch. However, you can not find one you would like to buy. As a solution you buy this footstool to

temporary use as a table. The footstool is a temporary solution and therefore it is not so important to you.

24.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat deze poef niet belangrijk voor mij is.

(48)

Because of the hypothesized situation, I believe this footstool is not important for me.

25.

26.

Stelt u zich voor dat u deze bank heel graag wilt kopen. De bank is echter erg duur.

Imagine that you really want to buy this couch. It is however very expensive.

Wat bent u hiervoor bereid te betalen?

(49)

27.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat deze bank duur is.

I believe this couch is expensive.

28.

Stelt u zich voor dat u deze lamp graag wilt kopen maar dat het een 'designer' lamp is, en daardoor erg duur is.

Imagine that you really want to buy this lamp. It is however a 'designer' lamp, which makes it very expensive.

(50)

29.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat deze lamp duur is.

I believe this lamp is an expensive lamp.

30.

Stelt u zich voor dat u deze stoelen graag wilt kopen voor in huis. De stoelen zijn echter heel duur.

Imagine that you really want to buy these chairs for your home. The chairs are however very expensive.

31.

(51)

zijn.

I believe these chairs are expensive chairs.

32.

33.

Stelt u zich voor dat u deze onderzetters graag wilt kopen en dat ze erg goedkoop zijn.

Imagine that you really want to buy these coasters and that they are really cheap.

(52)

34.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat deze onderzetters goedkoop zijn.

I believe these coasters are inexpensive.

35.

U wilt dit tafellaken erg graag kopen, stelt u zich voor dat de prijs u ook erg meevalt. In uw ogen is het laken zelfs erg goedkoop!

Imagine that you want to buy this table-cloth, and the price is better than expected. In your eyes the cloth is even very cheap!

(53)

36.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat dit tafellaken goedkoop is.

I believe this cloth is an inexpensive cloth.

37.

Stelt u zich voor dat u al even op zoek bent naar een nieuw dienblad. Op deze webshop ziet u deze en de prijs valt u alles mee! U vindt dit product goedkoop.

Imagine that you have been looking for a tray like this one. On the webshop you see that the price is very low. You find this product even cheap.

38.

(54)

goedkoop is.

I believe this tray is an inexpensive tray.

39.

40.

Stelt u zich nog eens voor dat uw rug al jaren pijn doet en dat een goed bed een van de weinige oplossingen is voor dit probleem. Alle bedden die worden afgebeeld kunnen u problemen oplossen en u kunt zich voorstellen dat de bedden allen erg belangrijk zijn voor u. De bedden verschillen vooral in prijs. Het eerste afgebeelde bed is goedkoop, het tweede is gemiddeld geprijsd en het derde bed is duur.

Imagine again that your back has been hurting for some years now, and a proper bed helps reducing the complaints. All beds presented next resolve your problems and you can imagine that all three are all very important to you. The beds mostly differ in price. The first bed displayed is cheap, the second medium priced and the third bed displayed is expensive.

(55)

Wat bent u bereid hiervoor te betalen? What are you willing to pay for this? Bed 1

Bed 2 Bed 3

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie over rugproblemen, ben ik van mening dat deze bedden belangrijk voor mij zijn.

(56)

Because of the hypothesized back injury, I believe these beds are important for me.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie over de prijs van de bedden, ben ik van mening dat de bedden goedkoop, gemiddeld geprijsd of duur zijn.

I believe this bed is inexpensive, medium priced and expensive.

(57)

42.

Stelt u zich nog eens voor dat u een cadeau wilt kopen voor kennissen. U kijkt hiervoor naar de volgende vazen. U kunt zich voorstellen dat alle drie de vazen voor u niet belangrijk zijn. De vazen verschillen vooral in prijs. De eerste afgebeelde vaas is goedkoop, de tweede is gemiddeld geprijsd en de derde vaas is duur.

Imagine again that you want to buy a present for acquaintances. For this purpose, you have been looking at the upcoming vases. You can imagine that all three vases are not important to you. The vases mostly differ in price. The first vase displayed is cheap, the second medium priced and the third vase displayed is expensive.

(58)

What are you willing to pay for this? Vaas/Vase 1

Vaas/Vase 2 Vaas/Vase 3

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie, ben ik van mening dat de vazen niet belangrijk voor mij zijn.

Because of the hypothesized situation, I believe these vases are unimportant for me.

Door mij in te leven in de voorgestelde situatie over de prijs van de vazen, ben ik van mening dat de vazen goedkoop, gemiddeld geprijsd of duur zijn.

(59)

43.

Vermenigvuldig nu het cijfer dat u zag tussen de vragen door met het aantal keer dat u dit cijfer zag en vul a.u.b. het antwoord in.

Multiply the number shown in between the questions with the number of times you saw this number and please fill in the answer.

44.

Wanneer in dit onderzoek werd gevraagd om je voor te stellen dat een product belangrijk of niet belangrijk voor je was, hoe belangrijk of onbelangrijk voelde dat werkelijk voor jou?

When in this research was asked to imagine a product was important or unimportant to you, how important or not important did it really feel to you?

Wanneer in dit onderzoek werd gevraagd om je voor te stellen dat een product duur of goedkoop voor je was, hoe duur of goedkoop voelde dat werkelijk voor jou?

When in this research was asked to imagine a product was expensive or inexpensive, how expensive or inexpensive did it really feel to you?

The effect of an anchor number on the price one is willing to pay.

______________________________

_______________________________

Master of Business Studies

Marketing Track

_______________________________

The effect of an anchor number on the price one is willing to pay

In an online context

Abstract

Table of Contents

Introduction

Product importance

(low/high)

Anchor

(control/low/high)

Price one is willing

to pay

Product price

Anchoring

Anchoring and Product features

Methodology

Participants

Design and Questionnaire development

Analysis and Results

Discussion

Implications

Limitations and Future research

References

Web references