Compensating for a lack of reviews with a
buy-now pay-later system
Stephanie Karianne van den Akker 11225254
Master Thesis 23/06/2017
Master of Science in Business Administration, Marketing Track Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Anouar El Haji
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Stephanie Karianne van den Akker who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 2.1. RISK AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY ... 8 2.2. CUSTOMER REVIEWS ... 9 2.3. BUY-NOW PAY-LATER METHOD ... 13 2.4. COMBINING CUSTOMER REVIEWS AND BUY-NOW PAY-LATER METHODS ... 15 3. METHODOLOGY ... 17 3.1. RESEARCH AIM ... 17 3.2. RESEARCH DESIGN ... 17 3.3. VARIABLES ... 18 3.4. SAMPLE ... 18 3.5. TREATMENTS ... 19 3.6. AUCTION PROCEDURE ... 21 3.7. AUCTIONED PRODUCT ... 22 4. RESULTS ... 24 4.1. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ... 24 4.2. DATA CHARACTERISTICS ... 24 4.3. NORMALITY TESTING ... 26 4.4. HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... 28 4.4.1. TESTING HYPOTHESIS 1: THE EFFECT OF CUSTOMER REVIEWS ... 28 4.4.2. TESTING HYPOTHESIS 2: THE EFFECT OF BUY-NOW PAY-LATER METHODS ... 28 4.4.3. TESTING HYPOTHESIS 3: THE COMPENSATING EFFECT OF BUY-NOW PAY-LATER ON REVIEW ABSENCE ... 29 4.5. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ... 30 5. DISCUSSION ... 34 5.1. KEY FINDINGS ... 34 5.2. CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY AND PRACTICE ... 35 5.3. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 37 5.4. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 38 6. CONCLUSION ... 39 7. REFERENCES ... 40 8. APPENDICES ... 44 8.1. APPENDIX 1: ADVERTISEMENT TREATMENT 1 ... 44 8.2. APPENDIX 2: ADVERTISEMENT TREATMENT 2 ... 45 8.3. APPENDIX 3: ADVERTISEMENT TREATMENT 3 ... 46 8.4. APPENDIX 4: ADVERTISEMENT TREATMENT 4 ... 47 8.5. APPENDIX 5: SURVEY ... 48 8.6. APPENDIX 6: SURVEY TRANSLATION ... 49 8.7. APPENDIX 7: HISTOGRAMS ... 50Abstract
This study focuses on examining the effects of buy-now pay-later methods and customer reviews on consumers’ willingness to pay. Buy-now pay-later methods are arrangements that allow consumers to receive a purchased product now but pay later. These buy-now pay-later methods influence consumers’ perception of risk and uncertainty, consequently affecting their willingness to pay. Additionally, consumers use customer reviews to assess the potential value of a purchase. Research demonstrates that positive reviews tend to increases consumers’ willingness to pay, whereas negative reviews and a lack of reviews, decrease the willingness to pay. As a result, negative reviews affect the sales of a product. In order to compensate a decrease in willingness to pay, literature advises businesses to focus on obtaining positive reviews. However, little is known about the possible compensation of customer reviews with a buy-now pay-later method. As a result, this study looks into whether the use of buy-now pay-later methods can lead to an increase of purchase intention and willingness to pay when there is an absence of customer reviews. A controlled field experiment is conducted in the form of an online auction. The auction results do not provide insight on the possible compensation of customer reviews with buy-now pay-later systems. However, insight is provided on a particular population that is willing to pay more for buy-now pay-later products. Therefore, this experiment cannot conclude that lack of customer reviews can be compensated with a buy-now pay-later method. However, further research could adjust the limitations, caused by misinterpretations of the advertisements, and obtain possible significant results. The study would then contribute to the field of marketing strategy and provide new ways to solving marketing setbacks caused by a lack of customer reviews.
Key words: Customer reviews, buy-now pay-later methods, willingness to pay, risk and uncertainty.
1. Introduction
A buy-now pay-later method can be defined as an arrangement that allows an individual to receive a purchased product now but pay later (Oxford Dictionaries, 2017). Buy-now pay-later methods have been a component of business, banking and personal management since its global launch in the 1970s (Feinberg, 1986). Today, buy-now pay-later systems have witnessed technological advancement, and with it, digital development (Forbes, 2016). Klarna, PayPal, and Afterpay are examples of such digital developments that allow shoppers to buy online, receive now, and pay later (Zaharov-Reutt, 2017). The growth of these digital payment methods has been increasing steadily since 2008 (Forbes, 2016). According to a recent publishing in Forbes Magazine (2017) PayPal has an annual growth of 27% and $4.5 billion out in loans worldwide. The increasing trend of using buy-now pay-later systems to purchase online retail is hard to deny. Nevertheless, Soman (2001) shows that the effects of different types of buy-now pay-later systems on purchase behavior are relatively equal. As mentioned by Prelec and Simester (2000), a consumer’s response rate and willingness to pay increases when they are given the opportunity of paying a product later. The cause of this is found to be a decrease of perceived risk and uncertainty (Gneezy et al., 2012).
Meanwhile, technological advancement has also led to an increase in online customer reviews (Sen & Lerman, 2007). In online customer reviews, consumers only need to interact with a computer to post an opinion about a product (Sen & Lerman 2007). Consequently, these opinions are quickly accessible to the public. As Sen and Lerman (2007) explain, increased accessibility to customer reviews has entitled individuals to trust customers’ opinions more than they trust traditional marketing. As a result, negative reviews have a substantial effect on the sales of products (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006). As a reaction to this trend webshops such as Amazon and Bol.com spend a considerable amount of time and
obtaining such reviews is by sending out emails to clients in which they are asked to post a review (Sen & Lerman, 2007). However, Chen et al. (2011) point out that what firms can do to obtain positive reviews or reverse negative reviews is limited. Ideally, a substitution for reviews is found.
Current literature does not provide any information on the possibility of compensating for an absence of reviews with an alternative variable that increases willingness to pay. This study will, therefore, contribute to the academic literature and close this knowledge gap by testing the possible compensation of buy-now pay-later methods on a lack of reviews. Furthermore, this study will provide insights on the effect of review presence and review absence on the willingness to pay for a utilitarian product. Additionally, the difference in willingness to pay for pay now and buy-now pay-later methods is explored. Altogether, this study will provide an understanding on a particular marketing setback and equally propose a new way of implicating a solution.
The following research question has been formulated: “Can a buy-now pay-later method compensate for a lack of customer reviews?” In the experiment, customer reviews are defined as webshop customer ratings (bol.com). Buy-now pay-later methods can be seen as statements of possible payment in 3 months time. Willingness to pay is defined as the largest sum of money an individual agrees to pay for a product or service (Business Dictionary, 2017).
This thesis first introduces findings from existing literature and subsequently presents three hypotheses in the literature review. Next, a methodology will elaborate on the aim, the execution and the data collection of the experiment. The collected data is then presented and analyzed in the fourth chapter. Following is a discussion in which the key findings are mentioned, together with their managerial implications, the limitations and the contributions
to theory and practice. Lastly, a conclusion is presented in which an overall summary of the experiment and its findings are given.
2. Literature Review
This chapter reviews existing literature on risk, customer reviews and buy-now pay-later methods. Following this, a research gap and coherent hypotheses are presented.
2.1. Risk and willingness to pay
Risk arises when an action produces a set of possible outcomes, and the probability of each outcome is known (Busemeyer, 1985). Varying from risk is uncertainty, which occurs when actions produce a set of possible outcomes but the probability of each outcome is unknown (Busemeyer, 1985). Gneezy et al. (2012) explain that willingness to pay for a product is partially determined by perceptions of risk or uncertainty. Their explanation suggests that if a purchase has potential risk or uncertainty attached to it, willingness to pay decreases. On the contrary, compared to a risky or uncertain purchase, a purchase that is perceived to have no accompanying risk or uncertainty will result in an increase in willingness to pay (Gneezy et al., 2012). Loewenstein et al. (2001) offer an explanation as to why risk can cause a change in purchase behavior. According to their model, based on the risk-as-feelings theory, risk and uncertainty stimulate emotional reactions such as regret. Customers can regret a purchase if the amount they paid is more than the experienced value (Lowenstein et al., 2001).
The Expected Utility Theory predicts individuals’ purchase behavior when deciding whether or not to purchase a risky product (Dow and Werlang, 1992). Dow and Werlang (1992) conduct an analysis using the model of Expected-Utility. Their study shows that when an individual starts from a position of certainty, he or she will only purchase the product if the expected value exceeds the price. Contrarily, if the expected value is lower than the price the individual will not purchase the product. These predictions determine that the demand for a
price (Dow and Werlang, 1992). Additionally, Dow and Werlang’s (1992) analysis concludes that the expected utility theory can only be applied to purchases that have one type of risk or uncertainty. If a product has multiple types of risk, the purchase decision becomes complex and individuals are consequently unlikely to consider the purchase altogether (Dow and Werlang, 1992).
Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) conducted three experiments to assess whether the Expected Utility Theory applies to varying types of risk. The participants in the experiment were either placed in a high-risk (condition one) or a low risk (condition two) scenario. Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) measured the purchase behavior in both conditions. The obtained results show that hostile reactions to a product may form the basis for judgments of high risk and little benefit. Conversely, favorable reactions may provide the basis for low-risk perception and high benefits (Rottenstreich & Hsee, 2001).
2.2. Customer Reviews
Decker and Trusov (2010) discuss the different types of customer reviews and how they can be divided into three categories. The first category is known as the ‘associated product rating.’ When reviewing a product in this manner, a customer ranks a product on a scale. This scale is portrayed as a numerical ranking, usually categorized from 1 to 5 and is displayed with the use of graphics, such as stars. Additionally, one or two words describing the customer’s primary attitude towards the product can be added to the ranking. The second type of customer review is the ‘pros and cons review.’ This type considers the strengths and weaknesses of a product. The pros and cons can either be selected from a list or entered manually (Decker & Trusov, 2010). The third type of customer review is the ‘comment and
remark’ type (Decker & Trusov, 2010). These comments and remarks can vary from a few sentences to a paragraph. Figure 1 presents the three types of customer reviews.
Figure 1: The three types of Customer Reviews (Bol.com)
Review Type Example
Associated Product
Rating
Pros and Cons review
Comment and
Remark Review
Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) conducted an experiment using the different types of reviews and measured their impact on consumers’ interpretation of the product. Using data from Amazon and Barnes & Noble they find evidence that customers do not purely rely on summaries and statistics, such as the ‘associated product rating’, but read and trust the ‘comment and remark’ reviews (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006). To post or access a review, a customer solely needs to interact with a computer. A review can be uploaded within a few minutes (Sen & Lerman, 2007). Once published, the customer’s opinion becomes available to the public, either recommending or discouraging other consumers from buying the rated product (Sen & Lerman, 2007). Customers provide these opinions on a product or service voluntarily. When writing a review, the customers invest their own time and energy to share
their experience with others. As a result, the public regards customer reviews as an authentic and trustworthy source of product quality (Decker & Trusov, 2010). Before online customer reviews, webshops provided consumers with product descriptions. Customers would read and trust these descriptions to assess the quality of a product. However, Hoffman et al. (1999) show that the increase of customer review usage has caused consumers to no longer trust the webshop’s own product claims. Consumers now rely on other customers’ experiences to assess the quality of a product. Hoffman et al.’s (1999) research revealed that this lack of trust has caused some businesses to lose faith in traditional marketing altogether, turning away from product descriptions and towards the acquisition of customer reviews (Hoffman et al., 1999).
The presence of customer reviews, whether negative or positive, affects product sales as well as the price of a product (Bruce et al., 2004). Bruce et al. (2004) conduct an empirical study with the use of an online auction. Their results illustrate that ratings are directly correlated to selling price, meaning the higher the rating, the higher the price. Positive reviews vouch for the quality and provide implicit and explicit insurance to customers, providing the consumers with an alternative to testing the product themselves. In the eyes of a consumer, the risk of buying a product decreases when there are positive reviews for that product (Bruce et al., 2004). When considering the purchase of a new product whose attributes are unknown, consumers must bear the risk that the experience of the bought product may be negative. However, with the presence of customer reviews, this risk is partially decreased as the consumer can observe whether other customers are satisfied with the product. Hence the attributes are no longer fully unknown and uncertainty decreases (Bruce et al., 2004). This finding is a reinforcement of McFadden and Train’s (1996) theory. When consumers are given a choice between buying a new product without customer reviews and a product that has multiple reviews, the consumer is likely to disregard the new product
and purchase the previously reviewed one (McFadden & Train, 1996). In sum, positive customer reviews ease purchase decision-making and increase consumers’ willingness to pay. However, through an observation study and two laboratory experiments, Sen & Lerman (2007) find that consumers do not trust negative and positive reviews equally. Individuals pay more attention to negative information than to positive information (Sen & Lerman, 2007). This negativity bias is caused by believing negative reviews to be more truthful than positive reviews. However, the presence of a negativity bias depends on the type of product being reviewed. Consumers are likely to anticipate a positive mood when reading reviews on hedonic products because they look forward to choosing a product that will make them feel gratified. As a result, readers tend to disregard negative information, as it is inconsistent with their anticipated mood (Sen & Lerman, 2007). Contrasting to the effect on hedonic products, negative reviews strongly influence consumers’ willingness to pay for utilitarian products. The main reason for this is the consumers’ concern about the functionality and quality of the utilitarian product (Sen & Lerman, 2007). As a result, negative reviews can be ruinous for the sales of utilitarian products. Negative reviews can cause the products to disappear from the market. This disappearance can be caused by an increase of perceived risk, leading to an unwillingness to try the product (Decker & Trusov, 2010).
In sum, the presence of positive reviews increases consumers’ willingness to pay and consequently enhances the likelihood that a customer purchases the evaluated product. Contrasting to positive reviews, negative reviews reduce the likeliness of purchase and decrease willingness to pay. It remains vague, however, what would happen if there were an absence of reviews rather than a presence of negative reviews. It can be anticipated that the willingness to pay for a product without reviews is significantly below that of a product with positive reviews. This ambiguity brings us to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: An absence of customer reviews will lead to a decrease in consumers’ willingness to pay, compared to a setting where customer reviews are present.
2.3. Buy-now pay-later method
A buy-now pay-later method is a payment system in which a consumer purchases a product or service but pays at a later moment in time (Feinberg, 1986). Such a system can either come in the form of a credit card, a store-issued card or any other type of post-pay method (Hirschman, 1979). The philosophy behind buy-now pay-later methods, sometimes referred to as post-pay, revolves around facilitating commerce. Today businesses, banks, and individuals make daily use of post-pay transactions (Feinberg, 1986).
Besides providing consumers with an extra payment method, buy-now pay-later methods influence consumers’ purchase behavior. Feinberg (1986) conducted an experiment that shows that the use of post-pay systems influences willingness to pay. In his experiment, Feinberg (1986) measured how much individuals were willing to pay for various types of products, ranging from lamps to dresses. The respondents were divided into two groups, one group was given the opportunity to use a buy-now pay-later method, and the other was not. The data showed that willingness to pay could be boosted with a range between 50 and 200 percent if the opportunity of using a post pay system was present (Feinberg, 1986). Modern developments of this research, conducted by Prelec & Simester (2001), show that the effect of buy-now pay-later systems arises as consumers anchor their perceived value differently when appointed a post-pay method rather than a pay-now method. Additionally, Soman (2001) shows that besides the willingness to pay, purchase likelihood and speed of purchase also increase when the option of paying later is given. Explanations for these relationships vary between economic and social influences.
The buy-now pay-later method is a relatively painless way of spending money (Feinberg, 1986). Psychologists explain that pain associated with making a payment is reduced when a post-pay method is used, as there is a temporal separation between the acquisition of a product and its payment (Soman, 2001). Soman (2001) explains that this separation of purchase and payment can lead to a phenomenon called the ‘Illusion of Liquidity”. Within this phenomenon, consumers come to believe that they are wealthier because they have a greater spending power due to the second source of funds, provided by the corporations offering the post-pay methods. When paying for a product or service with either cash or a debit card the negative effect of money leaving bank account is experienced instantaneously. When a buy-now pay-later method is used the ‘pain’ of the cost leaving the bank account or wallet is experienced independently from the acquisition of the product and is therefore interpreted as irrelevant to the purchase (Soman, 2001).
Consumers tend to deny any association to the psychological theories of buy-now pay-later methods as they consider the theories unrelated to their personal spending behavior (Ausubel, 1991). However, Ausubel (1991) conducted research with the use of credit card data provided by the American Banker and Credit Card News. This bank data shows that consumers who do not necessarily intend to borrow money through post-pay methods do so. In America alone, Citibank had an outstanding balance of $15.3 billion issued to MasterCard and Visa card users in 1987. To measure consumers’ attitude towards, and personal perception of, credit cards usage Ausubel (1991) conducted a survey in cooperation with the University of Michigan. By comparing the collected bank data to the survey results, Ausubel (1991) revealed that as much as 75% of credit card owners make purchases which could be seen as financially irresponsible when considering their outstanding balances (Ausubel, 1991). In other words, the ‘Illusion of Liquidity’ affects consumers, resulting in an unconscious change in purchase behavior.
Soman (2001) suggests that post-pay methods influence consumers’ response to spending. When purchasing a product with either cash or debit card a consumer evaluates the attractiveness of the transaction. This attractiveness depends on whether the utility offered by the product exceeds the risk of making the associated payment (Soman, 2001). The evaluation of risk requires a consumer to assign the expenses to the product. However, if tracking and assigning does not take place, as occurs when using a buy-now pay-later method, the perceived risk of buying the product decreases (Soman, 2001). It can, therefore, be assumed that the decrease of risk through the use of buy-now pay-later methods would increase willingness to pay, as is stated in hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 2: The use of a buy-now pay-later method increases consumers’ willingness to pay when compared to the use of a pay-now method.
2.4. Combining customer reviews and buy-now pay-later methods
The presence of relevant information on a purchase can predict a consumer’s regret avoidance and willingness to pay (Gretschko & Rajko, 2014). As mentioned by Gretschko and Rajko (2014), a lack of information can cause consumers’ willingness to pay to decrease as a fear of overpaying sets in. This fear of overpaying for an unknown product can be referred to as the ‘risk of the unknown’ (Peters & Slovic, 2000). Contrarily, if a bidder is properly informed about a product, the perceived risk decreases and the bidder places a bid that is often above the optimal bid (Gretschko & Rajko, 2014). Customer reviews influence such perceptions of risk (Decker & Trusov, 2010). An absence of customer reviews can be seen as a type of ‘risk of the unknown.’ Consumers perceive a new, unknown product as a gamble purchase that could yield various outcomes. In such a situation willingness to pay decreases to cut back the possibility of regretting the purchase (Gretschko & Rajko, 2014)
Loewenstein et al. (2001) show that the conventional way to solve an absence of reviews is by obtaining reviews. However, Chen et al. (2011) provide an insight that reversing a lack of reviews is not as easy as one would expect, as consumers are often unwilling to try products that do not have reviews. Consequently, a solution to increased willingness to pay should be found elsewhere. We look into whether the use of buy-now pay-later systems can result in an increase of purchase intention and willingness to pay when there is an absence of customer reviews. As Soman (2001) mentioned, the use of post-pay methods separates the acquisition of a product from perceived risk. With post-pay the product becomes more attractive to the customers despite the presence of a possible risk, consequently increasing their willingness to pay (Soman, 2001). Hence, we expect that the use of buy-now pay-later method would bring the willingness to pay for a product without reviews back to the value it would have with positive reviews. If this is successful, marketers can take a different approach to placing new and un-reviewed products on the market. This assumption is formulated in the third hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: A buy-now pay-later method decreases the negative relationship of a lack of customer reviews on the willingness to pay. As a result, the buy-now pay-later method acts as a negative moderator and increases willingness to pay.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Aim
In this chapter the research design, variables, sample, treatments, auction procedure and auctioned product for the experiment answering the following research question will be discussed:
Can a buy-now pay-later method compensate for a lack of customer reviews?
Three hypotheses have been formulated based on the conceptual model in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
3.2. Research Design
The research question and hypotheses will be tested in a controlled field experiment with the use of an experimental auction. The experimental auction will be conducted in the form of a Vickery auction. Unlike surveys that measure intentional buying behavior, the Vickery auction measures real life consumption behavior (Vickery, 1961). The Vickery auction is a sealed-bid auction where the participants are informed that the highest bidder wins the auctioned item yet pays the second-highest price (Lucking-Reiley, 2000). Providing the
bidders with the insight that they might obtain the auctioned item for the second highest price allows us to examine customers’ absolute maximum willingness to pay (Vickery, 1961). This technique does not only prevent participants from overestimating their true willingness to pay but also ensures high internal validity and lowers the risk of pro-social biased behavior (Benz, 2008).
3.3. Variables
The independent variable in this experiment is a customer review. This variable can be manipulated in two ways, either by including customer reviews into an advertisement or by purposefully leaving the customer reviews out. In both cases, the independent variable is predicted to influence the consumer’s perception of risk and consequently change his or her bidding behavior. As a result, we hope to see an effect on the dependent variable. The dependent variable in this experiment is consumers’ willingness to pay. This variable is measured in the form of monetary value. Possible increase or decrease of the monetary value will depend on the treatment of the independent variable and the presence of a moderator. The moderator in this experiment is a buy-now pay-later method, which will be mentioned in the product advertisement. It is expected that the presence of a moderator (buy-now pay-later method) will decrease the effect of the independent variable (absence of customer reviews) on the dependent variable (willingness to pay). All further attributes of the advertisements will be kept constant to ensure internal validity.
3.4. Sample
A Vickery auction in this experiment is conducted online with the help of the auctioning platform Veylinx. The bidders are members of the Veylinx platform. The participants receive
an email with a link inviting them to the auction. The individuals are informed that the auction’s data will be used for research purpose, yet they remain uninformed about the objective. When receiving the electronic invitation, the participants are invited to place a sealed bid within the following 48 hours (Veylinx.com, 2017). When opening the auction in their web-browser, the participants are asked to agree to the platform’s terms and conditions, which include a payment guarantee. This guarantee does not only increase the likeliness that the auctioned product is paid for but also increases the external validity by reminding the bidder that they risk winning, and hence paying for the auction. Once the individuals agree to the terms and conditions, they have 6 minutes to consider the auctioned item and place their bid. Participants are unable to see other bids. If the bidder is not interested in purchasing the product they can enter a sum of 0, - Euro. Once completed, the participants are asked to confirm their bid and are then provided with a short survey.
When the auction closes, all participants receive an e-mail stating whether they have, or have not won the auction. The winning bid and the second-highest price will be communicated to the participants. Depending on which treatment the bidder received, he or she will either be asked to pay for the product within 48 hours or in 3 months time. The payment time will be communicated via e-mail.
3.5. Treatments
As shown in Figure 2 the experiment will have a 2 (Payment: Now, Later) x 2 (Customer reviews: Absent, Present) factorial design. This design results in four possible treatments allocated at random between the bidders. The participants are not informed about the presence of different treatments. All four possible treatments will display the same
product image, brand name, and product description. The presence of customer reviews and a buy-now pay-later method varies per experiment.
Figure 2: 2 x 2 experimental design and the applied treatments
Customer reviews
Absent Present
Payment Now NA NP
Later LA LP
Treatment 1 (NA) is the control experiment (Appendix 1). In this auction, the bidder will be presented with an advertisement that has neither customer reviews nor a buy-now pay-later method. Treatment 2 (NP) will portray an advertisement with customer reviews, yet does not offer a buy-now pay-later method (Appendix 2). When comparing this treatment (NP) to the control experiment (NA) the effect of customer reviews on the willingness to pay can be seen. Contrary to NP, the advertisement in treatment 3 (LA) does not have any customer reviews yet does give the bidder the opportunity to use a buy-now pay-later method (Appendix 3). By comparing treatments LA to NA, we expect to see an increase in consumers’ willingness to pay caused by the presence of a buy-now pay-later method. Additionally, by comparing treatments LA to NP and NA, one can see whether the presence of a buy-now pay-later method moderates the absence of customer reviews. The last treatment (LP) combines the presence of customer reviews and a buy-now pay-later method (Appendix 4).
3.6. Auction Procedure
As previously mentioned, once a bid has been placed the participants are directed to a short survey consisting of five multiple-choice questions (Appendix 5). The survey will measure the bidders’ prior knowledge on the auctioned product, their perception on the importance of customer reviews and previous use of buy-now pay-later methods. The first question asked is; “Are you familiar with Slow Cooker Products” (possible answers: i. Yes I have one, ii. Yes I have previously heard of slow cookers, iii. No). The answer to this question will provide insight as to whether the bidder understands the auctioned product and accordingly explains potential discrepancies in willingness to pay. As Gneezy & Gneezy (2010) point out; prior knowledge on a product drastically influences a consumer’s willingness to pay. Such influence is also caused by familiarity with the retail price. As a result, the second question also controls the willingness to pay variable by checking whether the participant has prior knowledge of the average selling price of the product. The question is structured as follows; “Prior to bidding, were you familiar with the average selling price of the Crock Pot Slow Cooker?” (possible answers: i. Yes, ii. No iii. Not at first, but I looked it up).
The third and fourth questions check whether the bidders are aware of their usage of customer reviews and buy-now pay-later methods. Huber & Kunz (2007) state that consumers actively search for risk associated factors. Hence, question 3 will check whether consumers purposefully look for customer reviews within non-experimental situations; “When buying products that I am not familiar with I tend to look at customer reviews” (possible answers: i. I completely agree ii. I agree iii. Neutral iv. I disagree v. I completely disagree). Likewise, question 4 also aims to prove a theory formerly mentioned in the literature review. As Ausubel (1991) explains, consumers tend to believe that they are not personally affected by the attractiveness of buy-now pay-later methods that provoke higher spending responses. However, we consider the possibility that the bidder’s actions prove to be different from their
intentions. This difference will be tested with the following statement “I am willing to pay more for a product if given the possibility of paying in 3 months time” (possible answers: i. I completely agree ii. I agree iii. Neutral iv. I disagree v. I completely disagree). The last question measures the bidder’s possible misinterpretation of the customer reviews presented in the advertisements. The customer reviews that the bidders are presented with have been extracted from bol.com. Therefore, a lack of prior knowledge on the webshop might lead to a biased interpretation of the advertisement and reviews. The question is formulated as follows: “How reliable do you find the customer reviews on bol.com” (possible answers: i. Very reliable ii. Reliable iii. Neutral iv. Not reliable v. Not at all reliable vi. I am not familiar with bol.com).
3.7. Auctioned Product
The product chosen for this study is a Crock Pot Slow Cooker. A Slow Cooker is a countertop electrical cooking device that is used to simmer foods at a low temperature (Pilkington, 2014). The Slow Cooker was chosen for this experiment because it is a utilitarian product. Utilitarian products are used to accomplish a practical or functional task (Sen & Lerman, 2007). When purchasing a utilitarian product, consumers expect the product to work as it is marketed to work. To ensure such expectations a consumer can consider other customers’ reviews before acquiring the utilitarian product. Accordingly, a lack of reviews for utilitarian purchases gives the potential customer uncertainty about the effectiveness of the product (Sen & Lerman, 2007).
Another reason why the Slow Cooker was chosen for this auction was it’s probable absence in most middle-class kitchens. The Slow Cooker has only recently reappeared into the middle-class kitchenware market, so the chances of the bidders already owning one are
relatively small. As Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) point out, consumers are not likely to purchase a utilitarian product they already have, especially if satisfied with its performance. This specific Slow Cooker called the ‘Crock Pot CRO30X’ has been available on the Dutch market since December 2016 and is sold at an average price of 68, - Euros (bol.com). The product is sold on the Dutch webshop bol.com and does not have any reviews at the time of selection.
4. Results
In this chapter, we will analyze the outcomes of the experiment. First, the sample characteristics are described followed by a test for normality. Next, one-way ANOVA’s and regression analyses are applied to test the three hypotheses and any additional findings. Lastly, conclusions are formulated based on the results.
4.1. Sample characteristics
With the use of the Veylinx panel, 8924 individuals were invited to participate in an online auction. From the 8924 participants, 1016 started the auction, and 847 of these individuals completed it, giving a response rate of 9.49%. The sample consisted of 426 (50.3%) female and 421 (49.7%) male individuals with an average age of 44 (SD=14.39). The oldest participant was 79 years old, and the youngest was 19. All 847 participants provided their date of birth, gender and willingness to pay. However, a total of 13 individuals did not answer the survey questions after placing a bid and 8 participants completely them partially. The missing values are not seen as a concern as the remaining data is enough to conduct valid analyses (Field, 2013).
4.2. Data Characteristics
An overview of the number of participants, average bid amount, minimum and maximum values for the four treatments and the total sample can be seen in Table 1. The dependent variable fluctuated between 0 and 10000 euro cents. The average bid was 1408.52 euro cents (SD= 1579.86). Due to a high percentage of zero sum bids, we have decided to split the data and perform the same analyses with the top 50%. The results can be found in Table 2.
Table 1: Number of participants, minimum/maximum bid amount, mean and standard deviations per treatment
Treatment N Minimum Maximum Mean (in € cents) SD
Treatment 1: NA 219 0 5800 1324.97 1468.39
Treatment 2: LP 227 0 10000 1438.03 1709.79
Treatment 3: NP 205 0 6900 1478.47 1649.49
Treatment 4: LP 196 0 7000 1394.56 1472.87
Total 847 0 10000 1408.52 1579.86
Table 2: Number of participants, minimum/maximum bid amount, mean and standard deviations per treatment for top 50% bids
Treatment N Minimum Maximum Mean (in € cents) SD
Treatment 1: NA 110 1000 5800 2503.32 1197.77
Treatment 2: LP 113 1000 10000 2713.13 1594.44
Treatment 3: NP 103 1000 6900 2762.10 1436.16
Treatment 4: LP 99 1000 7000 2544.17 1216.94
Total 425 1000 10000 2631.03 1374.90
To control unwanted bias, questions were asked in a survey after the auction. The first question measured whether the participants were familiar with slow cooker products. One of the possible answers was “Yes, I own a slow cooker.” This answer could be seen as a bias within the results, as individuals are not likely to purchase a utilitarian product they already own (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). As a result, these individuals are likely to place a 0 sum
bid despite the treatment. A total of 57 (6.9%) of the participants already own a slow cooker, and 43% of these participants placed a zero sum bid. The mean of this group was 1192.75 (SD=1396.72) Contrasting to this, 33.07% (N=254) of the individuals place a zero sum bid if they have heard of or were not familiar with the slow cooker (N=768), resulting in a 9.93% difference. The average bid of this participant group is 1424.40 (SD=1579.86). This mean does not significantly differ (p>0.05) from that of the slow cooker owners.
The second control question asked was whether the participant was familiar with the average selling price of the Crock Pot slow cooker prior to bidding. A total of 105 participants (12.7%) were familiar with the average selling price, either from previous knowledge (6.3%) or from looking it up before bidding (6.4%). The average bid for these participants was 1721.51 euro cents (SD=1510.97). This leaves us with a remaining sum of 727 (87.4%) individuals who were unaware of the average selling price prior to bidding. With a mean of 1368.86 (SD=1579.86) the average bids do not significantly (p>0.05) differ and all data is therefore equally reliable.
4.3. Normality testing
To check the data’s distribution and conduct proper parametric analyses, tests for normality have been conducted. First, the data was plotted in a nominal distribution histogram to visualize the distribution (Appendix 7). From the data’s histogram, it can be seen that the bid amount is not normally distributed and strongly skewed to the right. Additionally, a peak is present at the 0 sum bid, which results in a median greater than the mean. A normal distribution should be neither flat nor peaked (Field, 2013). Furthermore, to check the significant deviation of the willingness to pay variable, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests have been conducted. The results, presented in Table 3, show that the variable is not normally distributed (p<0.001).
A possible explanation as to why the results strongly deviate from normality is the 33.5% zero sum bids (N=284). During the auction, bidders were instructed to enter a 0 sum bid if they were not interested in purchasing the product. These 0 sum bids influence the direction of the data, and consequently, further statistical analyses. As a result, a test for normality was conducted on the top 50% of the results. When considering the new histogram, it can be seen that the data alteration has a slight impact on the bid distribution (Appendix 7). However, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests show that the top 50% data is still positively skewed (1.304), pointy and heavy-tailed (2.664) and hence, has a significant deviation from normality (p<.001).
Table 3: Normality tests for full data and top 50% bids
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic P-value Sig. Skewness Kurtosis
Original WTP .186 847 .000 .840 847 .000 1.268 1.733 Top 50% WTP .163 424 .000 .896 424 .000 1.304 2.664
As a final check, the distribution of each treatment has been tested individually. From the findings, it can be seen that none of the treatments has a balanced and normal distribution. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated that there was a significant (p<0.001) difference between each treatment’s data and normal distribution.
4.4. Hypothesis testing
4.4.1. Testing Hypothesis 1: the effect of customer reviews
Hypothesis 1 predicts that willingness to pay will be lower for a product without ratings when compared to a product with ratings. To test this hypothesis, the data from the treatments with ratings (NP and LP) are compared to the treatments without ratings (NA and LA). A one-way ANOVA analysis was used despite the skewness of the results. However, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to check whether a different test would be more suitable for analyzing our non-normal distributed data. Both tests provided us with matching results, so the use of a one-way ANOVA continued.
From the data, it is seen that despite that the willingness to pay was higher when reviews were present (M=1437.45; SD=1564.27) compared to when reviews were absent (M=1382.51; SD= 1595.04), there was no significant effect of review presence on the willingness to pay (F(1,847)=.255, p=0.613). The ANOVA was also performed for the top 50% of the data. Although here too, the average bid for review presence (M=2654.76; SD=1333.86) was higher than when reviews were absent (M=2609.64; SD=1413.52), there is still no significant effect on willingness to pay (F(1,424)=.113, p=.737). In sum, the analysis shows that there is a slight increase in willingness to pay when reviews are present in an advertisement. However, it is probable that the increase in willingness to pay is caused by chance as there is no statistical significance (p>.05). Consequently, Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
4.4.2. Testing Hypothesis 2: the effect of buy-now pay-later methods
Hypothesis 2 suggests that the possibility of using a buy-now pay-later method increases willingness to pay when compared to a pay-now method. To test this, we compare the average
(LP) using a one-way ANOVA. When looking at the mean results, it can be seen that the willingness to pay for pay-now treatments (M= 1417.89; SD=1602.65) is higher than for buy-now pay-later treatments (M= 1399.18; SD= 1558.62). These results could suggest that the effect of a buy-now pay-later system is the opposite of what was predicted. The effect however, was not significant (F(1,847)= 0.018, p=.893). The top 50% data shows an even weaker level of significance than the full data (F(1,420)=0.001, p=0.976). It can be concluded that the difference in mean between the pay-now method and buy-now pay-later method has occurred by chance. So, hypothesis 2 is not supported, as the post-pay method has not had a significant impact on willingness to pay (p>.05).
4.4.3. Testing Hypothesis 3: the compensating effect of buy-now pay-later on review absence
Hypothesis 3 discusses the possibility of a buy-now pay-later system moderating the effect of an absence of reviews on the willingness to pay. In other words, the willingness to pay for treatment 3 (LA) should be close, or equal to, the willingness to pay for treatment 2 (NP). To test this hypothesis, the treatments are compared to one another. Treatment 3 (LA) (M=1324.97; SD=1468.39) and treatment 2 (NP) (M=1394.56; SD=1472.87) have a 69.59 Eurocent average difference. As expected, the difference between the two treatments is not significant (F(2,846)=.389, p=.776). An F value close to 1 and a p statistic close to 0 suggest that the means between the two different populations are significantly different (Field, 2009). To support our hypothesis of equal means between treatment 3 (LA) and 2 (NP), the F value should be close to 0 and p close to 1. As can be seen in Graph 1, the willingness to pay for both treatments closely overlap yet are not equal. In sum, the results tend to partially support the hypothesis.
Graph 1: Aggregate demand curve showing average willingness to pay compared
to the percentage of participants for treatment 2 (NP) and treatment 3 (LA)
4.5. Additional findings
Besides the data generated from the hypotheses, conclusions can also be drawn from the additional survey questions. The first survey question tested the bidders’ familiarity with slow cookers. The results show that 64.5% of the total sample was familiar with slow cooker products (of which 6.9% own a slow cooker, and 57.6% have heard of slow cookers). These participants (N=532) placed an average bid of 1602.22 (SD=1580.5), whereas the bidders who were not familiar with slow cookers (N=293) placed an average bid of 1056.47 (SD=1509.80). As seen in graph 2, a conclusion can be drawn that individuals who have prior knowledge on slow cookers place significantly higher bids when compared to participants who do not have prior knowledge on slow cookers (p<.05). The second survey question
shows that there is no significant impact on willingness to pay when individuals are aware of the slow cooker’s retail price (M=1721.51; SD=1510.97) when compared to bidders that are not aware (M=1368.86; SD=1579.86) of the retail price (p>.05).
Graph 2: Aggregate demand curve showing average willingness to pay compared to percentage of participants with and without prior knowledge on slow cookers
The remaining three survey questions are ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. Before conducting further analyses, the 5-point Likert scale data is reverse coded into new variables. To interpret the results regression analyses will measure the effects of the claims made by individuals on the willingness to pay. Through this, the consumers’ intentions will be compared to their actions. Additionally, a regression analysis will show the effects of the
Prior knowledge
No prior knowledge
First, the claim as to whether consumers consider customer reviews when making a purchase is checked on bid amount. It can be seen that the majority of bidders, 71.8% (N=599), state that they take account of customer reviews before purchasing a product, whereas 6.0% (N=50) of the individuals state not to look at customer reviews. The remaining 22.2% (N=18.5) claimed to be neutral regarding review consideration. It can be expected that the more importance consumers attach to reviews, the more likely they are to have an increased willingness to pay. Vice versa, the less a person values reviews, the less effect reviews will have on their willingness to pay. The regression analysis shows a non-significant effect (β= .011, t (834) = .364, p>.05). Meaning that there is no average change in the
willingness to pay per unit of review consideration. In other words, despite the participants’ claims to look at reviews or not, they affect their purchase behavior equally.
The next survey question asked whether the bidders are willing to pay more for a product if given the opportunity of paying later. The vast majority (70.1%, N = 583) of the individuals disagreed or disagreed completely with the fact that they are willing to pay more for a post-pay product. Defiantly, a small amount (10.5%, N= 87) of the individuals claim that they are willing to pay more for a post-pay product and 19.5% (N= 162) remained neutral. The mean bid for participants (N=87) who claim to be willing to pay more for post-pay was 1896.00 (SD= 1559.61). The participants who claim not to pay more for pay-later products (N= 583) placed an average bid of 1272.25 (SD=1520.84). The regression analysis shows a significant relationship between claiming to pay more for post-pay products and bid amount
(β=-.148, t (683) = -4.291, p<0.05.). In sum, the more conscious people are about their
increased purchase intention when given the opportunity to pay in a few months time, the more they are willing to pay.
The last survey question asks for consumers’ perception of trust on bol.com reviews. A total of 599 individuals (71.9%) believe bol.com ratings to be trustworthy. A group of 50
individuals (6.0%) finds bol.com reviews unreliable and 184 (22.1%) are neutral to the matter. A regression analysis shows that the level of trust felt towards bol.com reviews did not lead to a significant difference in consumers’ willingness to pay (β=-.007, t (833)=.189, p>.05).
Lastly, the data was checked for the effect of the age and gender control variables. Both variables age (β= .03, t (842)= .102, p>0.05) and gender (β=.015, t(842)=.457, p>0.05) did not significantly affect consumers’ willingness to pay. Therefore, age and gender do not have an effect on the other variables and willingness to pay.
5. Discussion
As a supplement to the data analysis, this chapter provides a general discussion of the results, followed by implications of the research and recommendations for future studies.
5.1. Key findings
The research question poses whether a buy-now pay-later system can compensate for a lack of reviews. The question cannot be positively confirmed. Despite a slight difference between the bid means, the two independent review variables; review presence and absence, did not significantly affect consumers’ willingness to pay. Additionally, no significant difference in willingness to pay was found between the two payment methods; now and buy-now pay-later. Nevertheless, the third hypothesis was partially accepted, as the result was close to the prediction that there would be no significant difference. This outcome, however, was caused by a lack of effect of the independent variables and moderator rather than the predicted effect of compensation. As a result, the anticipated moderation between reviews and payment methods on the willingness to pay is absent.
Furthermore, it became apparent that individuals with prior knowledge on slow cookers are willing to pay significantly more for the product than people who are unaware of its functions. However, this was not the case for individuals’ prior knowledge on the slow cooker’s retail price. Individuals who are unaware of the slow cooker’s retail price are willing to pay just as much as people who are aware of the slow cookers monetary value. Also, a conscious search for reviews does not lead to an increase in willingness to pay. Individuals who claim to disregard reviews will end up paying the same amount for a product as those who do intentionally look for customer reviews before making a purchase. Furthermore, people tend to be aware of the effect of buy-now pay-later on their purchase behavior. When
individuals claim that they are willing to pay more for a product if given the opportunity to pay later, their bid increases. Coherently, when individuals claim that they are not willing to pay more for a buy-now pay-later product their bid is below the mean. Lastly, gender and age do not influence consumers’ willingness to pay.
5.2. Contribution to theory and practice
Bidders who received an advertisement with reviews were not willing to pay more than the individuals who received an advertisement without reviews. This finding is not in line with Bruce et al. (2004) and Mcfadden & Train (1996)’s findings. Their discoveries state that positive reviews decrease an individual’s perception of risk and uncertainty, consequently increasing their willingness to pay. However, the bid that people placed in the slow cooker experiment was not affected by either the presence or absence of reviews, which differs to the literature findings. The reason for this could be the lack of perceived uncertainty. As McFadden & Train (1996) explain, product reviews influence willingness to pay when individuals are choosing between numerous products. However, the individuals in this experiment were not offered an alternative product but were only presented with a single option. Consequently, in addition to the literature, it can be considered that the effect of review absence might only influence willingness to pay when individuals are presented with alternative products. Further research would be needed to test this.
Also, Sen & Lerman (2007) explain that individuals tend to disregard negative information if it is inconsistent with their anticipated mood. The bidders in our experiment are individuals who frequently participate in Veylinx auctions. These individuals are likely to have a positive affiliation with Veylinx and accordingly trust that the auctioned products are of a certain quality. The advertisements without reviews should have provided the bidders
with a certain level of uncertainty, yet the level of trust felt towards the selling platform might have counterbalanced this uncertainty. These findings are in line with Gneezy et al.’s (2012) study on the perception of risk and uncertainty on willingness to pay. As a result, it is suggested that the review absence needs to be replaced with a higher level of uncertainty or risk. For instance, by including negative reviews rather than no reviews, a difference in willingness to pay is more likely to be triggered.
Despite the absence of effect of reviews on consumers’ willingness to pay, this study does contribute to Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006)’s findings. From their research Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) conclude that individuals consciously read reviews and use them to decide their maximum willingness to pay (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006). The outcomes of this study confirm that the majority of individuals consciously look at customer reviews before making a purchase. However, the findings show that not only conscious review readers are influenced by the customer reviews. Individuals who claim not to regard customer reviews are seen to have the same willingness to pay and purchase behavior as review-readers. Consequently, it can be considered that reviews unconsciously affect an individuals purchase behavior.
Besides customer reviews, Feinberg (1986) and Soman (2001) revealed that buy-now pay-later methods also influence consumers’ purchase behavior. However, the outcome of this study suggests that there is no significant difference in willingness to pay between pay-now and buy-pay-now pay-later methods. Ausubel (1991) revealed that consumers tend to believe that their purchase behavior is not influenced when purchasing a product with a post-pay method, his data, however, proves the contrary. Ausubel’s (1991) experiment and survey show that consumers are not aware of the effect of a post-pay on their purchase behavior. Within this experiment, however, it can be seen that bidders who claim not to be affected by a post-pay method have a willingness to pay below the average bid. Likewise, consumers who
state to be willing to pay more for a post-pay product placed a higher bid. These results contribute to the development of Ausubel’s theory. Our results show that when consumers are aware of the effect of a post-pay method, their willingness to pay is not affected by its presence.
The final hypothesis expected buy-now pay-later methods to compensate for the decrease in willingness to pay caused by an absence of reviews. Chen et al. (2011) explain that consumers are not willing to purchase a new product if provided with a reviewed alternative. This aversion to new products is caused by risk and uncertainty (Gretschko & Rajko, 2014). Soman (2001) states that the use of a post-pay can separate the perception of risk from the attractiveness of a product. As a result, it was considered that post-pay could consequently counterbalance the lack of reviews. As the findings of this study show that neither reviews nor buy-now pay-later methods significantly affect consumers’ willingness to pay, the prediction of a counterbalancing effect between the variables cannot be proven. This study does align with Loewenstein et al. (2001) who state that the conventional, and hence the easiest way of solving an uncertainty or risk (review absence) is by reversing the problem (acquiring reviews). In our study, neither post-pay nor reviews had an effect on the purchase behavior, yet the consumers’ willingness to pay were close to equal. As it is unclear whether compensation can solve a gap in willingness to pay, Lowenstein et al.’s (2001) theory on solving a willingness to pay gap, by reversing the review absence, is currently the only adequate solution.
5.3. Managerial Implications
As none of the hypotheses in this study found support, the practical implications are limited. However, the results do provide an interesting suggestion for targeting. Within the additional findings, knowledge is provided on specific populations that are influenced by buy-now
pay-later methods. Online webshops already offer consumers the possibility of using a post-pay method when purchasing a product. It is known that such methods increase purchase likelihood and willingness to pay (Soman, 2001). This study has found that the presence of a post-pay method does not increase willingness to pay in general. The majority of the population claims that they are not willing to pay more for a post-pay product and coherently have a willingness to pay below the average. However, consumers who state to be aware of their increased purchase behavior concerning post-pay methods are seen to have an above average willingness to pay. Consequently, if stores were to target this specific population increase in revenues and profit could be the result.
5.4. Limitations and suggestions for future research
This research has shown little meaningful effect yet established one significant finding. Although the dataset consisted of 847 individuals, it remains in question whether the panel is representative of the Dutch population as a whole. Also, no pre-test was used to test the efficiency of the advertisements. The lack of effect when there was an absence of reviews and buy-now pay-later methods on the willingness to pay might have been caused by a shortage of risk and uncertainty. Risk and uncertainty should have been represented more clearly on the product advertisements. By replacing review absence with a negative review, the level of risk and uncertainty increases and a significant difference might have been obtained. Furthermore, before all auctions, Veylinx participants are informed that they are expected to pay a winning bid within 48 hours. It is probable that the presentation of a pay-later method within the advertisements caused for confusion. Participants might not have been sufficiently aware that they would receive the product now but pay in three months time. This lack of awareness is reinforced when looking at the payments succeeding the auction. All four winning
participants paid within a week’s time despite the presence of three pay-later treatments. Both these discrepancies may have negatively influenced the outcomes.
Also, participants that had never heard of a slow cooker were likely to place a 0 Euro bid because they were not acquainted with the slow cooker’s functions. This limitation could be improved by either adding more product information in the advertisements or by replacing the slow cooker with a more conventional utilitarian product.
Overall, this study could have provided insight into new ways of overcoming an absence of reviews. However, before future research is conducted the experiment needs to be modified to function appropriately and obtain possible significant results.
6. Conclusion
This study intended to contribute to the current literature on the effect of customer reviews and buy-now pay-later systems on the willingness to pay. Based on previous studies it was expected that both absence of reviews and buy-now pay-later methods would have a significant effect on consumers’ willingness to pay. Additionally, the final hypothesis of this research tested whether the two had a compensating effect; positively moderating willingness to pay. Although both variables had a slight effect on consumers’ willingness to pay, no significant results were found. The results did indicate a significant effect between claiming to pay more for buy-now pay-later products and willingness to pay.
In conclusion, although the use of reviews and buy-now pay-later methods are established phenomena in marketing strategies, our research fails to show how they can be utilized as moderating variables. Future research could adjust the experiment to reinvestigate whether willingness to pay can be influenced by the review and buy-now pay-later variables.
7. References
Ausubel, L. M. (1991). The Failure of Competition in the Credit Card Market. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 50-81.
Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268-281.
Bruce, N., Haruvy, E., & Rao, R. (2004). Seller rating, price, and default in online auctions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 37-50. doi:10.1002/dir.20021
Busemeyer, J. R. (1985). Decision Making Under Uncertainty: A Comparison of Simple Scalability, Fixed-Sample and Sequential-Sampling Models. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(3), 538-564.g
Buy-now pay-later [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/credit_1
Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The Role of Marketing in Social Media: How Online Consumer Reviews Evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85-94.
Chen, Y., Liu, Y., & Zhang, J. (2012). When Do Third-Party Product Reviews Affect Firm …….Value and What Can Firms Do? The Case of Media Critics and Professional …….Movie Reviews. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 116-134.
Checalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345-354.
product reviews. International Journal of Research in Marketing,27(4), 293-307.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71
Dow, J., & Werlang, S. R. (1992). Uncertainty Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Optimal Choice of Portfolio. Econometrica, 60(1), 197.
Eisenberger, R., & Weber, M. (1995). Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept for risky and ambiguous lotteries. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10(3), 223-233.
Feinberg, R. A. (1986). Credit Cards as Spending Facilitating Stimuli: A Conditioning Interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 348.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage: London.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Nelson, L. D., & Brown, A. (2010). Shared social responsibility: a field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science, 329(5989), 325-327.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Riener, G., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7236-7240.
Gretschko, V., & Rajko, A. (2014). Excess information acquisition in auctions.Experimental Economics, 18(3), 335-355.
Haruvy, E., & Leszczyc, P. T. (2010). The Impact of Online Auction Duration.Decision Analysis, 7(1), 99-106.
Hirschman, E. C. (1979). Differences in Consumer Purchase Behavior by Credit Card Payment System. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 58.
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Peralta, M. (1999). Building consumer trust online.Communications of the ACM, 42(4), 80-85.
Huber, I., & Kunz, U. (2007). Time pressure in risky decision/making: effect on risk defusing. Psychology Science, 49, 415-426.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings.Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.
Lucking-Reiley, D. (2000). Vickrey Auctions in Practice: From Nineteenth-Century Philately ……..to Twenty-First-Century E-Commerce. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 183-……..192.
Mcfadden, D. L., & Train, K. E. (1996). Consumers' Evaluation of New Products: Learning from Self and Others. Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 683-703.
Olson, P. (2016, November 29). How Klarna Plans To Replace Your Credit Card. Forbes Magazine.
Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2000). The Springs of Action: Affective and Analytical Information Processing in Choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26(12), 1465-1475.
Pilkington, K. (2014, January 31). From humble to high tech, a slow cooker history. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from https://www.cnet.com/news/from-humble-to-high-tech-a-slow-cooker-history/
the Credit-Card Effect on Willingness to Pay. Marketing Letters,12(1), 5-12.
Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185-190.
Sen, S., & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 76-94.
Soman, D. (2001). Effects of Payment Mechanism on Spending Behavior: The Role of Rehearsal and Immediacy of Payments. Journal of Consumer Research,27(4), 460-474.
Veylinx. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2017, from https://veylinx.com/
Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders. The Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8.
Willingness to pay [Def. 2]. (n.d.). In BusinessDictionary. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/willingness-to-pay.html
Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing,74(2), 133-148.
Zaharov-Reutt, A. (2017, May 18). Afterpay arrivesat top App Store spot with new iPhone and iPad app. ITWire. Retrieved May 25, 2017, from https://www.itwire.com/your-it/78172-afterpay-arrives-at-top-app-store-spot-with-new-iphone-and-ipad-app.html
8. Appendices
8.1. Appendix 1: Advertisement Treatment 1
Translation: “Win the auction and pay within 48 hours.” “The electric pan in which your dishes are cooked at a low temperature. For delicious and healthy food!” “There are no reviews yet for this article”.
8.2. Appendix 2: Advertisement Treatment 2
Translation: “Win the auction and pay in 6 months time.” “The electric pan in which your dishes are cooked at a low temperature. For delicious and healthy food!” “There are no reviews yet for this article”.
