When Two Plus Two Is Not Equal to Four: Errors in Processing Multiple Percentage Changes
- 1 October 2007
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Journal of Consumer Research
- Vol. 34 (3), 327-340
- https://doi.org/10.1086/518531
Abstract
When evaluating the net impact of a series of percentage changes, we predict that consumers may employ a “whole number” computational strategy that yields a systematic error in their calculation. We report on three studies conducted to examine this issue. In the first study we identify the computational error and demonstrate its consequences. In a second study, we identify several theoretically driven boundary conditions for the observed phenomenon. Finally we demonstrate in a real-world retail setting that, consistent with our premise, sequential percentage discounts generate more purchasers, sales, revenue, and profit than the economically equivalent single percentage discount.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Low Literate ConsumerJournal of Consumer Research, 2005
- Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed HopesMarketing Science, 2002
- The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognitionJournal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000
- The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentionsJournal of Retailing, 1998
- Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertaintyCognition, 1996
- Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theoryCognition, 1992
- A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choiceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1990
- Strategies Used by Secondary Mathematics Teachers to Solve Proportion ProblemsJournal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1988
- The Effect of Ad Claims and Ad Context on Attitude toward the AdvertisementJournal of Advertising, 1988
- Construct a Sum: A Measure of Children's Understanding of Fraction SizeJournal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1985