We've got your number: Consumers choose products with more technical specs

December 15, 2008

Many products have numbers attached: megapixels for cameras, wattage ratings for stereos, cotton counts for sheets. A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research shows that consumers are heavily influenced by quantitative specifications, even meaningless ones.

"We find that even when buyers can directly experience the underlying attributes and the specifications carry little or no additional information, they are still heavily influenced by the specifications," write authors Christopher K. Hsee (University of Chicago), Yang Yang, Yangjie Gu, and Jie Chen (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China).

In the five related studies, researchers asked participants to choose between two options of digital cameras, towels, sesame oil, cell phones, and potato chips. In every study, participants preferred the products with the most specifications.

"The tendency to seek specifications is tested and confirmed in several studies involving different product categories. In one of the studies, for example, we asked participants themselves to generate specifications on the basis of their experiences," write the authors. "Hence, by design, the specifications carried no additional information beyond what the experience conveyed."

While the participants clearly chose products with more specifications, they didn't necessarily like the products more after they chose them.

"This research yields both theoretical implications for how preferences are formed, and practical implications for how marketers can use specifications to influence consumer choice and how consumers can resist such influences," the authors conclude.

More info: Christopher K. Hsee, Yang Yang, Yangjie Gu, and Jie Chen. "Specification Seeking: How Product Specifications Influence Consumer Preference." Journal of Consumer Research: April 2009.

Source: University of Chicago

Explore further: New 13-year study tracks effects of changing ocean temperature on phytoplankton

Related Stories

Levelling food price volatility, while supporting the poor

October 21, 2016

Food crises leave the poor in desperation. To ameliorate the effects of weather and climate disasters, including food price volatility, it is better if governments forget about managing prices and instead care for the poor, ...

Report provides options for organic soybean growers

October 21, 2016

Although soybeans are one of the most widely grown crops in the U.S., few soybean farmers are using organic practices. A new University of Illinois report details organic products and practices to combat pathogens and insect ...

Recommended for you

Meet Savannasaurus, Australia's newest titanosaur

October 21, 2016

The outback region around Winton in central Queensland is arguably Australia's ground zero for giant dinosaur fossils. Here, graziers occasionally stumble across petrified bones on their paddocks, amid the stubbly grass and ...

Early fossil fish from China shows where our jaws came from

October 20, 2016

Where did our jaws come from? The question is more complicated than it seems, because not all jaws are the same. In a new article, published in Science, palaeontologists from China and Sweden trace our jaws back to the extinct ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2008
And this number worship causes manufacturers to maximize numbers even at the expense of the design! For example, MANY still cameras have pixel counts WAY above that which is appropriate for the quality of the lens. The pixels are crammed onto a tiny sensor, and the result is FAR more noise than if they put the right number (less) of pixels on there,(and needlessly larger files). And then they'll employ a heavy noise reduction scheme that smears the detail. It's downright moronic. They should instead publish the noise figures prominently and proudly, boldly, aggressively state that their camera is BETTER becuase it has FEWER pixels.
not rated yet Dec 15, 2008
Cynical people naturally assume the worst if the manufacturer does not list e.g. transfats, power consumption, pixel count, whatever.

I believe that's the correct response; people should take some care to understand what they're getting so they won't feel cheated and don't encourage bad products or services. What they're doing wrong is obsessing about the wrong numbers, see the gentleman above for an example.
not rated yet Dec 16, 2008
The thing is, we need some way of comparing products, and this is the only obvious way.
I definitely agree with VOR though.
People still compare GHz on CPU's too, even though that means very little in todays CPU market.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.