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

Dec 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: Sniffing out a partner at a London pheromone party

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Fuel cells for powering homes

Jul 16, 2014

One of the applications that fuel cells may have is the supplying of homes with electrical power. When considering applications of this type that call for greater power, a research group in the UPV/EHU's Department of Mineralogy ...

Good design not an optional extra

Jul 15, 2014

Car parks can be frustrating places at the best of times. But for Sophie Marmont, whose hand strength and dexterity are affected by cerebral palsy, a badly designed car park can pose a real problem for daily ...

Smarter ads for smartphones: When they do and don't work

Jul 15, 2014

Brands spent $8.4 billion on mobile advertising in 2013, and that number is expected to quadruple to $36 billion by 2017, according to eMarketer. But do mobile display ads—those tiny banner ads that pop ...

Recommended for you

How to win a Tour de France sprint

Jul 22, 2014

The final dash to the line in a Tour de France sprint finish may appear to the bystander to be a mess of bodies trying to cram into the width of a road, but there is a high degree of strategy involved. It ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VOR
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.
Soylent
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.
CreepyD
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.