Having vs. Consuming
Goodman & Irmak
Conceptual Background
Consumers are likely to evaluate products with many features more favourably because they believe
that each additonal feature adds new capabilites to the product. However, the complexity of
features and associated learning costs hinder consumer’s use of many product features and
consumers fail to consider these usability concerns before making their choice. In additon, when
consumers purchase a service with which they are familiar, they may overpay because they
overestmate their usage frequency of the product. Consumers overvalue multfunctonal products
because they fail to consider their usage rate of features before purchase.
Hypothesis 1: consumers prefer more expensive, many-feature products over less expensive, few-
feature products, even though additonal features are unlikely to be used.
Consumers fail to consider their feature usage rate before purchase because:
Consumers construct their preferences using a series of queries beginning at a basic level,
such as “What are the benefts of owning this product?” and may not include more specifc
questons;
Consumers are likely to approach multfunctonal purchase occasions in a mind-set of having
and spending, which reduces the weight of usage in their valuaton.
If consumers fail to consider feature usage, asking consumers to consider usage should change their
preferences. Promptng consumers to estmate usage will shif the type of elaboraton from a focus
on having features toward a focus on using features, thus increasing the relatve value of using the
features and decreasing the value of having the features. The change in type of elaboraton should
decrease preference for a many-feature product.
Hypothesis 2: estmatng usage before choice will lead to a change in preference, whereby a few-
feature product will be preferred over a many-feature product.
Usage estmaton before choice encourages consumers to consider how and when they would use it.
This should help consumers choose an opton that beter matches their actual usage and true
preferences, causing usage estmaton to result in greater product satsfacton afer consumpton.
Hypothesis 3: overall product satsfacton will increase when consumers estmate usage before
choice compared with when they do not consider usage.
Study 1
Theory
High need for cogniton (NFC) consumers are more likely to elaborate about usage because they
typically put forth greater efort to make more accurate decisions, leading them to automatcally
incorporate their feature usage into their purchase decisions. Accordingly, we predict that high-NFC
consumers will not be infuenced by usage estmaton before choice. In contrast, low-NFC consumers
should not elaborate on usage in the control conditon; however, when they are led to estmate
usage before purchase, their elaboraton on usage will increase, and they will be more likely to prefer
a few-feature product over a many-feature product.
Hypothesis: for consumers who are less likely to elaborate on using (vs. having) features, the efect
of usage estmaton on choice should be moderated by a person’s NFC.
, Method
In the usage conditon, partcipants were asked to estmate how many tmes each week they would
use each of the 14 cell phone features. Partcipants in the control conditon indicated their usage
afer making their choice. Next, partcipants read a scenario in which they needed to buy a new cell
phone and were considering two optons: a many-feature (14) phone for $149, and a few-feature (7)
phone for $49. The two phones were presented side by side and partcipants were asked which cell
phone they were most likely to buy. Finally, partcipants need for cogniton was tested.
Results
Low- and average-NFC partcipants preferred
the few-feature phone more in the usage
conditon;
High-NFC partcipants did not difer in their
preference for the many- or few-feature
phone.
Study 2
Theory
Instead of investgatng each feature and considering the benefts of having the feature and its
frequency of usage, consumers may choose by simply selectng the opton with the greatest number
of features. Then, trivialness (unusability) of the features should not mater to consumers. The extra
features on the many-feature product might provide a reason to choose the many-feature opton,
regardless of the benefts of having or using the features. We think that consumers do elaborate on
the decision but only assess whether a feature is important to have and not how ofen it will be used.
Hypothesis: the efect of the usage estmaton on choice will hold when the features are nontrivial
but not when they are trivial.
Method
Partcipants in the usage estmaton conditon estmated their usage of hotel features for a four-day
vacaton before making their choice. Partcipants in the control conditon estmated their usage afer
making their choice. Partcipants made a choice between two resort hotels. The few-feature hotel
contained 13 features at $145 per night; the many-feature hotel contained all 20 features at $195
per night. In the trivial features conditon, we replaced the last 7 of the 20 nontrivial features with
trivial features gathered from the website of a major hotel chain.
Results
Partcipants preferred the few-feature hotel
more when they estmated usage before
choice;
Partcipants preferred the many-feature hotel
when it was diferentated by nontrivial
features (vs. trivial features);
In the nontrivial features conditon,
partcipants preferred the few-feature hotel
more afer estmatng usage. However, in the
trivial features conditon, there was no
signifcant diference in preferences.
Goodman & Irmak
Conceptual Background
Consumers are likely to evaluate products with many features more favourably because they believe
that each additonal feature adds new capabilites to the product. However, the complexity of
features and associated learning costs hinder consumer’s use of many product features and
consumers fail to consider these usability concerns before making their choice. In additon, when
consumers purchase a service with which they are familiar, they may overpay because they
overestmate their usage frequency of the product. Consumers overvalue multfunctonal products
because they fail to consider their usage rate of features before purchase.
Hypothesis 1: consumers prefer more expensive, many-feature products over less expensive, few-
feature products, even though additonal features are unlikely to be used.
Consumers fail to consider their feature usage rate before purchase because:
Consumers construct their preferences using a series of queries beginning at a basic level,
such as “What are the benefts of owning this product?” and may not include more specifc
questons;
Consumers are likely to approach multfunctonal purchase occasions in a mind-set of having
and spending, which reduces the weight of usage in their valuaton.
If consumers fail to consider feature usage, asking consumers to consider usage should change their
preferences. Promptng consumers to estmate usage will shif the type of elaboraton from a focus
on having features toward a focus on using features, thus increasing the relatve value of using the
features and decreasing the value of having the features. The change in type of elaboraton should
decrease preference for a many-feature product.
Hypothesis 2: estmatng usage before choice will lead to a change in preference, whereby a few-
feature product will be preferred over a many-feature product.
Usage estmaton before choice encourages consumers to consider how and when they would use it.
This should help consumers choose an opton that beter matches their actual usage and true
preferences, causing usage estmaton to result in greater product satsfacton afer consumpton.
Hypothesis 3: overall product satsfacton will increase when consumers estmate usage before
choice compared with when they do not consider usage.
Study 1
Theory
High need for cogniton (NFC) consumers are more likely to elaborate about usage because they
typically put forth greater efort to make more accurate decisions, leading them to automatcally
incorporate their feature usage into their purchase decisions. Accordingly, we predict that high-NFC
consumers will not be infuenced by usage estmaton before choice. In contrast, low-NFC consumers
should not elaborate on usage in the control conditon; however, when they are led to estmate
usage before purchase, their elaboraton on usage will increase, and they will be more likely to prefer
a few-feature product over a many-feature product.
Hypothesis: for consumers who are less likely to elaborate on using (vs. having) features, the efect
of usage estmaton on choice should be moderated by a person’s NFC.
, Method
In the usage conditon, partcipants were asked to estmate how many tmes each week they would
use each of the 14 cell phone features. Partcipants in the control conditon indicated their usage
afer making their choice. Next, partcipants read a scenario in which they needed to buy a new cell
phone and were considering two optons: a many-feature (14) phone for $149, and a few-feature (7)
phone for $49. The two phones were presented side by side and partcipants were asked which cell
phone they were most likely to buy. Finally, partcipants need for cogniton was tested.
Results
Low- and average-NFC partcipants preferred
the few-feature phone more in the usage
conditon;
High-NFC partcipants did not difer in their
preference for the many- or few-feature
phone.
Study 2
Theory
Instead of investgatng each feature and considering the benefts of having the feature and its
frequency of usage, consumers may choose by simply selectng the opton with the greatest number
of features. Then, trivialness (unusability) of the features should not mater to consumers. The extra
features on the many-feature product might provide a reason to choose the many-feature opton,
regardless of the benefts of having or using the features. We think that consumers do elaborate on
the decision but only assess whether a feature is important to have and not how ofen it will be used.
Hypothesis: the efect of the usage estmaton on choice will hold when the features are nontrivial
but not when they are trivial.
Method
Partcipants in the usage estmaton conditon estmated their usage of hotel features for a four-day
vacaton before making their choice. Partcipants in the control conditon estmated their usage afer
making their choice. Partcipants made a choice between two resort hotels. The few-feature hotel
contained 13 features at $145 per night; the many-feature hotel contained all 20 features at $195
per night. In the trivial features conditon, we replaced the last 7 of the 20 nontrivial features with
trivial features gathered from the website of a major hotel chain.
Results
Partcipants preferred the few-feature hotel
more when they estmated usage before
choice;
Partcipants preferred the many-feature hotel
when it was diferentated by nontrivial
features (vs. trivial features);
In the nontrivial features conditon,
partcipants preferred the few-feature hotel
more afer estmatng usage. However, in the
trivial features conditon, there was no
signifcant diference in preferences.
