Benedict G. C. Dellaert

Making good health insurance decisions is important for health outcomes and longevity, but consumers’ errors are well documented. The authors examine whether targeted choice architecture interventions can reduce these mistakes. The article examines the interaction of two choice architecture tools on improved consumer insurance decisions in online health care exchanges: (1) ordering the options from best to worst based on a high-quality user model and (2) partitioning the total set of options. Although ordering and partitioning do not always improve choices separately, the authors use one field study and three experiments to identify the conditions that allow the combination to greatly improve health insurance decisions. Findings indicate that when options are ordered such that the best options appear at the beginning of the presented list, partitioning nudges consumers to focus on the best options. However, if the best options are not at the top of the list, partitioning discourages search and can impair consumers’ discovery of the best options. Process data show that these effects are achieved by focusing consumers’ limited attention on higher-quality options. These results suggest that wise choice architecture interventions need to consider the joint effect of choice architecture tools as well as the quality of the firm's user model.

This research examines the impact of defaults on product choice in sequential-decision settings. Whereas prior research has shown that a default can affect what consumers purchase by promoting choice of the preselected option, the influence of defaults is more nuanced when consumers make a series of related choices. In such a setting, consumer preferences may evolve across choices due to “spillover” effects from one choice to subsequent choices. The authors hypothesize that defaults systematically attenuate choice spillover effects because accepting a default is a more passive process than either choosing a nondefault option in the presence of a default or making a choice in the absence of a default. Three experiments and a field study provide compelling evidence for such default-induced changes in choice spillover effects. The findings show that firms’ setting of high-price defaults with the aim of influencing consumers to choose more expensive products can backfire through the attenuation of spillover. In addition to advancing the understanding of the interplay between defaults and preference dynamics, insights from this research have important practical implications for firms applying defaults in sequential choices.

Consumers are widely adopting Artificially Intelligent Voice Assistants (AIVAs). AIVAs now handle many different everyday tasks and are also increasingly assisting consumers with purchasing decisions, making AIVAs a rich topic for marketing researchers. We develop a series of propositions regarding how consumer decision-making processes may change when moved from traditional online purchase environments to AI-powered voice-based dialogs, in the hopes of encouraging further academic thinking and research in this rapidly developing, high impact area of consumer-firm interaction. We also provide suggestions for marketing managers and policymakers on points to pay attention to when they respond to the proposed effects of AIVAs on consumer decisions.

Digital technology in financial services is helping consumers gain wider access to investment funds, acquire these funds at lower costs, and customize their own investments. However, direct digital access also creates new challenges because consumers may make suboptimal investment decisions. We address the challenge that consumers often face complex investment decisions involving multiple funds. Normative optimal asset allocation theory prescribes that investors should simultaneously optimize risk–returns over their entire portfolio. We propose two behavioral effects (mental separation and correlation neglect) that prevent consumers from doing so and a new choice architecture of virtually integrating investment funds that can help overcome these effects. Results from three experiments, using general population samples, provide support for the predicted behavioral effects and the beneficial impact of virtual integration. We find that consumers’ behavioral biases are not overcome by financial literacy, which further underlines the marketing relevance of this research.

Sir, We are grateful to Dr Armstrong [1] for sharing his views and concerns about our recent paper that elicited patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment using a cross-European discrete-choice experiment (DCE) [2].

Objectives. To estimate the preferences of osteoporotic patients for medication attributes, and analyse data from seven European countries. Methods. A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that varied with respect to four attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side effects, and mode and frequency of administration. In those countries in which patients contribute to the cost of their treatment directly, a fifth attribute was added: out-of-pocket cost. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients’ preferences. Results. In total, 1124 patients completed the experiment, with a sample of between 98 and 257 patients per country. In all countries, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness, and 6-monthly subcutaneous injection was always preferred over weekly oral tablets. In five countries, patients also preferred a monthly oral tablet and yearly i.v. injections over weekly oral tablets. In the three countries where the out-of-pocket cost was included as an attribute, lower costs significantly contributed to the treatment preference. Between countries, there were statistically significant differences for 13 out of 42 attribute/level interactions. Conclusion. We found statistically significant differences in patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis medications between countries, especially for the mode of administration. Our findings emphasized that international treatment recommendations should allow for local adaptation, and that understanding individual preferences is important if we want to improve the quality of clinical care for patients with osteoporosis.