Opportunity Cost Neglect
By Shane Frederick, Nathan Novemsky, Jing Wang, Ravi K. Dhar, S. Nowlis. 2009
269 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Marketing
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bef7ab8d1dde1a6ba4c9312bb2054b9a062f8b89
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Decision Sciences
- Katherine L. Milkman
- Meng Zhu
- Margarita Gorlin
- Jack B. Soll
- John W. Payne
- Paul K. Piff
- John G. Lynch
- D. Thompson
In Marketing
- Deborah Roedder John
- L. Chaplin
- Katherine L. Milkman
- D. Thompson
- Rebecca W. Hamilton
- Meng Zhu
- Philip M. Fernbach
- Vladas Griskevicius
Citations in the corpus
- Squeezed: Coping with Constraint through Efficiency and Prioritization (2015, background): “Consumers dislike making trade-offs and only spontaneously consider opportunity costs (as in priority planning) under certain circumstances (Frederick et al. 2009; Spiller 2011).”
- A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice☆ (2013, background): “So far we have reviewed evidence that the presence of a dominant or highly attractive options makes a decision feel easy, causing people to be more likely to make a choice (Dhar, 1997; Dhar & Sherman, 1996) or a purchase (Frederick et al., 2009).”
- A User's Guide to Debiasing (2014, background): “Frederick et al. (2009) showed that people spend less when they are simply reminded that they could keep their money for other purchases.”
- INCREASING SAVING BEHAVIOR THROUGH AGE-PROGRESSED RENDERINGS OF THE FUTURE SELF (2011, unknown): “If consumers are often insensitive to the ways present consumption necessarily limits their ability to spend money later on (Frederick et al. 2009), this may be due to their failing to understand the positive future consequences of waiting (Nenkov, Inman, and Hulland 2008; Nenkov et al. 2009).”
- The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys (2018, background): “In contrast, if consuming the product does not provide social signaling benefits (e.g., consuming cookies), product scarcity due to high demand (vs. limited supply) results in more favorable product evaluations (Gierl and Huettl 2010).”