Tüketicileri Mağazalarda Çıpalama Manipülasyonları Kullanarak Daha Fazla Ödemeye İkna Etmek: Merchandising ve Çıpalama Teorisi Üzerine İnterdisipliner Deneysel Bir Araştırma

Year 2021, , 877 - 911, 30.03.2021

Hüseyin Çağatay Karabıyık , Mahmut Nevfel Elgün

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.811798

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma bir manipülasyon aracı olarak çıpalama etkisinin mağazalarda kullanımını ve tüketicilerin irrasyonalitesini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntemsel olarak ise Postmodern bilimin Realist Yaklaşım’ı çerçevesinde tasarlanan çalışmada merchandising alanına sadece teorik değil, pratik bir katkı yapmak da amaçlanmıştır.
Deneysel bir yöntem kullanan araştırmada katılımcılardan ürünlere fiyat biçmesi istenmiştir. Fiyatlanan ürünler beş kıyafetten oluşmaktadır. Bunlardan ilk sırada yer alan ürün yüksek fiyat ve kaliteye sahipken sonraki ürünler düşük fiyat ve kaliteli ürünlerden oluşmaktadır. Deney grubunda ilk ürünün fiyat etiketi varken diğerlerinde fiyat etiketi bulunmamaktadır. Kontrol grubunda ise hiçbir üründe fiyat etiketi bulunmamaktadır.
Çıpalamaya maruz kalan deney grubu aynı ürünlere deney grubuna gore %390,31 daha yüksek bir ödemeye hazır oldukları fiyatı biçmişlerdir. Buna ek olarak piyasa fiyatı 10-20 TL arasında değişen düşük kaliteli ürünlere de ortalama 192,13 TL fiyat biçmişlerdir. Bu bulgular bir çıpalama aracı olarak kullanılan fiyat etiketinin tüketicileri daha irrasyonel olmaya yönelttiği tespit edilirken katılımcıların ürünlere fiyat biçmek için kullandıkları süreler de ölçülmüş ve buna bağlı olarak tali bulgular üzerinden tartışma yapılmıştır. Bu bağlamda ürünlere biçilen fiyat ile düşünme süreleri arasında negatif korelasyon tespit edilirken çıpanın bir manipülasyon aracı olarak kullanılması düşünme sürelerini düşürmektedir. Bu bulgular çıpalamanın bir manipülasyon aracı olarak kullanılabildiğini göstermektedir.
Bu çalışma, merchandising alanında Çıpalama Teorisini yoğun bir şekilde kullanan öncü çalışmalardan biri iken, çıpaların manipülasyon aracı olarak kullanımının ölçülmesi açısından da özel bir çalışmadır. Öte yandan deneysel bir yöntem uygulanan araştırma teori-pratik uyumunu taşımakla birlikte süre değişkenini de dikkate almasıyla merchandising alanında özgünlük ve önem taşımaktadır.

Keywords

Merchandising, Çıpalama Teorisi, Çıpalama, Tüketici Davranışları, Manipülasyon, Tüketici Manipülasyonu, Fiyatlandırma, Mağaza Tasarımı

Persuading Consumers to Pay More by Using Anchoring Manipulations in Stores: An Interdisciplinary Experiment on Merchandising and Anchoring Theory

Abstract

This study aims to understand the use of the anchoring effect as a manipulation tool and irrationality of consumers in stores. In terms of methodological purpose, this study, designed with the perspective of the realist approach of postmodern science, aims to make not only theoretical but also practical contribution to merchandising.
In this study using an experimental method, participants were asked to charge the same products. The products for which the participants are priced consist of 5 clothes, the first of them is higher priced and quality; following four products are low-priced and poor quality clothing. While only the first product had a price tag in the experimental group, all products in the control group were presented without a price tag.
The experimental group exposed to anchoring charged 390.31% higher –ready to pay- prices for the same products compared to the control group. Moreover, they charged an average of 192.13 TL for products with a market price of 10-20 TL. While these findings show that consumers who are exposed to manipulative anchoring can be more irrational, at the same time, the thinking time of the participants while determining prices was measured and secondary inferences were made accordingly.
In this context, while finding a negative correlation between the price cchahrged to the products and the thinking time, using an anchor as a manipulation tool reduces the thinking times. These findings show that anchoring can be used as a manipulation tool.
While this study is one of the pioneering studies that uses anchoring theory intensively in the field of merchandising, it is a special study in terms of measuring the use of anchors as a manipulation tool.
On the other hand, the research, which is applied by an experimental method, carries the harmony of theory-practice and takes into account the time variable, and carries originality and importance in the field of merchandising.   

Keywords

Merchandising, Anchoring Theory, Anchors, Consumer Behaviours, Manipulating Consumers, Manipulations, Pricing, Store Design

References

• Akerlof, G.A. and Yellen, J.L. (1987). Rational Models of Irrational Behavior. The American Economic Review, 77(2), 137-142.
• Amand, M.D. and Zamble, E. (2001). Impact of Information About Sentencing Decisions on Public Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 515-528.
• Anderson, E.E. and Amato, H.N. (1974). A Mathematical Model for Simultaneously Determining the Optimal Brand-Collection and Display Area Allocation. Operation Research, 22(1), 13-21.
• Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Eonomics, 118(1), 73-106.
• Aspley, J.C. and Riso, O. (1969). The Dartnell Sales Promotion Handbook. Dartnell Press, Chicago.
• Auken, S.v. and Adams, A.J. (1999). Across- Versus Within-Class Comparative Advertising: Insights into Prestige Class Anchoring. Psychology & Marketing, 16(5), 429-450.
• Auken, S.v. and Adams, A.J. (2005). Validating Across-Class Brand Anchoring Theory: Issues and Implications. Brand Management, 12(3), 165-176.
• Bahnik, S., Englich, B. and Strack, F. (2017). Anhoring Effect. Rüdiger, F.P. (Ed.). in Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, Routledge, New York.
• Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994). The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 329-339.
• Banarjee, S. and Yadav, P. (2012). Analysis of visual merchandising: Affect on buying behavior. International Journal of Retailing and Rural Business Perspectives, 1(2), 209-217.
• Bauman, Z. (1988). Sociology and Postmodernity. The Sociological Review, 36(4), 790-813.
• Bazerman, M.H. and Moore, D.A. (2002). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Wiley, USA.
• Belsky, G. and Gilovich, T. (2000). Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes –and How to Correct Them: Lessons from the New Science of Behavioral Economics. Fireside, New York.
• Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M. and Svensson, C. (2010). Anchoring and Cognitive Ability. Economics Letters, 107, 66-68.
• Bettman, J.R. and Park, C.W. (1980). Implications of a Constructive View of Choice for Analysis of Protocol Data: A Coding Scheme for Elements of Choice Process. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 148-153.
• Bhalla, S. and Anurag, S. (2010). Visual Merchandising. Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.
• Bianchi-Aguiar, T., Silva, E., Guimaraes, L., Carravilla, M.A. and Oliveira, J.F. (2018). Allocating Products on Shelves Under Merchandising Rules: Multi Level Product Families With Display Directions. Omega, 76(1), 47-62.
• Bokhari S. and Geltner, D. (2011). Loss Aversion and Anchoring in Commercial Real Estate Pricing: Empirical Evidence and Price Index Implications. Real Estate Economics, 39(4), 635-670.
• Brown, D.R. (1953). Stimulus-Similarity and the Anchoring of Subjective Scales. The American Journal of Psychology, 66, 199-214.
• Bultez, A. and Neart, P. (1988). S.H.A.R.P.: Shelf Allocation for Retailers’ Profit. Marketing Science, 7(3), 211-231.
• Buttle, F. (1984). Merchandising. European Journal of Marketing, 16(6-7), 104-123.
• Can, A. (2017). Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi, Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
• Carter, S. (1995). Retailing. Baker, M.J. (ed). in Marketing Theory and Practice, Macmillan Business, London.
• Chapman, G.B. and Johnson, E. (1999). Anchoring Activation and the Construction of Values. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115-153.
• Chapman, G.B. and Johnson, E.J. (2003). Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value. Gilovich, T. et al. (eds). in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Instutive Judgment, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Cho, I., Wesslen, R., Karduni, A., Santhanam, S., Shaikh, S. and Dou, W. (2017). The Anchoring Effect in Decision-Making with Visual Analytics. 2017 IEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), Arizona, 116-126.
• DeCoster, J. and Claypool, H.M. (2004). A Meta-Analysis of Priming Effects on Impression Formation Supporting a General Model of Informational Biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 2-27.
• DeShazo, J.R. (2002). Designing Transactions Without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 360-385.
• Epley, N. and Gilovich, T. (2004). Are Adjustment Insufficcient?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 447-460.
• Epley, N. (2004). A Tale of Tuned Decks? Anchoring as Accessibility and Anchoring as Adjustment. Koehler, D.J. and Harvey, N. (eds). in Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom.
• Erdoğan, B.Z. (2018). Bilim Olarak Pazarlama. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Evans, J.B.T. (2003). In Two Minds: Dual-Process Account of Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454-459.
• Evans, J.B.T. and Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
• Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in Organization and Management Studies: A Critical Realist Perspective. Organization, 12(2), 214-245.
• Forgas, J.P. and Williams, K.D. (2002). The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Intergroup Perspectives. Psychology Press, New York.
• Frykblom, P. and Shogren, J.F. (2000). An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 16, 329-341.
• Furnham, A. and Boo, H.C. (2011). A Literature Review of Anchoring Effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35-42.
• Gomez, M. and Rubio, N. (2008). Shelf Management of Store Brands: Analysis of Manufacturers’ Perceptions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution, 36(1), 50-70.
• Grzymala-Kazlowska, A. (2015). Social Anchoring: Immigrant, Identity, Security and Integration Reconnected?. Sociology, 50(6), 1123-1139.
• Ha, Y., Kwon, W.S. and Lennon, S.J. (2007). Online Visual Merchandising (VMD) of Apparel Web Sites. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 11(4), 477-493.
• Ha, Y. and Lennon, S.J. (2010). Online Visual Merchandising (VMD) Cues and Consumer Pleasure and Arousal: Purchasing Versus Browsing Situation. Psychology & Marketing, 27(2), 141-165.
• Hackley, C.E. and Kitchen, P.J. (1999). Ethical Perspectives on the Postmodern Communications Leviathan. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(1), 15-26.
• Hayles, N.K. (1991). Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. The University of Chicago Press, London.
• Holbrook, M.B. (1983). On the Importance of Using Real Products in Research on Merchandising Strategy. Journal of Retailing, 59(1), 4-20.
• Howells, G.W. (1968). The Successful Salesman: A Personality Analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 2(1), 13-23.
• Hoyer, W.D. (1984). An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 822-829.
• Hume, D. (2018). İnsanın Anlama Yetisi Üzerine Bir Soruşturma. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Hwang, H., Choi, B., and Lee, G. (2009). A Genetic Algorithm Approach to an Integrated Problem of Shelf Space Design and Item Allocation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 809-820.
• Imber, J. (2000). Dictionary of Marketing Terms. Barron’s, New York.
• Jacoby, J. (1977). The Emerging Behavioral Process Technology in Consumer Decision-Making Research. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 263-265.
• Jeong, S.W., Fiore, A.M., Niehm, L.S. and Lorenz, F.O. (2009). The Role of Experiential Value in Online Shopping: The Impacts of Product Presentation on Consumer Responses Towards an Appael Web Site. International Research, 19(1), 105-124.
• Joyce, E.J. and Biddle, G.C. (1981). Anchoring and Adjustment in Probabilistic Inference in Auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 120-145.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
• Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference Points, Anchors, Norms, and Mixed Feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 296-312.
• Kahneman, D. (2018). Hızlı ve Yavaş Düşünme. Varlık Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Kacen, J.J., Hess, J.D. and Walker, D. (2012). Spontaneous Selection: The Influence of Product and Retailing Factors on Consumer Impulse Purchases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6), 578-588.
• Karabıyık, H.Ç. (2020). Pazarlamaya Psikolojik Bir Yaklaşım: Merchandising Uygulamalarını Çıpalama Teorisi Bağlamında İnceleyen Deneysel Bir Araştırma. Konya: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Kent, T. (2007). Creative Space: Design and the Retail Environment. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(9), 734-735.
• Khakimdjanova, L. and Park, J. (2005). Online Visual Merchandising Practice of Apparel e-Merchands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(5), 307-318.
• Kotzan, J.A. and Evanson, R.V. (1969). Responsiveness of Drug Store Sales to Shelf Space Allocations. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(4), 465-469.
• Ku, G., Galinsky, A.D. and Murnighan, J.K. (2006). Starting Low but Ending High: A Reversal of the Anchoring Effect in Auctions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 975-986.
• Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Lea-Greenwood, G. (1998). Visual Merchandising: A Neglected Area in UK Fashion Marketing?. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 26(8), 324-329.
• Lewin, K. (1952). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. Dorwin Cartwright Edition, Tavistock, London.
• Lieder, F., Griffiths, T.L., Huys, Q.J.M. and Goodman, N.D. (2017). The Anchoring Bias Reflects Rational Use of Cognitive Resources. Psychomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 322-349.
• Lindstrom, M. (2009). Buyology. Optimist Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
• Loewenstein, G. and Elster, J. (1992). Choice Over Time. Russel Sage Foundations, New York.
• Luchini, S. and Watson, V. (2013). Uncertainty and Framing in a Valuation Task. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 204-214.
• Magrath, V. and McCormick, H. (2013). Marketing Design Elements of Mobile Fashion Retail Apps. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(1), 115-134.
• Martinez-de-Albeniz, V. and Roels, G. (2011). Competing for Shelf Space. Production and Operations Management, 20(1), 32-46.
• McElroy, T. and Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptiblity to Anchoring Effects: How Opennes-to-Experience Influences Responses to Anchoring Cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(1), 48-53.
• Mlodinow, L. (2013). Subliminal: Bilinçdışınız Davranışlarınızı Nasıl Yönetir?. Okuyan Us Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Morgan, R.E. (1996). Conceptual Foundations of Marketing and Marketing Theory. Management Decisions, 34(10), 19-26.
• Mussweiler, T. and Starck, F. (1995). Hypothesis-Consistent Testing and Semantic Priming in the Anchoring Paradigm: A Selective Accessibility Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.
• Newel, B.R. and Shanks, D.R. (2014). Prime Numbers: Anchoring and Its Implications for the Theories of Behavior Priming. Social Cognition, 32(Special Issue), 88-108.
• Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1987). Expert, Amateurs and Real Estate: An Anchoring –and- Adjustment Perspective on Property Pricing Deisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84-97.
• Odabaşı, Y. (2004). Postmodern Pazarlama. MediaCat, İstanbul.
• Pegler, M.M. (2012). Visual Merchandising and Display. Fairychild Books, New York.
• Perrey, J. and Spillecke, D. (2013). Retail Marketing and Branding: A Definitive Guide to Maximizing ROI. Wiley, Cornwall US.
• Phillips, C.F. and Duncan, D.J. (1962). Marketing: Principles and Methods. Richard D. Irwin, USA.
• Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the Unthinkible: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War. Journal of Applied Soccial Psychology, 19(1), 67-91.
• Prelec, D. and Loewenstein, G. (1991). Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach. Management Science, 37(7), 770-786.
• Renhoff, A.D. (2004). Paying for Shelf Space: An Investigation of Merchandising Allowances in the Grocery Industry. Food Marketing Policy Center Research Report Series, University of Connecticut Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Connecticut.
• Riva, P., Rusconi, P., Montali, L. and Cherubini, P. (2011). The Influence of Anchoring on Pain Judgment. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 42(2), 265-277.
• Russo, J.E. and Rosen, L.D.(1975). An Eye Fixation Analysis of Multialternative Choice. Memory & Cognition, 267-276.
• Ryan, M.J. and Bonfield, E.H. (1975). The Fishbein Extended Model and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(2), 118-136.
• Sagi, J.S.(2006). Anchored Preference Relations. Journal of Economic Theory, 130(1), 283-295.
• Sartre, J. P. (2018). Varlık ve Hiçlik: Fenomenolojik Ontoloji Denemesi. İthaki Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Sharot, T. and Sunstein, C.R. (2020). How People Decide What They Want to Know. Nature: Human Behaviour, 4, 14-19.
• Somoon, K. and Sahachaisaree, N. (2018). Window Display Targeting Adolescent Purchasers: Users’ Merchandising Response. Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies, 3(7), 183-188.
• Starck, F. and Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 67-70.
• Stadelman, W.J. and Cotteril, O.J. (1994). Egg Science and Technology. Food Products Press, New York.
• Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
• Starck, F., Bahnik, S. and Mussweiler, T. (2016). Anchoring, Accessibility as a Cause of Judgmental Assimilation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 73(3), 67-70.
• Stillwater, T. and Kurani, K.S. (2013). Drivers Discuss Ecodrining Feedback: Goal Setting, Framing, and Anchoring Motivate New Behaviors. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 19, 85-96.
• Sumeisey, G.M. (2014). The effect of visual merchandising on consumer impulse buying behavior at the executive store manado. Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis Dan Akuntansi, 2(3), 1413-1423.
• Thaler, R.H. (2000). From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 133-141.
• Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge. 1. Baskı, USA: Yale University Press.
• Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
• Varley, R. (2001). Retail Product Management. Routledge, London.
• Walters, C.G. and Paul, G.W. (1970). Consumer Behavior: An Integrated Framework. Richard D. Irwin, Ontario.
• Wansink, B., Kent, R.J. and Hoch, S.J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 71-81.
• Wilkie, W.L. and Pesseimer, E.A. (1973). Issues in Marketing’s Use of Multi-Attribute Models. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 428-441.
• Wolfe, H.B. (1968). A Model for Control of Style Merchandise. Industrial Management Review, 9(2), 69-82.
• Workman, J.E. and Caldwell, L.F. (2007). Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics, Tactile and Uniqueness Needs of Fashion Consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(6), 589-596.
• Wright, P. (1975). Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(1), 60-67.
• Yadav, M.S. (1994). How buyers evaluate product bundles: A model of anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 342-353.
• Zheng, Y.Q. and Li, Y.M. (2018). Visual Merchandising and Emotional Design. Journal of Arts & Humanities, 7(5), 39-45.