Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the framing effect on online consumer purchase intention. Three framing effect moderators—warning type (text-based/picture-based), brand familiarity (familiar/unfamiliar), and product type (utilitarian/hedonic)—were considered. The results demonstrated that a positive frame message could create more favorable preferences toward the product than a negative frame message could. Further, consumers with text-based warnings who received positive framing messages had higher purchase intentions toward the target product than did those receiving negative framing messages. However, the online framing effect was not significant for consumers receiving picture-based warnings. Moreover, the online framing effect was significant for consumers familiar with the brand. Finally, positive messages resulted in higher purchase intention for hedonic rather than utilitarian products. This study further examined gender differences in framing effects and found women exhibited greater framing effects than men under the negative frame. The findings provide guidance for designing appropriate product strategy to induce online consumer purchase intentions that favor online retailers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alper, K., Schwartz, K. A., Kolts, R. L., & Khan, A. (2007). Seizure incidence in psychopharmacological clinical trials: An analysis of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) summary basis of approval reports. Biological Psychiatry, 62(4), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Archak, N., Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. (2011). Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Management Science, 57(8), 1485–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A design science approach. Information Systems Journal, 16(1), 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bansal-Travers, M., Hammond, D., Smith, P., & Cummings, K. M. (2011). The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(6), 674–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bayer, R., & Ke, C. (2013). Discounts and consumer search behavior: The role of framing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Biswas, D., & Grau, S. L. (2008). Consumer choices under product option framing: Loss aversion principles or sensitivity to price differentials? Psychology and Marketing, 25, 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Block, B. A., & Harper, D. R. (1991). Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and adjustment hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49(2), 188–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Breugelmans, E., Köhler, C., Dellaert, B., & de Ruyter, K. (2012). Promoting interactive decision aids on retail websites: A message framing perspective with new versus traditional focal actions. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Byrnes, J. P., & Miller, D. C. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of consumer research, 30(2), 292–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang, H. H., & Chen, S. W. (2008). The impact of customer interface quality, satisfaction, and switching costs on e-loyalty: Internet experience as a moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2927–2944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen, Y. F., & Lu, H. F. (2015). We-commerce: exploring factors influencing online group-buying intention in Taiwan from a conformity perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng, F. F., & Wu, C. S. (2010). Debiasing the framing effect: the effect of warning and involvement. Decision Support Systems, 49, 328–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chiou, W. B., Yeh, L. T., & Chang, M. H. (2009). Effects of health-related claims on the differential threshold of consumers’ sweetness sensation. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24(4), 621–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cox, C. (2015). Decomposing the effects of negative framing in linear public goods games. Economics Letters, 126, 63–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cyr, D., & Head, M. (2013). The impact of task framing and viewing time on user website perceptions and viewing behavior. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 71(12), 1089–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dodds, B., Monroe, K., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, G. (1999). Positive versus negatively framed product attributes: The influence of involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 16(7), 613–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fagley, N., & Miller, P. M. (1990). The effects of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 496–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fagley, N., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. (1952). The expected utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 463–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gallopel-Morvan, K., Gabriel, P., Gall-Ely, M. L., Rieunier, S., & Urien, B. (2011). The use of visual warnings in social marketing: the case of tobacco. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. George, J. F., Duffy, K., & Ahuja, M. (2000). Countering the anchoring and adjustment bias with decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 29(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghose, A., & Han, S. P. (2011). An empirical analysis of user content generation and usage behavior on the mobile internet. Management Science, 57(9), 1671–1691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1301–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., McNeil, A., Borland, R., & Cummings, K. M. (2006). Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) four country survey. Tobacco Control, 15, 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hirshman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1984). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies feelings and fun. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2010). Price framing effects on purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim, J. B. (2012). An empirical study on consumer first purchase intention in online shopping: Integrating initial trust and TAM. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 125–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal of Business Research, 37(2), 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lacher, K. T. (1989). Hedonic consumption: music as a product. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lee, B. K., & Lee, W. N. (2004). The effect of information overload on consumer choice quality in an online environment. Psychology and Marketing, 21(3), 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Martens, J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2012). Narrowing gender-based performance gaps in virtual environment navigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 809–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1997). Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Oh, J., Fiorito, S. S., Cho, H., & Hofacker, C. F. (2008). Effects of design factors on store image and expectation of merchandise quality in web-based stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(4), 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ozok, A. A., & Wei, J. (2010). An empirical comparison of consumer usability preferences in online shopping using stationary and mobile devices: Results from a college student population. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 111–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Park, I., Bhatnagar, A., & Rao, H. R. (2010). Assurance seals, on-line customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(3), 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pope, N. K. L., & Voges, K. E. (2000). The impact of sport sponsorship activities, corporate image, and prior use on consumer purchase intention. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(2), 96–102.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Reimers, J. L., & Butler, S. A. (1992). The effect of outcome knowledge on auditor’s judgmental evaluations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(2), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sen, S., & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? an examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 76–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sieck, W., & Yates, J. F. (1997). Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sotiriadis, M. D., & van Zyl, C. (2013). Electronic word-of-mouth and online reviews in tourism services: the use of twitter by tourists. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Stewart, D. W. (1992). Speculations on the future of advertising research. Journal of Advertising, 21(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sundaram, D. S., & Webster, C. (1999). The role of brand familiarity on the impact of word-of-mouth communication on brand evaluations. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 664–670.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ulbrich, F., Christensen, T., & Stankus, L. (2011). Gender-specific on-line shopping preferences. Electronic Commerce Research, 11, 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Valvi, A. C., & Fragkos, K. C. (2012). Critical review of the e-loyalty literature: A purchase-centred framework. Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 331–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang, K., Wang, E. T. G., & Farn, C. K. (2009). Influence of web advertising strategies, consumer goal-directedness, and consumer involvement on web advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 67–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Woods, W. A. (1960). Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. Journal of Marketing, 24(1), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business, Chung Yuan Christian University, No. 200, Chung Pei Road, Chung Li District, Taoyuan City, 32023, Taiwan

    Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang

Authors
  1. Yi-Fen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shi-Han Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Fen Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, YF., Chang, SH. The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type. Electron Commer Res 16, 355–374 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9206-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9206-3

Keywords