“Less than” vs. “not more than”: framing the upper limit of a service cost estimate using a negation versus an affirmation influences perceived service cost

“Less than” vs. “not more than”: framing the upper limit of a service cost estimate using a negation versus an affirmation influences perceived service cost
Sudipta Mukherjee
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.562-578

Service costs are often presented as estimates rather than exact costs. This research presents an interesting new framing effect associated with the framing of service cost estimates. Specifically, the authors hypothesize and provide evidence for the upper-limit framing effect: framing the upper limit of a cost estimate as “less than X” (vs “no more than X”) results in different expectations of the underlying costs.

A series of eight studies, involving everyday consumption contexts, diverse populations and incentive compatible and hypothetical scenario-based designs, were conducted to test the underlying hypotheses.

A series of eight studies demonstrate that when estimates are small, less than (vs no more than) framing results in contracted cost perceptions, and that the reverse emerges in the context of large cost estimates. Furthermore, these effects are driven by processing fluency, and systematically influence downstream consumption choices.

Future research can further examine our effects manipulating “small” versus “large” not by the magnitude of the cost, but by the type of individual or consumption context. In addition, future research could test how specific individual differences moderate the effects.

This research presents substantial managerial implications. Given that marketers interchangeably use less than and no more than framing to express the upper limit of a service cost estimate, this study provides an important insight that the framing of the upper limit can influence perception of the underlying service cost, and that the nature of the effect depends on the size of the estimate.

This research suggests implications for communicating public policy as it provides insights to regulators and policymakers regarding how to frame communication involving federally mandated guidelines. For example, when communicating outcomes, public policymakers should consider the magnitude of the outcome when determining how to frame the message.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is perhaps the first to study the influence of cost framing on perception of service cost estimates. In addition, this research makes substantial contributions to the literatures on negation, framing and consumer cost perception.

​Service costs are often presented as estimates rather than exact costs. This research presents an interesting new framing effect associated with the framing of service cost estimates. Specifically, the authors hypothesize and provide evidence for the upper-limit framing effect: framing the upper limit of a cost estimate as “less than X” (vs “no more than X”) results in different expectations of the underlying costs. A series of eight studies, involving everyday consumption contexts, diverse populations and incentive compatible and hypothetical scenario-based designs, were conducted to test the underlying hypotheses. A series of eight studies demonstrate that when estimates are small, less than (vs no more than) framing results in contracted cost perceptions, and that the reverse emerges in the context of large cost estimates. Furthermore, these effects are driven by processing fluency, and systematically influence downstream consumption choices. Future research can further examine our effects manipulating “small” versus “large” not by the magnitude of the cost, but by the type of individual or consumption context. In addition, future research could test how specific individual differences moderate the effects. This research presents substantial managerial implications. Given that marketers interchangeably use less than and no more than framing to express the upper limit of a service cost estimate, this study provides an important insight that the framing of the upper limit can influence perception of the underlying service cost, and that the nature of the effect depends on the size of the estimate. This research suggests implications for communicating public policy as it provides insights to regulators and policymakers regarding how to frame communication involving federally mandated guidelines. For example, when communicating outcomes, public policymakers should consider the magnitude of the outcome when determining how to frame the message. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is perhaps the first to study the influence of cost framing on perception of service cost estimates. In addition, this research makes substantial contributions to the literatures on negation, framing and consumer cost perception. Read More