Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Communication Strategies: The Impact of Framing in Debt Collection Messages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Soziale Themen in Unternehmens- und Wirtschaftskommunikation

Part of the book series: Europäische Kulturen in der Wirtschaftskommunikation ((EKW,volume 35))

  • 1134 Accesses

Abstract

The omission bias may be able to partially explain why people, even when confronted with debt collection reminder communication, refrain from settling their claim. While the framing of a message has shown to be effective in unravelling certain cognitive biases and facilitating rational decision-making, little is known regarding the impact of the omission bias in this context. Therefore, based on debt collection agency (PAIR Finance) data, the present study explores the success of the Omission-to-Commission (O-to-C) framing as a communication strategy to counter the omission bias. Results of the natural field experiment indicate that implementing the (general) O-to-C framing in a reminder message increases reaction behaviour. When controlling for age, gender and debt size, debtors are significantly more likely to engage with a payment reminder if the O-to-C framing is used. Additionally, a significant interaction effect was found between the O-to-C framing and gender, showing that female consumers were more likely to react to the O-to-C framing than males. These findings indicate that reframing the act of non-payment as a deliberate choice ‘not to act’ significantly increases reactions following a reminder message, with a stronger effect on female consumers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alós-Ferrer, Carlos, Sabine Hügelschäfer, and Li Jiahui. 2016. Inertia and decision making. Frontiers in psychology  7: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Christopher J. 2003. The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological bulletin 129: 139–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Gary S. 1976. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi, Shlomo, and Richard H. Thaler. 1995. Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The quarterly journal of Economics 110: 73–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burböck, Birgit, et al. 2019. Effects of different types of framing in advertising messages on human decision behaviour. International Journal of Diplomacy and Economy 5: 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caamaño-Alegre, Maria. 2019. On glasses half full or half empty: understanding framing effects in terms of default implicatures. Synthese  199: 11133–11159.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Martino, Benedetto, et al. 2006. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain.  Science  313: 684–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhigg, Charles. 2012. The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dvorsky, George. 2013. The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational. http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitivebiases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational. Accessed: 2 March 2022.

  • Gardner, Benjamin, and Amanda L. Rebar. 2019. Habit formation and behavior change. Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology,  o.S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendall, Philip, and Janet Hoek. 1990. A question of wording. Marketing Bulletin 1: 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Germany Trade & Invest. 2022. Effects of Corona on Germany’s E-Commerce Market.  Germany Trade & Invest. https://www.gtai.de/en/invest/industries/consumer-industries/effects-of-corona-on-germany-s-e-commerce-market-264016. Accessed: 4 March 2022.

  • Hallsworth, Michael, et al. 2015. The making of homo honoratus: From omission to commission. National Bureau of Economic Research, o.S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, Marco, et al. 2017. Applying Behavioral Insights to Improve Tax Collection. Washington DC: World Bank Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics.  The American Economic Review 93: 1449–1475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of political Economy 98: 1325–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, und Amos Tversky. 2013. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I., hrsg. L. C. MacLean, and W. T. Ziemba, 99–127. Singapur: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kordes-de Vaal, Johanna H. 1996. Intention and the omission bias: Omissions perceived as nondecisions. Acta psychologica 93: 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Irwin P., and Garry J. Gaeth. 1988. How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of consumer research 15: 374–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean Leonard C., and William T. Ziemba. 2013. Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. Singapur: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madrian, Brigitte C. and Dennis F. Shea. 2001. The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 1149–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odean, Terrance. 1998. Are Investors Reluctant to Realize their Losses?  The Journal of Finance 53: 1775–1798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. 1993. The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, Ilana, Joel Hodes, und Jonathan Baron. 1990. Biases in decisions about compensation for misfortune. Wharton School, Risk and Decision Processes Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, Ilana, and Jonathan Baron. 1990. Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity. Journal of behavioral decision making 3: 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, Ilana, and Jonathan Baron. 1992. Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of risk and uncertainty 5: 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, William, and Richard J. Zeckhauser. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A.1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics 69: 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soukup, Alexandr, Mansoor Maitah, and Roman Svoboda. 2015. The concept of rationality in neoclassical and behavioural economic theory. Modern Applied Science 9: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranca, Mark, Elisa Minsk, and Jonathan Baron. 1991. Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of experimental social psychology 27: 76–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and brain sciences 23: 645–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, und Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology 5: 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science 185: 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.  Science (New York, N.Y.) 211: 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vineran, Simona. 2020. Understanding Consumers’ Online Shopping Behavior during the Covid-19 Pandemic-Empirical Research. Expert Journal of Marketing 8 (2):140–150.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Marketing, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Henry Kobsch

  2. PAIR Finance GmbH, Berlin, Germany

    Ricarda Conrad

  3. Psychology School, Fresenius University of Applied Science, Hamburg, Germany

    Minou Goetze

  4. PAIR Finance GmbH, Berlin, Germany

    Stephan Stricker

Authors
  1. Henry Kobsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricarda Conrad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minou Goetze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephan Stricker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Kobsch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Germanistik, Universität Åbo Akademi, Turku, Finland

    Christopher M. Schmidt

  2. Institut für Romanistik/Geisteswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz, Österreich

    Sabine Heinemann

  3. Studiengang Technikjournal/ Technik-PR, Technische Hochschule Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Deutschland

    Volker Markus Banholzer

  4. Institut für Kommunikation und Kultur Fachbereich Deutsch / Wirtschaftskommunikation, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Martin Nielsen

  5. Wirtschaftswissenschaften; Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Marketing, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland

    Florian U. Siems

Appendix

Appendix

Tab. A1, A2 and Fig. A1.

Table A1 Implementation of tonalities for study 1
Full size table
Table A2 Implementation of tonalities for study 2
Full size table
Fig. A1
figure 3

Reactions to payment reminders depending on age and message framing. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kobsch, H., Conrad, R., Goetze, M., Stricker, S. (2023). Digital Communication Strategies: The Impact of Framing in Debt Collection Messages. In: Schmidt, C.M., Heinemann, S., Banholzer, V.M., Nielsen, M., Siems, F.U. (eds) Soziale Themen in Unternehmens- und Wirtschaftskommunikation. Europäische Kulturen in der Wirtschaftskommunikation, vol 35. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40705-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40705-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-40704-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-40705-6

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation