The Consumer Option Model for Withdrawal Rights in the EU: Analysis of an Alternative Design
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18034/ajtp.v9i1.617Keywords:
Right of withdrawal, Consumer law, Mandatory right, Option model, Consumer behavior, Framing, Status quo biasAbstract
Under EU law, consumers have a mandatory “right of withdrawal” in certain situations. Economic and legal literature raises severe doubts as to its effectiveness and fairness. In this article, an alternative design is discussed and examined within the framework of an experimental study: the “consumer option model,” in which every online consumer can choose between a purchase with and a purchase without a withdrawal right for a slightly lower price. Three study participants purchased two different products in a simulated online shop where the right of withdrawal was presented in three different frames (opt-out, opt-in, no default). The results revealed that a considerable number of participants were ready to shop without a right of withdrawal; in their choices framing and product value was of the essence, but not income, and a considerable number of participants reported an under-use of the right of withdrawal in every-day life.
Downloads
References
Bechtold, S. (2010). Die Grenzen zwingenden Vertragsrechts: Ein rechtsökonomischer Beitrag zu einer Rechtsetzungslehre des Privatrechts [The Limits of Mandatory Contract Law: A Legal Economic Contribution to a Legal Theory of Private Law]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Ben-Shahar, O., & Bar-Gill, O. (2013). Regulatory techniques in consumer protection: a critique of European consumer contract law. Common Market Law Review, 50, 109-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2013039
Ben-Shahar, O., & Posner, E. A. (2011). The right to withdraw in contract law. The Journal of Legal Studies, 40, 115-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/658403
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F. & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of consumer research, 25, 187-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/209535
Bonifield, C., Cole, C., & Schultz, R. L. (2010). Product returns on the internet: a case of mixed signals? Journal of Business Research, 63, 1058-1065. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.009
Borges, G., & Irlenbusch, B. (2007). Fairness crowded out by law: An experimental study on withdrawal rights. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 163, 84-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1628/093245607780181937
Brooks, C., Sangiorgi, I., Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. (2019). Experience wears the trousers: Exploring gender and attitude to financial risk. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 163, 483-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.04.026
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 557-565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/425090
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
Cooter, B., & Ulen, T. (2014) Law and Economics. (6. ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69, 117-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
Cziupka, J. (2010). Dispositives Vertragsrecht: Funktionsweise und Qualitätsmerkmale gesetzlicher Regelungsmuster [Dispositive Contract Law: Functioning and Quality Characteristics of Statutory Regulatory Patterns.]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The Journal of law and economics, 16, 67-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/466756
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522-550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
Eder, S. (2020). Einfluss unterschiedlicher Vertragsausgestaltungen auf die Verwendung des Widerrufsrechtes, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der kognitiven Dissonanz und Maximising [Influence of different constructs of contract on the right of withdrawal, with special consideration of cognitive dissonance and maximizing] (Unpublished master thesis). University of Graz.
Eidenmüller, H. (2010). Die Rechtfertigung von Widerrufsrechten [The justification of withdrawal rights]. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 210, 67-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1628/000389910790787282
Eidenmüller, H. (2011a). Why withdrawal rights? European Review of Contract Law, 7, 1-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ercl.2011.1
Eidenmüller, H. (2011b). Widerrufsrechte [rights of withdrawal]. In Zimmermann, R., Eidenmüller, H., Faust, F., Grigoleit, H. C., Jansen, N., & Wagner, G. (Eds.), Revision des Verbraucher-acquis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39, 175-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Fleißner, L. (2018). Widerrufsrechte von Verbrauchern in der EU und den USA: Ein Vergleich am Beispiel von im Fernabsatz und außerhalb von Geschäftsräumlichkeiten abgeschlossenen Verbraucherverträgen [Consumer Withdrawal Rights in the EU and the U.S.: A Comparison Using the Example of Distance and Off-Premises Consumer Contracts]. Wien: Jan Sramek Verlag KG.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 63, 308-319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308
Helleringer, G., & Sibony, A. (2017). European Consumer Protection Through the Behavioral Lense. Columbia Journal of European Law, 23, 607-646.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Science Psychology, 31, 3-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27
Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S. & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: Why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13, 5-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015044207315
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic perspectives, 5, 193-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Kalss, S., & Lurger, B. (2001) Rücktrittsrechte [Withdrawal rights]. Wien: Verlag Österreich.
Keech, J., Papakroni, J., & Podoshen, J. S. (2020). Gender and differences in materialism, power, risk aversion, self-consciousness, and social comparison. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 32, 83-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2019.1647125
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
Krüger, T., Vogel, T., & Wänke, M. (2016). Framing effects in consumer judgement and decision making. In C.V. Jansson-Boyd & M.J. Zawisza (Eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Consumer Psychology. London: Routledge.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86, 205-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
Loos, M. B. (2007). The case for a uniform and efficient right of withdrawal from consumer contracts in European Contract Law. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 15, 5-35.
Lurger, B. (2012). Widerrufsrechte [Withdrawal rights]. In P. Bydlinski & B. Lurger (Eds.), Die Richtlinie über die Rechte der Verbraucher. Wien: Manz.
Luzak J. A. (2014). To withdraw or not to withdraw? Evaluation of the mandatory right of withdrawal in consumer distance selling contracts taking into account its behavioral effects on consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 91-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9249-6
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63, 81-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Moorthy, S., & Srinivasan, K. (1995). Signaling quality with a money-back guarantee: The role of transaction costs. Marketing Science, 14, 442-466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.14.4.442
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of political economy, 78, 311-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/259630
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual review of psychology, 48, 609-647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609
Posner, R. (2014). Economic Analysis of Law. (9. ed.). Austin, Tx.: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Preising, T. (2019). Einfluss unterschiedlicher Ausgestaltungen von Vertragsbedingungen bei Online-Käufen auf die Verwendung des Widerrufsrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Verlustaversion [Effect of different contract designs on the use of withdrawal rights in online purchases with special consideration of loss aversion] (Unpublished master thesis). University of Graz.
Rekaiti, P., & Van den Bergh, R. (2000). Cooling-off periods in the consumer laws of the EC Member States. A Comparative Law and Economics Approach. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23, 371-407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007203426046
Rhodes, N., & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The mediating role of message reception. Psychological bulletin, 111, 156-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.156
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
Schäfer, H.-B., & Ott, C. (2020). Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts [Textbook of economic analysis of civil law] (6. ed.). Berlin: Springer Gabler. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46257-7
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69, 99-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69, 493-513.
Smits, J. M. (2011). The right to change your mind? Rethinking the usefulness of mandatory rights of withdrawal in consumer contract law. Penn State International Law Review, 29, 671-684.
Spies, J. (2013). Relevanz kognitiver und motivationaler Strukturen im Asian Disease Problem - Eine Analyse mithilfe verbaler Protokolle [Relevance of cognitive and motivational structures in the Asian Disease Problem - An analysis using verbal protocols] (Unpublished master thesis). University of Vienna.
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1, 39-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London: Penguin Books.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
--0--
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
American Journal of Trade and Policy is an Open Access journal. Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of their work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal. We require authors to inform us of any instances of re-publication.
