{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037037037037037035, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00516795865633075, 'mean_word_length': 5.315217391304348, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Seller Beware: How Bundling Affects Valuation

How does bundling affect valuation? This research proposes the asymmetry hypothesis in the valuation of bundles: consumers demand more compensation for the loss of items from bundles, compared with the loss of the same items in isolation, yet they express lower willingness to pay for items added to bundles, compared with the same items purchased separately. This asymmetry persists because bundling causes consumers to perceive multiple items as a single, inseparable gestalt unit. Thus, consumers resist altering the “whole” of the bundle by removing or adding items. Six studies demonstrate this asymmetry across judgments of monetary value (Studies 1 and 2) and (dis)satisfaction (Study 3). Moreover, bundle composition—the ability of different items to create the impression of a “whole”—moderates the effect of bundling on valuation (Study 4), and the need to replace missing items (i.e., restoring the “whole”) mediates the effect of bundling on compensation demanded for losses (Study 5). Finally, the authors explore a boundary condition: the effect is attenuated for items that complete a set (Study 6).