★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.comPublisher Home ↗
Management and Economics OPEN ACCESS

B2B Versus B2C: Differences in Psychological Mechanisms of Influence and Decision-Making Structure; Example Model for Building Funnels

Volodymyr Rebets
Expert in Behavioral Marketing and Branding Founder of Rebets Consulting Inc.USA
DOI Crossref DOI 10.37547/tajmspr/Volume08Issue02-05
tajmei 2026
VOL. 8 / NO. 2 FEBRUARY
FULL TEXT PP. 57-66
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 8
ISSUE 2
YEAR 2026
PAGES 57-66
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

B2B and B2C marketing strategies are traditionally seen as variations of the same discipline, differing in the scope of deals and number of stakeholders. However, the psychological mechanisms of influence and decision-making structures in B2B are radically different from B2C. The study analyzes cognitive biases, framing effects, deficit cues in both contexts based on a systematic literature review 2010-2023. B2C decision-making is dominated by quick heuristics and emotional triggers, B2B is characterized by multi-stakeholder consensus and the dominance of perceived risk. Framing effects in B2C are strongest for loss-framed messages, B2B shows resistance to simple loss/gain framing. Scarcity signals in B2C activate impulse purchases, in B2B they are interpreted as a signal of demand or unreliability. Dark patterns fail in B2B through collective evaluation and long-term relationships. The developed application model takes into account stakeholder mapping, evaluation cycle management, trust building through content strategies, and customer lifetime value metrics.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

B2B marketing B2C marketing decision making cognitive biases choice architecture sales funnel
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. Acciarini, C., Brunetta, F., & Boccardelli, P. (2021). Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 59(3), 638-652. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2019-1006
  2. Ahuja, S., & Kumar, J. (2022). Conceptualizations of user autonomy within the normative evaluation of dark patterns. Ethics and Information Technology, 24(4), 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09672-9
  3. Cheon, J. E., Nam, Y., Kim, K. J., Lee, H. I., Park, H. G., & Kim, Y. (2021). Cultural variability in the attribute framing effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 754265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754265
  4. Dowling, K., Guhl, D., Klapper, D., Spann, M., Stich, L., & Yegoryan, N. (2020). Behavioral biases in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 449-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00699-x
  5. Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of different types of scarcity signals with products' suitability for conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.002
  6. Gunawan, J., Choffnes, D., Hartzog, W., & Wilson, C. (2021). A comparative study of dark patterns across mobile and web modalities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), Article 377. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479521
  7. Kim, J., & Choi, S. (2021). The differential impact of loss- versus gain-framed price-promotion messages on purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102282
  8. Wolf N. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. – New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002. – 368 p.
  9. Lindstrom, K. N., Tucker, J. A., & McVay, M. (2023). Nudges and choice architecture to promote healthy food purchases in adults: A systematized review. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 37(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000892
  10. Mathur, A., Kshirsagar, M., & Mayer, J. (2021). What makes a dark pattern... dark? Design attributes, normative considerations, and measurement methods. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445610
  11. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2107346118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118
  12. Mrkva, K., Posner, N. A., Reeck, C., & Johnson, E. J. (2021). Do nudges reduce disparities? Choice architecture compensates for low consumer knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(4), 801-806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242921993186
  13. Shan, L., Jiao, X., Wu, L., Shao, Y., & Xu, L. (2022). Influence of framing effect on consumers' purchase intention of artificial meat-Based on empirical analysis of consumers in seven cities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 911462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911462
  14. Zong, Y., & Guo, X. (2022). An experimental study on anchoring effect of consumers' price judgment based on consumers' experiencing scenes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 794135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.794135