The Moderating Role of Decisiveness in the Attraction Effect
-
Guy Barokas
and
Eyal Gamliel
Abstract
This study examines decisiveness as a potential moderator of the attraction effect. In an online experiment, we find that even though decisiveness moderates the attraction effect, it also moderates the preference reversal in the absence of a decoy. This suggests that the moderating role of decisiveness in the attraction effect lies, at least partially, in moderating choice reversals unrelated to the decoy. In addition, our findings show that about one-third of the most decisive participants exhibit an attraction effect. These findings are inconsistent with a conceptualization of a moderate attraction effect, arguing that only indecisive agents exhibit the effect. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.
The first question received by each of the three groups in the second trial of the experiment.
First case study: Beer
You arrive to a supermarket to purchase a six-pack bear. You have eliminated the available options to 2(3) brands of bear: A and B (and C). For each brand, the price of six-pack and the beer’s average rating in taste tests between 1 and 5 are presented.
Experimental group 1[7]
| Price (for a six-pack) | Average rating | |
|---|---|---|
| Beer A | 48 NIS | 4.5 |
| Beer B | 36 NIS | 3.5 |
| Beer C | 55 NIS | 4.5 |
Experimental group 2
| Price (for a six-pack) | Average rating | |
|---|---|---|
| Beer A | 48 NIS | 4.5 |
| Beer B | 36 NIS | 3.5 |
| Beer C | 36 NIS | 3 |
Control group
| Price (for a six-pack) | Average rating | |
|---|---|---|
| Beer A | 48 NIS | 4.5 |
| Beer B | 36 NIS | 3.5 |
References
Barokas, G. 2017. “A Taxonomy of Rationalization by Incomplete Preferences.” Economics Letters 159: 138–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.07.031.Search in Google Scholar
Butler, D., and G. Loomes. 2007. “Imprecision as an Account of the Choice Reversal Phenomenon.” The American Economic Review 97 (1): 277–97. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282807780323406.Search in Google Scholar
Butler, D., and G. Loomes. 2011. “Imprecision as an Account of Violations of Independence and Betweenness.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 80 (3): 511–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.05.008.Search in Google Scholar
Cubitt, R. P., D. Navarro-Martinez, and C. Starmer. 2015. “On Preference Imprecision.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 50 (1): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9207-6.Search in Google Scholar
Eliaz, K., and E. A. Ok. 2006. “Indifference or Indecisiveness? Choice-Theoretic Foundations of Incomplete Preferences.” Games and Economic Behavior 56 (1): 61–86.10.1016/j.geb.2005.06.007Search in Google Scholar
Frederick, S., L. Lee, and E. Baskin. 2014. “The Limits of Attraction.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (4): 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0061.Search in Google Scholar
Gerasimou, G. 2016. “Partially Dominant Choice.” Economic Theory 61 (1): 127–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-015-0869-8.Search in Google Scholar
Hedgcock, W., and A. R. Rao. 2009. “Trade-off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.” Journal of Marketing Research 46 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Huber, J., J. W. Payne, and C. Puto. 1982. “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (1): 90–8. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899.Search in Google Scholar
Huber, J., J. W. Payne, and C. P. Puto. 2014. “Let’s Be Honest about the Attraction Effect.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (4): 520–5. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0208.Search in Google Scholar
Malaviya, P., and K. Sivakumar. 1998. “The Moderating Effect of Product Category Knowledge and Attribute Importance on the Attraction Effect.” Marketing Letters 9 (1): 93–106.https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007976305757.10.1023/A:1007976305757Search in Google Scholar
Masatlioglu, Y., D. Nakajima, and E. Y. Ozbay. 2012. “Revealed Attention.” The American Economic Review 102 (5): 2183–205. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.5.2183.Search in Google Scholar
Mishra, S., U. N. Umesh, and D. E. StemJr. 1993. “Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3): 331–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000305.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, H., V. Schliwa, and S. Lehmann. 2014. “Prize Decoys at Work—New Experimental Evidence for Asymmetric Dominance Effects in Choices on Prizes in Competitions.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 31 (4): 457–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.003.Search in Google Scholar
Pettibone, J. C. 2012. “Testing the Effect of Time Pressure on Asymmetric Dominance and Compromise Decoys in Choice.” Judgment and Decision Making 7 (4): 513. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500002849.Search in Google Scholar
Pettibone, J. C., and D. H. Wedell. 2000. “Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81 (2): 300–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2880.Search in Google Scholar
Ratneshwar, S., A. D. Shocker, and D. W. Stewart. 1987. “Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity.” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (4): 520–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/209085.Search in Google Scholar
Redelmeier, D. A., and E. Shafir. 1995. “Medical Decision Making in Situations that Offer Multiple Alternatives.” JAMA 273 (4): 302–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038.Search in Google Scholar
Schwarzkopf, D. L. 2003. “The Effects of Attraction on Investment Decisions.” The Journal of Behavioral Finance 4 (2): 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327760jpfm0402_06.Search in Google Scholar
Sen, S. 1998. “Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect.” Journal of Consumer Research 25 (1): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/209527.Search in Google Scholar
Simonson, I. 1989. “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (2): 158–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205.Search in Google Scholar
Slaughter, J. E. 2007. “Effects of Two Selection Batteries on Decoy Effects in Job‐finalist Choice.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (1): 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00148.x.Search in Google Scholar
Wedell, D. H. 1991. “Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Choice Reversals.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17 (4): 767–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.767.Search in Google Scholar
Wedell, D. H., and J. C. Pettibone. 1996. “Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67: 326–44. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0083.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, S., and M. Lynn. 2014. “More Evidence Challenging the Robustness and Usefulness of the Attraction Effect.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (4): 508–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0020.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Strategic Analysis of Petty Corruption with an Entrepreneur and Multiple Bureaucrats
- Environmental Policy in Vertical Markets with Downstream Pollution: Taxes Versus Standards
- The Impact of the CARES Stimulus Payments on COVID-19 Transmission and Mortality
- Reverses in Gender Salary Gaps Among STEM Faculty: Evidence from Mean and Quantile Decompositions
- Downstream Profit Effects of Horizontal Mergers: Horn & Wolinsky and von Ungern-Sternberg Revisited
- The Moderating Role of Decisiveness in the Attraction Effect
- Pension Reform and Improved Employment Protection: Effects on Older Men’s Employment Outcomes
- Relational Voluntary Environmental Agreements with Unverifiable Emissions
- Letters
- Labor Demand Responses to Changing Gas Prices
- Early Childhood Education Attendance and Students’ Later Outcomes in Europe
- The Long-Term Effects of Unilateral Divorce Laws on the Noncognitive Skill of Conscientiousness
- Lab versus Online Experiments: Gender Differences
- Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and HIV Incidence
- Variants of Gender Bias and Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Career Development
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Strategic Analysis of Petty Corruption with an Entrepreneur and Multiple Bureaucrats
- Environmental Policy in Vertical Markets with Downstream Pollution: Taxes Versus Standards
- The Impact of the CARES Stimulus Payments on COVID-19 Transmission and Mortality
- Reverses in Gender Salary Gaps Among STEM Faculty: Evidence from Mean and Quantile Decompositions
- Downstream Profit Effects of Horizontal Mergers: Horn & Wolinsky and von Ungern-Sternberg Revisited
- The Moderating Role of Decisiveness in the Attraction Effect
- Pension Reform and Improved Employment Protection: Effects on Older Men’s Employment Outcomes
- Relational Voluntary Environmental Agreements with Unverifiable Emissions
- Letters
- Labor Demand Responses to Changing Gas Prices
- Early Childhood Education Attendance and Students’ Later Outcomes in Europe
- The Long-Term Effects of Unilateral Divorce Laws on the Noncognitive Skill of Conscientiousness
- Lab versus Online Experiments: Gender Differences
- Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and HIV Incidence
- Variants of Gender Bias and Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Career Development
