Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach

Abstract

Many researchers have demonstrated the existence of an attraction effect that increases the choice probability of an existing “target” brand by the introduction of a relatively inferior “decoy” brand. This study develops a causal model that links antecedent variables with the attraction effect. We find that the attraction effect is explained to a considerable extent by changes in the following seven variables: (1) information relevance or stimulus meaningfulness, (2) product class knowledge, (3) task involvement, (4) perceived similarity between decoy and target, (5) relative brand preference, (6) share captured by decoy brand, and (7) perceived decoy popularity. The overall results were consistent across product classes studied, which included beer, cars, and TV sets. The popularity explanation for attraction effect, alluded to by Huber, Payne, and Puto (1982), was tested and found to hold true.

Investigating online information disclosure: Effects of information relevance, trust and risk

“…Consistent with TRA, items on attitude toward disclosure and intent to disclose were reworded to be appropriate for our setting. We adapted five relevance items from Mishra et al [12], who defined relevance as ''the degree to which the product stimulus information is useful in distinguishing between objects in a choice set.'' The items were reflected in questions that asked the respondents whether the information was ''relevant'', ''useful'', ''important'', ''meaningful'', or ''helpful'' to firms.…”

Word‐of‐mouth transmission in settings with multiple opinions: The impact of other opinions on WOM likelihood and valence

“…To elaborate, consumers who are less certain about the opinion are likely to reduce their WOM likelihood and valence to a greater degree in the presence of discrepant opinion. We derive the rationale from past research establishing a positive link between consumers' product-category knowledge and their certainty or confidence about opinion (Mishra, Umesh, & Stem, 1993;Park, Mothersbaugh, & Feick, 1994). Accordingly, we will vary the knowledge level to see how certainty or confidence influences WOM responses to opinion incongruency.…”

Determinants of the variety of routes to market

“…For customer expertise, we used six items (adapted from Keller, 1991;Mishra, Umesh, & Stem, 1993) that capture customer knowledge about product attributes, differences among various brands, and experience with the firm's brand. We measured customer price sensitivity using two items (adapted from Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993) that capture a customer's price-effort tradeoff.…”

“…Customer expertise (adapted from Keller, 1991;Mishra et al, 1993) Please complete the following statements about your customers in general.…”