Revisiting the decoy effect: replication and extension of Ariely and Wallsten (1995) and Connolly, Reb, and Kausel (2013)‎

Xiao, Qinyu; Zeng, Shiyuan; Feldman, Gilad

doi:10.1080/23743603.2021.1878340

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in some of the previous studies (Xiao et al, 2021;Yang & Lynn, 2014;Frederick et al, 2014), we failed to demonstrate the statistically significant decoy effect on a sample of Czech consumers, regardless of brand presence. The association of the decoy presence and the choices was negligible, thus supporting the implication that it might be more challenging for marketers to design a suitable choice set and successfully use the decoy effect to increase the popularity of their preferred product alternative.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

Brand Presence in Decision-Making Involving Decoys

Kubalová¹,

Klepek²

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

Brand Presence in Decision-Making Involving Decoys

Kubalová¹,

Klepek²

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, it has been demonstrated that 94% of the effects predicted by prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;Tversky & Kahneman, 1992) were successfully replicated (Ruggeri et al, 2020). Also, other classical JDM effects such as money illusion (Ziano et al, 2021), decoy effect (Xiao et al, 2020), status quo bias (Xiao et al, 2021), framing (Zhou et al, 2021), or motivated numeracy (Persson et al, 2021) were subjects of replication and extension studies.…”

Section: Original Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polish Psychological Bulletin

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted pre-registered replications of 15 effects in the field of judgment and decision making (JDM). We aimed to test the generalizability of different classical and modern JDM effects, including, among others: less-isbetter, anchoring, and framing to different languages, cultures, or current situations (COVID-19 pandemic). Replicated studies were selected and conducted by undergraduate psychology students enrolled in a decision-making course. Two hundred and two adult volunteers completed an online battery of replicated studies. With a classical significance criterion (p < .05), seven effects were successfully replicated (47%), five partially replicated (33%), and three did not replicate (20%). Even though research materials differed from the originals in several ways, the replication rate in our project is slightly above earlier reported findings in similar replication projects. We discuss factors that may underlie replication results (success vs. failure). We also stress the role of open science practices such as open data, open research materials, pre-registration, and registered reports in improving the replicability of results in the JDM field.

show abstract

“…For example, some studies have focused on perceptual decision making (Trueblood et al, 2013;Spektor et al, 2018;Evans et al, 2021b;Spektor et al, 2022) as compared to preferential choice (Frederick et al, 2014;Cohen, 2019, 2021b). Further, some studies have shown that the attraction effect fails to replicate in certain situations (Frederick et al, 2014;Xiao et al, 2020). This paper builds on recent studies examining the dependence of multiattribute choice on presentation format and provides a comprehensive account of how presentation mode, layout, and order impact the attraction effect, providing rich empirical results for future theory development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

A registered report on presentation factors that influence the attraction effect

Hasan,

Liu,

Owens

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context effects occur when the preference between two alternatives is affected by the presence of an extra alternative. These effects are some of the most well studied phenomena in multi-alternative, multi-attribute decision making. Recent research in this area has revealed an intriguing pattern of results. On the one hand, these effects are robust and ubiquitous. That is, they have been demonstrated in many domains and different choice settings. On the other hand, they are fragile and they disappear or even reverse under different conditions. This pattern of results has spurred debate and speculation about the cognitive mechanisms that drive these choices. The attraction effect, where the preference for an option increases in the presence of a dominated decoy, has generated the most controversy. In this registered report, we systematically vary factors that are known to be associated with the attraction effect to build a solid foundation of empirical results to aid future theory development. We find a robust attraction effect across the different conditions. The strength of this effect is modulated by the display order (e.g., decoy top, target middle, competitor bottom) and mode (numeric vs. graphical) but not display layout (by-attribute vs. by-alternative).

show abstract

Revisiting the decoy effect: replication and extension of Ariely and Wallsten (1995) and Connolly, Reb, and Kausel (2013)‎

Cited by 5 publications

References 66 publications

Brand Presence in Decision-Making Involving Decoys

Brand Presence in Decision-Making Involving Decoys

Polish Psychological Bulletin

A registered report on presentation factors that influence the attraction effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About