Using context effects to increase a leader's advantage: What set of alternatives should be included in the comparison set?

Moran, Simone; Meyer, Joachim

doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.009

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such value shift patterns are surprising and require replication. The results, however, are in line with a study conducted by Moran and Meyer (2006), who also found value shifts for the competitor in a decoy experiment. The results obtained here extend their findings regarding a decrease in the attractiveness of the target relative to the competitor in terms of their respective perceived attribute values.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment

Pechtl

2009

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known in marketing that the preference for a target option over a competitor option increases if the choice set entails a third option, known as a decoy. If the decoy is (nearly) dominated by the target according to the attribute levels, the preference increase of the target over its competitor is often termed the "decoy effect," "asymmetric dominance effect," or "attraction effect." If the decoy makes the target appear a less extreme or middle option in the choice set, the preference increase of the target represents the "compromise effect." In both cases, the market share of the target relative to the competitor is higher in the decoy set than in a choice set without the third option (core set).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment

Pechtl

2009

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a dominated decoy has at least one attribute that is inferior to the target option. Thus, the asymmetric dominance relationship between the target and decoy options makes people evaluate the target option more favorably than the decoy option (Moran and Meyer, 2006; Pettibone and Wedell, 2000). When it comes to the compromise effect, shifts in values are explained through loss aversion (Pettibone and Wedell, 2000; Simonson and Tversky, 1992).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attraction and compromise effects under social exclusion

Kim

Lee

Kim

2023

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Integrating conceptual perspectives from social exclusion, thinking style and context effects, this study aims to examine how different types of social exclusion influence attraction and compromise effects. Design/methodology/approach Eight studies were conducted. To establish the causal relationship between social exclusion types and context effects, this study uses experimental designs in all studies. Findings The attraction effect is stronger when consumers feel rejected than ignored, whereas the compromise effect is stronger when they feel ignored than rejected. Consumers who feel rejected increase their propensity to think holistically, which in turn leads to their choice preferences for asymmetrically dominant options. Conversely, those who feel ignored increase their propensity to think analytically, which in turn leads to their choice preferences for compromise options. Research limitations/implications The findings show that consumer preferences for one option over the other alternatives in choice contexts are susceptible to subtle differences in the manner that exclusion is communicated. The studies are limited to recall tasks and scenarios that previous research has shown to be effective. Future research may use actual exclusion to corroborate this study’s findings. Practical implications Marketing practitioners may benefit from this study’s findings when it comes to an increase in the relative share of their target brand against their competitor brands by introducing a third option. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to provide evidence that exclusion communicated in an explicit manner produces the attraction effect, whereas exclusion communicated in an implicit manner produces the compromise effect. Given that threatening situations often influence individuals’ preferences and choices, how social exclusion shapes cognitive processes is an empirical question worthy of investigation.

show abstract

“…The attraction effect is one of the most well-known and researched choice phenomena. Over the past 30 years, it has been replicated across numerous research domains, such as consumer behavior (for a review, see Frederick, Lee, & Baskin, 2014), memory (Maylor & Roberts, 2007), law (Kelman, Rottenstreich, & Tversky, 1996), policy (Herne, 1997), personnel assessment (Slaughter, Sinar, & Highhouse, 1999), and leadership (Moran & Meyer, 2006), using various types of choice problems, in choice sets characterized by numerically indexed attributes (Frederick et al, 2014;Huber & Puto, 1983;Huber et al, 1982;Simonson, 1989) and with perceptual attributes (Trueblood, 2012;Trueblood, Brown, Heathcote, & Busemeyer, 2013;Trueblood & Pettibone, 2017), with hypothetical and real consequences, and with various subject populations. The attraction effect was originally used to demonstrate a violation of the regularity axiom (according to which the probability of choosing an option cannot be increased by adding another option to the choice set; Luce, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Attraction Effect in Experience‐based Decisions

Hadar

Danziger

Hertwig

2018

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous demonstrations of the attraction effect were limited to explicitly described attribute values (including numerically indexed attributes, such as gambles' outcomes and their likelihoods, or perceptual attributes, such as rectangles' height and width). However, in many real‐life decisions, such as the choice of a preferred grocer, people decide based on their past experience with the options' attributes (e.g., the frequency and magnitude of product discounts over time). We examine whether the attraction effect extends from description‐based to experience‐based choice between gambles. Our results demonstrate that the attraction effect exists but is less prevalent in experience‐based than in description‐based choice. This is because the dominance relationship, necessary for the attraction effect to occur, is more difficult to recognize in experience‐based choice. Yet, when dominance is recognized, people may use it to guide difficult trade‐off choices. We discuss practical implications. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Using context effects to increase a leader's advantage: What set of alternatives should be included in the comparison set?

Cited by 15 publications

References 48 publications

Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment

Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment

Attraction and compromise effects under social exclusion

The Attraction Effect in Experience‐based Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About