The Limits of Attraction

Consumer research has documented dozens of instances in which the introduction of an “irrelevant” third option affects preferences between the remaining two. In nearly all such cases, the unattractive dominated option enhances the attractiveness of the option it most resembles—a phenomenon known as the “attraction effect.” In the studies presented here, however, the authors contend that this phenomenon may be restricted to stylized product representations in which every product dimension is represented by a number (e.g., a toaster oven that has a durability rating of 7.2 and ease of cleaning rating of 5.5). Such effects do not typically occur when consumers experience the product (e.g., taste a drink) or when even one of the product attributes is represented perceptually (e.g., differently priced hotel rooms whose quality is depicted with a photo). The authors posit that perceptual representations of attributes do not support the sorts of comparisons that drive the attraction effect with highly stylized examples, and they question the practical significance of the effect.

[1]  A. Parducci Chapter 5 – CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS: A RANGE–FREQUENCY ANALYSIS* , 1974 .

[2]  R. Luce,et al.  The Choice Axiom after Twenty Years , 1977 .

[3]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[4]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[5]  Charles B. Weinberg,et al.  Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series , 1981 .

[6]  Joel Huber,et al.  Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects , 1983 .

[7]  Paul Rozin,et al.  Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. , 1986 .

[8]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. , 1987 .

[9]  G. Zinkhan,et al.  Changes in consumer choice: Further investigation of similarity and attraction effects , 1987 .

[10]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[11]  J. Aaker The Negative Attraction Effect? a Study of the Attraction Effect Under Judgment and Choice , 1991 .

[12]  How Entrants Affect Multiple Brands: a Dual Attraction Mechanism , 1991 .

[13]  D. H. Wedell,et al.  Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[15]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgments , 1993 .

[16]  S. Mishra,et al.  Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach , 1993 .

[17]  Yigang Pan Sue O’Curry,et al.  The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections , 1995 .

[18]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect , 1995 .

[19]  Timothy B. Heath,et al.  Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence , 1995 .

[20]  Decision Processes of the Attraction Effect: a theoretical Analysis and Some Preliminary Evidence , 1996 .

[21]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice Location of Alternatives in a Two Dimensional Space. in B on Dimension 2 but Not on Dimension 1. the Arrow , 2022 .

[22]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice☆ , 1996 .

[23]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates , 1996 .

[24]  D. Prelec,et al.  The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available , 1997 .

[25]  Sankar Sen Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect , 1998 .

[26]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Context effects in political judgement: assimilation and contrast as a function of categorization processes , 1998 .

[27]  G. Chapman,et al.  Are More Options Always Better? , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[28]  J. Doyle,et al.  The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in‐store purchases , 1999 .

[29]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection : Of asymmetric dominance and prominence , 1999 .

[30]  Asymmetric dominance versus learning : Can context effects override the learning of choice-set rules ? , 2000 .

[31]  R. Srivastava,et al.  Explaining Context Effects on Choice Using a Model of Comparative Judgment , 2000 .

[32]  Wedell,et al.  Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[33]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Wisdom and aging: irrational preferences in college students but not older adults , 2001, Cognition.

[34]  P. Rozin,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Sympathetic Magical Thinking: The Contagion and Similarity “Heuristics” , 2002 .

[35]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[36]  Jessica M. Choplin,et al.  Magnitude comparisons distort mental representations of magnitude. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  K. Seltman Marketing for management. , 2004, Marketing health services.

[38]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice , 2004, Psychological science.

[39]  Oded Netzer,et al.  Extending Compromise Effect Models to Complex Buying Situations and Other Context Effects , 2004 .

[40]  T. Mussweiler,et al.  The man who wasn't there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation ☆ , 2004 .

[41]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older Adults , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[42]  S. Moran,et al.  Using context effects to increase a leader's advantage: What set of alternatives should be included in the comparison set? , 2006 .

[43]  F. Bolger,et al.  Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games , 2007 .

[44]  Daniele Scarpi The impact of decoys and background information on consumers' preferences and decision making , 2008 .

[45]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power , 2009 .

[46]  A. Rao,et al.  Could Ralph Nader's Entrance and Exit Have Helped Al Gore? The Impact of Decoy Dynamics on Consumer Choice , 2009 .

[47]  Young-Won Ha,et al.  The Influence of Categorical Attributes on Choice Context Effects , 2009 .

[48]  A. Hama Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions , 2010 .

[49]  Jane L. Risen,et al.  How choice affects and reflects preferences: revisiting the free-choice paradigm. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Not Just for Consumers , 2013, Psychological science.

[51]  S. Pfeifer A Course In Microeconomic Theory , 2016 .