The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice

A number of studies demonstrate that individual choice can be influenced by alternatives which should be irrelevant according to standard choice theory. In these studies it has been observed that introducing a decoy option, which is either asymmetrically dominated by a target option or which makes the target a compromise, increases the likelihood of choosing the target. A common feature of earlier research on decoy effects is the use of hypothetical choice tasks. The aim of this paper is to investigate decoy effects in a properly controlled experiment where subjects are given real incentives. Here, monetary gambles are used as alternatives. The results demonstrate that decoy effects persist despite the use of real incentives.

[1]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[2]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas , 1973 .

[3]  C. Plott,et al.  Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon , 1979 .

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

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[6]  Robert J. Reilly,et al.  Preference Reversal: Further Evidence and Some Suggested Modifications in Experimental Design , 1982 .

[7]  Friedrich Schneider,et al.  Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon: A Reexamination , 1982 .

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

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

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

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

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Causes of Preference Reversal , 1990 .

[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]  A. Tversky,et al.  Context-dependent preferences , 1993 .

[16]  Hans Lind,et al.  Preference reversal, real-world lotteries, and lottery-interested subjects , 1993 .

[17]  D. Lehmann,et al.  Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets , 1994 .

[18]  Peter Bohm,et al.  Time Preference and Preference Reversal among Experienced Subjects: The Effects of Real Payments , 1994 .

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

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

[21]  Colin Camerer.  Individual Decision Making , 2020, The Handbook of Experimental Economics.

[22]  The role of decoys in choice: a review of research on context dependent preferences , 1996 .

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

[24]  David M. Grether,et al.  The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives , 1996 .

[25]  Kaisa Herne.  Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects , 1997 .