Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice

Dynamic, connectionist models of decision making, such as decision field theory (Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001), propose that the effect of context on choice arises from a series of pairwise comparisons between attributes of alternatives across time. As such, they predict that limiting the amount of time to make a decision should decrease rather than increase the size of contextual effects. This prediction was tested across four levels of time pressure on both the asymmetric dominance (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982) and compromise (Simonson, 1989) decoy effects in choice. Overall, results supported this prediction, with both types of decoy effects found to be larger as time pressure decreased.

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

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

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

[4]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[5]  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 .

[6]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Testing Models of Trade-Off Contrast in Pairwise Choice , 1998 .

[7]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice , 2000 .

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

[9]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[10]  Oded Netzer,et al.  Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect , 2004 .

[11]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. , 2004, Psychological review.

[12]  B. Mellers,et al.  Similarity and Choice , 2004 .

[13]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bdm.557 Testing Alternative Explanations of Phantom Decoy Effects , 2007 .

[14]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  Inferences under time pressure: how opportunity costs affect strategy selection. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  Choice Set Configuration as a Determinant of Preference Attribution and Strength , 2008 .

[16]  N. Chater,et al.  Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. , 2010, Psychological review.