The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning

According to the attraction effect, the addition of a decoy, or dominated, option to a choice set increases the relative choice share of the dominating option. This study shows that the attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in judgment and decision making. In contrast, the attraction effect is equally pronounced for consumers who rely more and those who rely less on rational thinking. Over 600 members of a national online consumer panel participated. The results highlight the importance of understanding individual differences in relation to context effects and choice behavior.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

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

[4]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[5]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

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

[7]  S. Epstein,et al.  Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment , 1994 .

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

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

[10]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[11]  S. Epstein,et al.  Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

[13]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. , 1999 .

[14]  I. Simonson,et al.  Correction Processes in Consumer Choice , 1999 .

[15]  Seymour Epstein,et al.  The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. , 1999 .

[16]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[17]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons , 2000 .

[18]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for 'Reversal' Effects in Behavioral Research , 2000 .

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

[20]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. , 2001, Psychological review.

[21]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment , 2001 .

[22]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[23]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice , 2003 .

[24]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice , 2004 .

[25]  N. Schwarz.  Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[26]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2005 .

[27]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  Context Effects Without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice , 2005 .

[28]  Jongwon Park,et al.  The Effects of Decoys on Preference Shifts: The Role of Attractiveness and Providing Justification , 2005, Journal of Consumer Psychology.

[29]  I. Simonson,et al.  Cultural Chameleons: Biculturals, Conformity Motives, and Decision Making , 2005 .

[30]  D. Kahneman,et al.  A model of heuristic judgment , 2005 .

[31]  The Influence of Ease of Retrieval on Judgment as a Function of Attention to Subjective Experience , 2006 .

[32]  H. Yen,et al.  The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects , 2007 .

[33]  R. Dhar,et al.  Deciding Without Resources: Psychological Depletion and Choice in Context , 2007 .

[34]  R. Dhar,et al.  Preference Fluency in Choice , 2007 .

[35]  U. Böckenholt,et al.  Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations , 2007 .

[36]  A. Chernev,et al.  Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice , 2007 .

[37]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Specification Seeking: How Product Specifications Influence Consumer Preference , 2008 .

[38]  G. Fitzsimons.  Death to Dichotomizing , 2008 .

[39]  William M. Hedgcock,et al.  Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 2009 .

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

[41]  R. Dhar,et al.  Deciding without Resources: Resource Depletion and Choice in Context , 2009 .

[42]  Jonathan Levav,et al.  Motivational Compatibility and Choice Conflict , 2010 .

[43]  Subimal Chatterjee,et al.  The role of regulatory fit on the attraction effect , 2011 .

[44]  Eike B. Kroll,et al.  Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings , 2012 .