Prominence versus Dominance: How Relationships between Alternatives Drive Decision Strategy and Choice

This article argues that the structure of a choice set can influence the extent to which consumers weight a given attribute. The results of seven experiments suggest that the relationship between options under consideration can influence preference ordering by shifting the decision strategy people adopt when constructing their preference. In decisions in which people afford greater importance to one attribute versus another, preference for an option that scores high on this prominent attribute may decrease when decoy options that are clearly better or worse than the focal options are inserted into the choice set. The authors posit that this effect arises because decision makers initially (and spontaneously) use dominance cues rather than prominence when evaluating options, and they continue to use this strategy even when it does not enable them to differentiate the alternatives under consideration. The authors moderate this effect by prompting respondents to consider prominence and by manipulating the order in which respondents evaluate options in the choice set. This article has theoretical implications for research on context effects, contingent decision behavior, and choice architecture as well as practical implications for product-line management.

[1]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[2]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[3]  C I HOVLAND,et al.  Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[5]  Paramesh Ray Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives , 1973 .

[6]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  LEXICOGRAPHIC ORDERS, UTILITIES AND DECISION RULES: A SURVEY , 1974 .

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

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

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

[10]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[11]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

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

[13]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[14]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

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

[16]  G. W. Fischer Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models , 1995 .

[17]  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 .

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

[19]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect , 1999 .

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

[21]  A. Bröder,et al.  Adaptive flexibility and maladaptive routines in selecting fast and frugal decision strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  On Amir,et al.  Choice Construction versus Preference Construction: The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context , 2007 .

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

[24]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[25]  Jonathan Levav,et al.  The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search , 2012 .

[26]  J. Payne,et al.  Comparison selection: An approach to the study of consumer judgment and choice , 2013 .

[27]  Ioannis Evangelidis,et al.  The Number of Fatalities Drives Disaster Aid , 2013, Psychological science.