This research aims to investigate decoy effects on online brand choices. To assess the influence of decoys, we test decoy effects on three constructs—product involvement, judgment conditions, and decoy conditions—within an online experiment. A survey of 635 Internet users and a 2 × 2 × 3 ANOVA between-subjects experimental design is used to guide the research design and the systematic analysis procedure. A major finding of this study is that a standard decoy seems to have a significant effect on an advertised (target) brand for high-involvement products; from the survey, it is also apparent that competitors can also use inferior decoys to increase brand preference for low-involvement products.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DharR, SimonsonI. The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 2003; 40:146–60.
2.
FarquharP. 1977. A survey of multi-attribute utility theory and applications. StarrMK, ZelenyM. TIMS studies in the management sciences, 6. Amsterdam: North Holland, 59–89.
3.
BettmanJR. Data collection and analysis approaches for studying consumer information processing. Advances in Consumer Research, 1977; 4:342–48.
4.
TverskyA, SattathS, SlovicPet al.Loss aversion and riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991; 106:1039–61.
5.
HuberJ, PayneJW, PutoC. Adding asymmetrical dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 1982; 9:90–8.
6.
LichtensteinS, SlovicP. Reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971; 101:16–20.
7.
WedellDH, PettiboneJC. Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Process, 1996; 67:326–44.
8.
BrynjolfssonE, SmithM. Frictionless commerce? A comparison of Internet and conventional retailers. Marketing Science, 2000; 46:563–85.
ThalerR. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 1985; 4:199–214.
11.
TverskyA, SattathS, SlovicP. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Science, 1988; 3:358–61.
12.
ParkJ, KimJ. The effects of decoys on preference shift: The role of attractiveness and providing justification. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2005; 15:94–107.
13.
CacioppoJT, PettyRE. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1982; 42:116–31.
