When people are choosing among different options, context seems to play a vital role. For instance, adding a third option can increase the probability of choosing a similar dominating option. This attraction effect is one of the most widely studied phenomena in decision-making research. Its prevalence, however, has been challenged recently by the tainting hypothesis, according to which the inferior option contaminates the attribute space in which it is located, leading to a repulsion effect. In an attempt to test the tainting hypothesis and explore the conditions under which dominated options make dominating options look bad, we conducted four preregistered perceptual decision-making studies with a total of 301 participants. We identified two factors influencing individuals’ behavior: stimulus display and stimulus design. Our results contribute to a growing body of literature showing how presentation format influences behavior in preferential and perceptual decision-making tasks.
BerkowitschN. A. J.ScheibehenneB.RieskampJ. (2014). Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1331–1348. doi:10.1037/a0035159
2.
BhatiaS. (2013). Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psychological Review, 120, 522–543. doi:10.1037/a0032457
3.
CataldoA. M.CohenA. L. (2018). Reversing the similarity effect: The effect of presentation format. Cognition, 175, 141–156. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.003
4.
ChangC.-C.LiuH.-H. (2008). Information format-option characteristics compatibility and the compromise effect. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 881–900. doi:10.1002/mar.20242
FarmerG. D.WarrenP. A.El-DeredyW.HowesA. (2017). The effect of expected value on attraction effect preference reversals. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 785–793. doi:10.1002/bdm.2001
8.
FrederickS.LeeL.BaskinE. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 487–507. doi:10.1509/jmr.12.0061
9.
GluthS.HotalingJ. M.RieskampJ. (2017). The attraction effect modulates reward prediction errors and intertemporal choices. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 371–382. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2532-16.2017
10.
HeathT. B.ChatterjeeS. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: Meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268–284. doi:10.1086/209449
11.
HerneK. (1999). The effects of decoy gambles on individual choice. Experimental Economics, 2, 31–40. doi:10.1023/A:1009925731240
12.
HotalingJ. M.CohenA. L.ShiffrinR. M.BusemeyerJ. R. (2015). The dilution effect and information integration in perceptual decision making. PLOS ONE, 10(9), Article e0138481. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138481
13.
HotalingJ. M.RieskampJ. (in press). A quantitative test of sequential sampling models of multialternative context effects. Decision.
14.
HuberJ.PayneJ. W.PutoC. P. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98. doi:10.1086/208899
15.
HuberJ.PayneJ. W.PutoC. P. (2014). Let’s be honest about the attraction effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 520–525. doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0208
16.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292. doi:10.2307/1914185
17.
KrepsD. M. (1990). A course in microeconomic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
MalkocS. A.HedgcockW.HoefflerS. (2013). Between a rock and a hard place: The failure of the attraction effect among unattractive alternatives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 317–329. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.008
19.
NoguchiT.StewartN. (2014). In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions. Cognition, 132, 44–56. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.006
20.
ParrishA. E.EvansT. A.BeranM. J. (2015). Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) exhibit the decoy effect in a perceptual discrimination task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 1715–1725. doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0885-6
21.
PettiboneJ. C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 513–521.
22.
RobertsS.PashlerH. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358–367. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.358
23.
RoeR. M.BusemeyerJ. R.TownsendJ. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370–392. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370
24.
SimonsonI. (2014). Vices and virtues of misguided replications: The case of asymmetric dominance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 514–519. doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0093
25.
SoltaniA.De MartinoB.CamererC. (2012). A range-normalization model of context-dependent choice: A new model and evidence. PLOS Computational Biology, 8(7), Article e1002607. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002607
26.
TruebloodJ. S. (2012). Multialternative context effects obtained using an inference task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 962–968. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0288-9
27.
TruebloodJ. S. (2015). Reference point effects in riskless choice without loss aversion. Decision, 2, 13–26. doi:10.1037/dec0000015
28.
TruebloodJ. S.BrownS. D.HeathcoteA. (2014). The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 121, 179–205. doi:10.1037/a0036137
29.
TruebloodJ. S.BrownS. D.HeathcoteA. (2015). The fragile nature of contextual preference reversals: Reply to Tsetsos, Chater, and Usher (2015). Psychological Review, 122, 848–853. doi:10.1037/a0039656
30.
TruebloodJ. S.BrownS. D.HeathcoteA.BusemeyerJ. R. (2013). Not just for consumers: Context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psychological Science, 24, 901–908. doi:10.1177/0956797612464241
31.
TruebloodJ. S.DasariA. (2017). The impact of presentation order on the attraction effect in decision-making. In GunzelmannG.HowesA.TenbrinkT.DavelaarE. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3374–3379). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
32.
TruebloodJ. S.PettiboneJ. C. (2017). The phantom decoy effect in perceptual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 157–167. doi:10.1002/bdm.1930
33.
TsetsosK.ChaterN.UsherM. (2015). Examining the mechanisms underlying contextual preference reversal: Comment on Trueblood, Brown, and Heathcote (2014). Psychological Review, 122, 838–847. doi:10.1037/a0038953
TverskyA. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299. doi:10.1037/h0032955
37.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
38.
UsherM.McClellandJ. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757–769. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.757
39.
WedellD. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 767–778. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.17.4.767
40.
ZhenS.YuR. (2016). The development of the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect in young children. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 22678. doi:10.1038/srep22678
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
