People are frequently faced with making a new choice decision after a preferred option becomes unavailable. Prior research on the attraction effect has demonstrated how the introduction of an option into a choice set increases the share of one of the original options. The authors examine the related but previously unaddressed issue of whether the unexpected exit of an option from a choice set returns the choice shares of the original options to the status quo. In a series of experiments, they observe that when an option turns out to be unselectable following a choice problem in which it was selectable, the choice shares of the remaining options are predictably different from those of a choice problem in which the option was unselectable from the start. They also observe that this attraction effect due to the disappearance of a decoy is likely a consequence of changes in the importance of decision criteria. They conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications of the research.
AmirOn, and LevavJonathan, (2008), “Choice Construction Versus Preference Construction: The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 45(April), 145–58.
2.
AndersonN.H., (1981), Foundations of Information Integration Theory.New York: Academic Press.
3.
ArielyDan, and WallstenThomas S., (1995), “Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(September), 223–32.
4.
BaronReuben M., and KennyDavid A., (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–82.
5.
BemDaryl, J., (1967), “Self-Perception: An Alternative Interpretation of the Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena,”Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200.
6.
BrennerLyle, RottenstreichYuval, and SoodSanjay, (1999), “Comparison, Grouping, and Preference,”Psychological Science, 10(May), 225–29.
7.
ChenHaipeng (Allan), and RaoAkshay R., (2002), “Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed Hopes,”Marketing Science, 21(2), 178–96.
8.
DharRavi, and GlazerRashi, (1996), “Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(September), 280–93.
9.
DoyleJohn, O'ConnorDavid, ReynoldGareth, and Bottom-leyPaul, (1999), “The Robustness of the Asymmetrically Dominated Effect: Buying Frames, Phantom Alternatives, and In-Store Purchases,”Psychology and Marketing, 16(May), 225–43.
10.
FarquharPeter H., and PratkanisAnthony R., (1987), “Phantom Choices: The Effects of Unavailable Alternatives on Decision Making,” Technical Report No. 87–2, Center for Decision Technology and Strategy Research, Carnegie Mellon University.
11.
HardieBruce G.S., JohnsonEric J., and FaderPeter S., (1993), “Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice,”Marketing Science, 12(Fall), 378–94.
12.
HeathTimothy B., and ChatterjeeSubimal, (1995), “Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence,”Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 268–84.
13.
HeathTimothy B., RyuGangseog, ChatterjeeSubimal, McCarthyMichael S., MothersbaughDavid L., MilbergSandra, (2000), “Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 291–308.
14.
HedgcockWilliam, and RaoAkshay R., (2009), “Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46(February), 1–13.
15.
HighhouseScott, (1996), “Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 68–76.
16.
HuberJoel, PayneJohn W., and PutoChristopher, (1982), “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.
17.
HuberJoel, and PutoChristopher, (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31–44.
18.
KahnBarbara, MooreWilliam L., and GlazerRashi, (1987), “Experiments in Constrained Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14(June), 96–113.
19.
KahnemanDaniel, KnetschJack L., and ThalerRichard H., (1991), “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,”Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(Winter), 193–206.
20.
KahnemanDaniel, and TverskyAmos, (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”Econometrica, 47(2), 263–91.
21.
KaplanJonas T., FreedmanJoshua, and IacoboniMarco, (2007), “Us Versus Them: Political Attitudes and Party Affiliation Influence Neural Response to Faces of Presidential Candidates,”Neuropsychologica, 45(3), 55–64.
22.
LuceMary Frances, (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 409–433.
23.
LuceMary Frances, BettmanJames R., and PayneJohn W., (2001), “Emotional Decisions: Trade-Off Difficulty and Coping in Consumer Choice,”Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1–209.
24.
LuceMary Frances, PayneJohn W., and BettmanJames R., (1999), “Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty and Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36(May), 143–59.
25.
LuceR.D., (1959), Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
26.
MarinucciCarla, and GledhillLynda, (2000), “Nader's Gains Seen as Real Threat to Gore,”San Francisco Chronicle, (October 23), A1.
27.
MellersBarbara, and BiaginiKaren, (1994), “Similarity and Choice,”Psychological Review, 101(3), 505–518.
28.
MinKyeong Sam, WestPatricia M., and HuberJoel, (2006), “Timing Is Everything: Communicating Product Unavailability,” working paper, Beacom School of Business, University of South Dakota.
29.
MishraSanjay, UmeshU.N., and StemDonald E.Jr., (1993), “Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information Processing Approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 30(August), 331–49.
30.
PanYigang, O'CurrySue, and PittsRobert, (1995), “The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(1), 85–101.
31.
ParducciA., (1974), “Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequency Analysis,” in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 2, CarteretteE.C., and FriedmanM.P, eds. New York: Academic Press, 127–41.
32.
ParducciA., (1995), Happiness, Pleasure and Judgment: The Contextual Theory and Its Applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33.
ParkJongwon, and KimJungkeun, (2005), “The Effects of Decoys on Preference Shifts: The Role of Attractiveness and Providing Justification,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 94–107.
34.
PettiboneJonathan C., and WedellDouglas H., (2000), “Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects Across Judgment and Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 300–328.
35.
PratkanisAnthony R., and FarquharPeter H., (1992), “A Brief History of Research on Phantom Alternatives: Evidence for Seven Empirical Generalizations About Phantoms,”Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 103–122.
36.
RaoAkshay R., and MonroeKent B., (1989), “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 351–57.
37.
SamuelsonWilliam, and ZeckhauserRichard, (1988), “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
38.
SimonsonItamar, (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–74.
39.
TverskyAmos, (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,”Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–99.
40.
TverskyAmos, and SimonsonItamar, (1993), “Context-Dependent Preferences,”Management Science, 39(10), 1179–89.
41.
WedellDouglas, H., (1991), “Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(July), 767–78.
42.
WedellDouglas H., and PettiboneJ.C., (1996), “Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 326–44.
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.
