IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v164y2021icp147-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Reich, Taly
  • Savary, Jennifer
  • Kupor, Daniella

Abstract

Most decision-making research examines static choice sets, with fixed options presented all at once. In contrast, people often make decisions from dynamic choice sets, in which new alternatives arise during the decision process. We show that compared to a static choice set, a dynamic choice set can systematically affect preferences, even when the final choice is from an identical set of options. Moreover, dynamic presentation can have opposite effects on preferences. To explain these patterns we propose a unified theory based on perceived variance of the attribute distribution. When dynamic presentation increases the perceived variance of a focal attribute, preferences shift towards the option that is best on that attribute. In contrast, when dynamic presentation reduces perceived variance of a focal attribute, preferences shift towards the option that is best on a non-focal attribute. Five studies examine this proposal using asymmetrically dominated and compromise choice sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Reich, Taly & Savary, Jennifer & Kupor, Daniella, 2021. "Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 147-157.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:164:y:2021:i:c:p:147-157
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597821000339
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.03.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Mintz, Alex & Geva, Nehemia & Redd, Steven B. & Carnes, Amy, 1997. "The Effect of Dynamic and Static Choice Sets on Political Decision Making: An Analysis Using the Decision Board Platform," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 553-566, September.
    3. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    4. Jonathan Levav & Nicholas Reinholtz & Claire Lin, 2012. "The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 585-599.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    6. Bao, Yongchuan & Bao, Yeqing & Sheng, Shibin, 2011. "Motivating purchase of private brands: Effects of store image, product signatureness, and quality variation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 220-226, February.
    7. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    8. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    9. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Dhar, Ravi & Sherman, Steven J, 1996. "The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(3), pages 193-203, December.
    12. Fischer, Gregory W., 1995. "Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 252-266, June.
    13. Catherine W. M. Yeung & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Attribute Evaluability and the Range Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 363-369, December.
    14. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
    15. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    16. Verena Tiefenbeck & Lorenz Goette & Kathrin Degen & Vojkan Tasic & Elgar Fleisch & Rafael Lalive & Thorsten Staake, 2018. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1458-1476, March.
    17. Basu, Shankha & Savani, Krishna, 2017. "Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 76-91.
    18. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Pandelaere & B. Briers, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: Numerosity Effects in Option Comparisons," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 11/712, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    2. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    3. Basu, Shankha & Savani, Krishna, 2017. "Choosing one at a time? Presenting options simultaneously helps people make more optimal decisions than presenting options sequentially," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 76-91.
    4. Dale Griffin & Wendy Liu & Uzma Khan, 2005. "A New Look at Constructed Choice Processes," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 321-333, December.
    5. Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2019. "Choosing with the worst in mind: A reference-dependent model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 631-652.
    6. Simonson, Itamar, 2007. "Will I Like A "Medium" Pillow? Another Look At Constructed And Inherent Preferences," Research Papers 1977r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    8. Ronayne, David & Brown, Gordon D.A., 2016. "Multi-attribute decision by sampling: An account of the attraction, comprimise and similarity effects," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1124, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    9. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    10. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    11. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    12. Ola Andersson & Jim Ingebretsen Carlson & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Differences Attract: An Experimental Study of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(639), pages 2671-2692.
    13. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    14. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:503-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    17. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    18. George D. Farmer & Wael El-Deredy & Andrew Howes & Paul A. Warren, 2015. "The attraction effect in motor planning decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 503-510, September.
    19. Barna Bakó & Gábor Neszveda & Linda Dezső, 2018. "When irrelevant alternatives do matter. The effect of focusing on loan decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 123-141, January.
    20. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    21. Quan Zheng & Xiajun Amy Pan & Janice E. Carrillo, 2019. "Probabilistic Selling for Vertically Differentiated Products with Salient Thinkers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 442-460, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:164:y:2021:i:c:p:147-157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.