IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v28y2007i6p658-677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do shared features of offered alternatives have an effect in consumer choice?

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Shu
  • Zheng, Rui
  • Li, Li-Bo

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Shu & Zheng, Rui & Li, Li-Bo, 2007. "Do shared features of offered alternatives have an effect in consumer choice?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 658-677, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:28:y:2007:i:6:p:658-677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(07)00003-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Li, Shu, 1996. "What is the price for utilizing deductive reasoning? A reply to generalized expectation maximizers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 355-358, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Li, Shu, 1994. "What Is the Role of Transparency in Cancellation?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 353-366, December.
    4. Birnbaum, Michael H. & McIntosh, William Ross, 1996. "Violations of Branch Independence in Choices between Gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 91-110, July.
    5. Li, Shu, 1995. "Is there a decision weight [pi]?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 453-463, August.
    6. 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..
    7. Li, Shu, 2003. "Violations of conjoint independence in binary choices: The equate-to-differentiate interpretation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 65-79, July.
    8. Li, Shu & Adams, Austin S., 1995. "Is There Something More Important behind Framing?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 216-219, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Özge Turut, 2013. "Differentiate or Imitate? The Role of Context-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 393-410, May.
    2. Liu, Zhenyuan & Han, Shuihua & Li, Chao & Gupta, Shivam & Sivarajah, Uthayasankar, 2022. "Leveraging customer engagement to improve the operational efficiency of social commerce start-ups," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 572-582.
    3. Su, Yin & Rao, Li-Lin & Li, Xingshan & Wang, Yong & Li, Shu, 2012. "From quality to quantity: The role of common features in consumer preference," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1043-1058.

    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. Li, Shu, 2003. "Violations of conjoint independence in binary choices: The equate-to-differentiate interpretation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 65-79, July.
    2. Li, Shu, 1998. "Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 133-153, February.
    3. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    4. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Trautmann, 2014. "Common consequence effects in pricing and choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 1-7, January.
    5. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:575-586 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Andreas Glöckner & Baiba Renerte & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 471-501, November.
    8. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köhler, Katrin, 2016. "Exchange asymmetries for bads? Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 231-241.
    9. Tao Lu & May Yuan & Chong (Alex) Wang & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang, 2022. "Histogram Distortion Bias in Consumer Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8963-8978, December.
    10. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2005. "Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1346-1358, September.
    11. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1999. "Nonlinear Decision Weights in Choice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 74-85, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Mandel, David R., 2001. "Gain-Loss Framing and Choice: Separating Outcome Formulations from Descriptor Formulations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 56-76, May.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:402-426 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Metzger, Lars Peter & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2019. "Non-cooperative games with prospect theory players and dominated strategies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 396-409.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    17. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    18. Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2012. "Separating response variability from structural inconsistency to test models of risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 402-426, July.
    19. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    20. Schmidt, Ulrich & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2010. "Common consequence effects with pricing data," Kiel Working Papers 1610, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    21. Kontek, Krzysztof & Birnbaum, Michael H., 2019. "The impact of middle outcomes on lottery valuations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 30-44.
    22. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:joepsy:v:28:y:2007:i:6:p:658-677. 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/joep .

    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.