IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transe/v144y2020ics1366554520308000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Feng
  • Du, Timon C.
  • Wei, Ying

Abstract

Internet shortens the distance between consumers and firms in a supply chain and facilitates firms to consider consumers’ behaviors when making business decisions. In this paper, we study the decoy effect on firms’ product proposition decisions under various circumstances. The decoy effect is the phenomenon whereby consumers change their preference between two options when presented with a third option that is less desirable. We examine the product propositions in a competitive supply chain adopting decoy effect from the perspectives of a high-end firm or a low-end firm, respectively. We also investigate impacts of consumers’ behavioral factors on the decoy effect, such as rationality, social influence, and loss-aversion preference. Further, we test whether decoys can be as effective online as they are offline, and effective in a monopolistic supply chain as well. A multi-agent system is built to conduct simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:144:y:2020:i:c:s1366554520308000
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.102154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554520308000
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102154?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. Guevara, C. Angelo & Fukushi, Mitsuyoshi, 2016. "Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 318-337.
    2. Currim, Imran S & Weinberg, Charles B & Wittink, Dick R, 1981. "Design of Subscription Programs for a Performing Arts Series," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(1), pages 67-75, June.
    3. Rand, William & Rust, Roland T., 2011. "Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 181-193.
    4. Ahn, Heinz & Vazquez Novoa, Nadia, 2016. "The decoy effect in relative performance evaluation and the debiasing role of DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 959-967.
    5. Timothy B. Heath & Subimal Chatterjee, 1995. "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence," Post-Print hal-00670480, HAL.
    6. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    7. Frank M. Bass & Trichy V. Krishnan & Dipak C. Jain, 1994. "Why the Bass Model Fits without Decision Variables," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 203-223.
    8. Potter, Richard E. & Beach, Lee Roy, 1994. "Decision Making When the Acceptable Options Become Unavailable," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 468-483, March.
    9. Zhang, Tao & Zhang, David, 2007. "Agent-based simulation of consumer purchase decision-making and the decoy effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 912-922, August.
    10. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    11. Opher Baron & Ming Hu & Sami Najafi-Asadolahi & Qu Qian, 2015. "Newsvendor Selling to Loss-Averse Consumers with Stochastic Reference Points," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 456-469, October.
    12. Hou, Yunzhang & Wang, Xiaoling & Wu, Yenchun Jim & He, Peixu, 2018. "How does the trust affect the topology of supply chain network and its resilience? An agent-based approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 229-241.
    13. Maurits C Kaptein & Robin Van Emden & Davide Iannuzzi, 2016. "Tracking the decoy: maximizing the decoy effect through sequential experimentation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.
    14. Firdausiyah, N. & Taniguchi, E. & Qureshi, A.G., 2019. "Modeling city logistics using adaptive dynamic programming based multi-agent simulation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 74-96.
    15. Yinghao Zhang & Karen Donohue & Tony Haitao Cui, 2016. "Contract Preferences and Performance for the Loss-Averse Supplier: Buyback vs. Revenue Sharing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1734-1754, June.
    16. Hong, Zhaofu & Wang, Hao & Yu, Yugang, 2018. "Green product pricing with non-green product reference," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-15.
    17. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
    18. Edward Bishop Smith & William Rand, 2018. "Simulating Macro-Level Effects from Micro-Level Observations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5405-5421, November.
    19. Tingliang Huang & Gad Allon & Achal Bassamboo, 2013. "Bounded Rationality in Service Systems," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 263-279, May.
    20. 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..
    21. Peter M. Noble & Thomas S. Gruca, 1999. "Industrial Pricing: Theory and Managerial Practice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 435-454.
    22. Mohr, Peter N. C. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Rieskamp, Jörg, 2017. "Attraction Effect in Risky Choice Can Be Explained by Subjective Distance Between Choice Alternatives," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7, pages 1-10.
    23. Choi, Tsan-Ming & He, Yanyan, 2019. "Peer-to-peer collaborative consumption for fashion products in the sharing economy: Platform operations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 49-65.
    24. Tuan Q. Phan & David Godes, 2018. "The Evolution of Influence Through Endogenous Link Formation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 259-278, March.
    25. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    26. Heath, Timothy B & Chatterjee, Subimal, 1995. "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(3), pages 268-284, December.
    27. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    28. Gonzalez-Prieto, David & Sallan, Jose M. & Simo, Pep & Carrion, Raimon, 2013. "Effects of the addition of simple and double decoys on the purchasing process of airline tickets," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 39-45.
    29. Martin, Simon & Ouelhadj, Djamila & Beullens, Patrick & Ozcan, Ender & Juan, Angel A. & Burke, Edmund K., 2016. "A multi-agent based cooperative approach to scheduling and routing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(1), pages 169-178.
    30. Phelps, Joseph E. & Lewis, Regina & Mobilio, Lynne & Perry, David & Raman, Niranjan, 2004. "Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 333-348, December.
    31. Xuanming Su, 2008. "Bounded Rationality in Newsvendor Models," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 566-589, May.
    32. Peter M. Noble & Thomas S. Gruca, 1999. "Response to the Comments on “Industrial Pricing: Theory and Managerial Practice”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 458-459.
    33. Wei, Ying & Xiong, Sijia & Li, Feng, 2019. "Ordering bias with two reference profits: Exogenous benchmark and minimum requirement," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 229-250.
    34. Kathryn M. Sharpe & Richard Staelin & Joel Huber, 2008. "Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 406-422, April.
    35. 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.
    36. Francesca Gino & Gary Pisano, 2008. "Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 676-691, March.
    37. Dmitri Kuksov & Kangkang Wang, 2014. "The Bright Side of Loss Aversion in Dynamic and Competitive Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 693-711, September.
    38. Echenique, Federico & Saito, Kota & Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2018. "The perception-adjusted Luce model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 67-76.
    39. Chu, Junhong & Arce-Urriza, Marta & Cebollada-Calvo, José-Javier & Chintagunta, Pradeep K., 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Shopping Behavior Across Online and Offline Channels for Grocery Products: The Moderating Effects of Household and Product Characteristics," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 251-268.
    40. Wei, Ying & Li, Feng, 2020. "Omnichannel supply chain operations for luxury products with conspicuous consumers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    41. Jingjing Zhang & Gediminas Adomavicius & Alok Gupta & Wolfgang Ketter, 2020. "Consumption and Performance: Understanding Longitudinal Dynamics of Recommender Systems via an Agent-Based Simulation Framework," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 76-101, March.
    42. Hinterhuber, Andreas, 2016. "The six pricing myths that kill profits," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 71-83.
    43. Sheu, Jiuh-Biing & Choi, Tsan-Ming, 2019. "Extended consumer responsibility: Syncretic value-oriented pricing strategies for trade-in-for-upgrade programs," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 350-367.
    44. Ratneshwar, Srinivasan & Shocker, Allan D & Stewart, David W, 1987. "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 520-533, March.
    45. Ganesh, Jaishankar & Reynolds, Kristy E. & Luckett, Michael & Pomirleanu, Nadia, 2010. "Online Shopper Motivations, and e-Store Attributes: An Examination of Online Patronage Behavior and Shopper Typologies," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 106-115.
    46. Wu, Linhai & Liu, Pingping & Chen, Xiujuan & Hu, Wuyang & Fan, Xuesen & Chen, Yuhuan, 2020. "Decoy effect in food appearance, traceability, and price: Case of consumer preference for pork hindquarters," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    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. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2023. "This is what’s in store for you: How online social learning affects product positioning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Yuan, Yichao & Xiao, Tiaojun, 2023. "Revelation mechanism and decoy strategy for a supply chain with consumer's perceived substitutability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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. Linhai Wu & Pingping Liu & Xiujuan Chen & Wuyang Hu & Xuesen Fan, 2021. "Contents of product attributes and the decoy effect: A study on traceable pork from the perspective of consumer utility," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 974-984, June.
    2. Wu, Linhai & Liu, Pingping & Chen, Xiujuan & Hu, Wuyang & Fan, Xuesen & Chen, Yuhuan, 2020. "Decoy effect in food appearance, traceability, and price: Case of consumer preference for pork hindquarters," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    4. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    5. Wei, Ying & Xiong, Sijia & Li, Feng, 2019. "Ordering bias with two reference profits: Exogenous benchmark and minimum requirement," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 229-250.
    6. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Yuin Jeong & Sangheon Oh & Younah Kang & Sung-Hee Kim, 2021. "Impacts of Visualizations on Decoy Effects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Scholten, Marc, 2002. "Conflict-mediated choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 683-718, July.
    10. 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.
    11. K. Sivakumar, 2016. "A unified conceptualization of the attraction effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 39-58, June.
    12. Kaisa Herne, 1999. "The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-40, August.
    13. Mehran Spitmaan & Oihane Horno & Emily Chu & Alireza Soltani, 2019. "Combinations of low-level and high-level neural processes account for distinct patterns of context-dependent choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, October.
    14. Celedon, Paulina & Milberg, Sandra & Sinn, Francisca, 2013. "Attraction and superiority effects in the Chilean marketplace: Do they exist with real brands?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1780-1786.
    15. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia J., 2004. "Effect propensity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 156-174, November.
    16. Shih-Chieh Chuang & HsiuJu Yen, 2007. "The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 279-291, December.
    17. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    18. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    20. Slaughter, Jerel E. & Bagger, Jessica & Li, Andrew, 2006. "Context effects on group-based employee selection decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 47-59, 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:transe:v:144:y:2020:i:c:s1366554520308000. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600244/description#description .

    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.