IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i23p12674-d692726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impacts of Visualizations on Decoy Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Yuin Jeong

    (Management of Technology, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Sangheon Oh

    (Department of IT Convergence, Dong-eui University, 176 Eomgwang-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 47340, Korea)

  • Younah Kang

    (Underwood International College, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea)

  • Sung-Hee Kim

    (Department of Industrial ICT Engineering, Dong-eui University, 176 Eomgwang-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan 47340, Korea)

Abstract

The decoy effect is a well-known, intriguing decision-making bias that is often exploited by marketing practitioners to steer consumers towards a desired purchase outcome. It demonstrates that an inclusion of an alternative in the choice set can alter one’s preference among the other choices. Although this decoy effect has been universally observed in the real world and also studied by many economists and psychologists, little is known about how to mitigate the decoy effect and help consumers make informed decisions. In this study, we conducted two experiments: a quantitative experiment with crowdsourcing and a qualitative interview study—first, the crowdsourcing experiment to see if visual interfaces can help alleviate this cognitive bias. Four types of visualizations, one-sided bar chart, two-sided bar charts, scatterplots, and parallel-coordinate plots, were evaluated with four different types of scenarios. The results demonstrated that the two types of bar charts were effective in decreasing the decoy effect. Second, we conducted a semi-structured interview to gain a deeper understanding of the decision-making strategies while making a choice. We believe that the results have an implication on showing how visualizations can have an impact on the decision-making process in our everyday life.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12674-:d:692726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12674/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12674/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    3. Ian J. Bateman & Alistair Munro & Gregory L. Poe, 2008. "Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 115-127.
    4. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    5. Chunhua Wu & Koray Cosguner, 2020. "Profiting from the Decoy Effect: A Case Study of an Online Diamond Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 974-995, September.
    6. Crossley, Craig D. & Highhouse, Scott, 2005. "Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 255-268, April.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:7:p:506-515 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ariely, Dan & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1995. "Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 223-232, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. (Gina) Cui, Yuanyuan & (Sam) Kim, Seongseop & Kim, Jungkeun, 2021. "Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 641-652.
    14. 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.
    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. Sophia Fischer & Katja Soyez & Sebastian Gurtner, 2015. "Adapting Scott and Bruce’s General Decision-Making Style Inventory to Patient Decision Making in Provider Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 525-532, May.
    17. Wedell, Douglas H. & Pettibone, Jonathan C., 1996. "Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 326-344, September.
    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. 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. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    3. Bonaccio, Silvia & Reeve, Charlie L., 2006. "Consideration of preference shifts due to relative attribute variability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 200-214, November.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Sürücü, Oktay & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 102-122.
    8. Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Radka Kubalová & Martin Klepek, 2022. "Brand Presence in Decision-Making Involving Decoys," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 34(1), pages 9-24.
    11. Scholten, Marc, 2002. "Conflict-mediated choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 683-718, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    16. Devetag, M Giovanna, 1999. "From Utilities to Mental Models: A Critical Survey on Decision Rules and Cognition in Consumer Choice," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 8(2), pages 289-351, June.
    17. 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.
    18. K. Sivakumar, 2016. "A unified conceptualization of the attraction effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 39-58, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Kaisa Herne, 1999. "The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-40, August.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12674-:d:692726. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.