IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/pjemad/309270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decoy Effect and Student Preference with regard to USB Flash Drives

Author

Listed:
  • Alcaide, Mark Angelo R.
  • Arapoc, Jefferson A.

Abstract

Standard economic theory assumes that individuals make decisions that are consistent across different choice situations. Behavioral economics challenges the standard economic theory account of individual behavior. This budding field suggests that consumer preference for one option over another changes as a result of adding another option. This study aims to determine the effect of a decoy option on consumer preference for USB flash drives. A quasi-experiment was conducted among 100 UPLB students wherein each respondent was initially asked to choose between two kinds of flash drive. The researcher then adds a decoy option to test if the respondent will change his initial preference. To investigate whether a decoy option causes preference reversal, Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives was verified through Hausman specification test. Results show that the introduction of a decoy option results in inconsistencies in the choice of several respondents. This implies that the standard economic theory account of individual behavior may not always hold given that consumer’s preferences are based on what is on offer rather than on absolute preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Alcaide, Mark Angelo R. & Arapoc, Jefferson A., 2015. "Decoy Effect and Student Preference with regard to USB Flash Drives," Journal of Economics, Management & Agricultural Development, Journal of Economics, Management & Agricultural Development (JEMAD), vol. 1(2), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pjemad:309270
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309270/files/Decoy%20Effect%20and%20Student%20Preference%20with%20regard%20to%20USB%20Flash%20Drives.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309270?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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. Jonathan C. Pettibone, 2012. "Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 513-523, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Cynthia Schuck-Paim & Lorena Pompilio & Alex Kacelnik, 2004. "State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-1, November.
    4. Wilfred Amaldoss & James R. Bettman & John W. Payne, 2008. "—Biased but Efficient: An Investigation of Coordination Facilitated by Asymmetric Dominance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 903-921, 09-10.
    5. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Kobi Kriesler & Shmuel Nitzan, 2008. "Is Context-Based Choice due to Context-Dependent Preferences?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 65-80, February.
    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. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2013. "Imperfect Attention and Menu Evaluations," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-98, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    15. 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.
    16. Gomez, Yolanda & Martínez-Molés, Víctor & Urbano, Amparo & Vila, Jose, 2016. "The attraction effect in mid-involvement categories: An experimental economics approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5082-5088.
    17. Yuin Jeong & Sangheon Oh & Younah Kang & Sung-Hee Kim, 2021. "Impacts of Visualizations on Decoy Effects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1, December.
    18. Doron Sonsino, 2010. "The irrelevant-menu affect on valuation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 309-333, September.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:513-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. 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).
    21. Pettibone, Jonathan C. & Wedell, Douglas H., 2000. "Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 300-328, March.

    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:ags:pjemad:309270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceuplph.html .

    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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceuplph.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.