IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/blg/journl/v18y2023i3p176-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Decoy Pricing Affect Purchasing Decisions?

Author

Listed:
  • KUBÍČKOVÁ Lea

    (Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic)

  • VESELÁ Lucie

    (Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic)

  • KORMAŇÁKOVÁ Marcela

    (Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic)

  • VEVERKOVÁ Ekaterina

    (Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the cognitive biases of decoy pricing, which has become the subject of interest of retail companies in recent years. The paper analyses the principles of the decoy effect with regard to consumer behaviour in the Czech Republic (which represents customers of the Eastern Europe). The analytical part of the paper focuses on examination of often irrational consumer decision-making process, with respect to age, gender, product group, and other factors. A combination of questionnaire survey (N=200) and interviews (N=32) was used. The results indicate a significant influence of the generation the consumer belongs to, further differences in decision-making according to gender, as well as differences in effects in various product categories. The findings may be utilised by companies considering the use of decoy pricing strategies in the Czech market.

Suggested Citation

  • KUBÍČKOVÁ Lea & VESELÁ Lucie & KORMAŇÁKOVÁ Marcela & VEVERKOVÁ Ekaterina, 2023. "How Does Decoy Pricing Affect Purchasing Decisions?," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 18(3), pages 176-197, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:blg:journl:v:18:y:2023:i:3:p:176-197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://magazines.ulbsibiu.ro/eccsf/RePEc/blg/journl/18312kubickova.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine Cole & Gilles Laurent & Aimee Drolet & Jane Ebert & Angela Gutchess & Raphaëlle Lambert-Pandraud & Etienne Mullet & Michael Norton & Ellen Peters, 2008. "Decision making and brand choice by older consumers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 355-365, December.
    2. Jackson, Vanessa & Stoel, Leslie & Brantley, Aquia, 2011. "Mall attributes and shopping value: Differences by gender and generational cohort," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-9.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Terry Connolly & Jochen Reb & Edgar E. Kausel, 2013. "Regret salience and accountability in the decoy effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(2), pages 136-149, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Kaisa Herne, 1999. "The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-40, August.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Georg D. Granic, 2023. "Does choice change preferences? An incentivized test of the mere choice effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 499-521, July.
    5. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2017. "A Model of Focusing in Political Choice," CEPR Discussion Papers 12407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    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. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    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. 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.
    13. Jiang Zhiying & Suman Ann Thomas & Chu Junhong, 2025. "Are brand preferences inherent, constructed, or a mixture of both? A memory-based dual-process model," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 595-621, February.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:503-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    16. 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.
    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. Pronobesh Banerjee & Krishanu Rakshit & Sanjay Mishra & Tamara Masters, 2024. "Attribute ratings and their impact on attraction and compromise effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 439-450, September.
    19. Karlson Pfannschmidt & Pritha Gupta & Bjorn Haddenhorst & Eyke Hullermeier, 2019. "Learning Context-Dependent Choice Functions," Papers 1901.10860, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    20. Crosetto, Paolo & Gaudeul, Alexia, 2016. "A monetary measure of the strength and robustness of the attraction effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 38-43.
    21. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2012. "Probabilistic choice and stochastic dominance," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 59-83, 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:blg:journl:v:18:y:2023:i:3:p:176-197. 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: Mihaela Herciu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feulbro.html .

    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.