IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v249y2016i3p959-967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The decoy effect in relative performance evaluation and the debiasing role of DEA

Author

Listed:
  • Ahn, Heinz
  • Vazquez Novoa, Nadia

Abstract

There is overwhelming evidence that performance ratings and evaluations are context dependent. A special case of such context effects is the decoy effect, which implies that the inclusion of a dominated alternative can influence the preference for non-dominated alternatives. Adapting the well-known experimental setting from the area of consumer behavior to the performance evaluation context of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), an experiment was conducted. The results show that adding a dominated decision making unit (DMU) to the set of DMUs augments the attractiveness of certain dominating DMUs and that DEA efficiency scores discriminating between efficient and inefficient DMUs serve as an appropriate debiasing procedure. The mention of the existence of slacks for distinguishing between strong and weak efficient DMUs also contributes to reducing the decoy effect, but it is also associated to other unexpected effects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:959-967
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715006797
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.045?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. 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. 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.
    3. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 2001. "Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 349-410, December.
    4. Page, Lionel & Page, Katie, 2010. "Last shall be first: A field study of biases in sequential performance evaluation on the Idol series," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 186-198, February.
    5. Highhouse, Scott, 1996. "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 68-76, January.
    6. Ryan Hamilton & Jiewen Hong & Alexander Chernev, 2007. "Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 187-199, June.
    7. Chenhall, Robert H. & Euske, K.J., 2007. "The role of management control systems in planned organizational change: An analysis of two organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 601-637.
    8. Sebastian Fuchs & Marko Sarstedt, 2010. "Is there a tacit acceptance of student samples in marketing and management research?," International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 62-72.
    9. Young-Won Ha & Sehoon Park & Hee-Kyung Ahn, 2009. "The Influence of Categorical Attributes on Choice Context Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 463-477.
    10. Mortensen, Tony & Fisher, Richard & Wines, Graeme, 2012. "Students as surrogates for practicing accountants: Further evidence," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 251-265.
    11. William B. Tayler & Robert J. Bloomfield, 2011. "Norms, Conformity, and Controls," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 753-790, June.
    12. Hall, Matthew, 2008. "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 141-163.
    13. Claus Holm & Pall Rikhardsson, 2008. "Experienced and Novice Investors: Does Environmental Information Influence Investment Allocation Decisions?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 537-557.
    14. Ahn, Heinz & Neumann, Ludmila & Vazquez Novoa, Nadia, 2012. "Measuring the relative balance of DMUs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 221(2), pages 417-423.
    15. 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.
    16. Cook, Wade D. & Seiford, Larry M., 2009. "Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 1-17, January.
    17. 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.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Peterson, Robert A, 2001. "On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 450-461, December.
    20. Burney, Laurie L. & Henle, Christine A. & Widener, Sally K., 2009. "A path model examining the relations among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organizational justice, and extra- and in-role performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 305-321, April.
    21. Dyson, R. G. & Allen, R. & Camanho, A. S. & Podinovski, V. V. & Sarrico, C. S. & Shale, E. A., 2001. "Pitfalls and protocols in DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 245-259, July.
    22. Mortenson, Michael J. & Doherty, Neil F. & Robinson, Stewart, 2015. "Operational research from Taylorism to Terabytes: A research agenda for the analytics age," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 583-595.
    23. 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.
    24. Tony Mortensen & Richard Fisher & Graeme Wines, 2012. "Students as surrogates for practicing accountants: Further evidence," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 251-265, December.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. William W. Cooper & Lawrence M. Seiford & Kaoru Tone, 2007. "Data Envelopment Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-0-387-45283-8, November.
    28. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    29. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    30. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    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. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    2. 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).
    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).

    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. 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.
    2. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Wen Mao & Harmen Oppewal, 2012. "The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 339-351, March.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:513-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2013. "The impact of promotions on consumer choices and preferences in out-of-stock situations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 587-598.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    15. 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.
    16. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    22. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral OR; Decoy effect; Data Envelopment Analysis; Debiasing procedure; Performance measurement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:959-967. 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/eor .

    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.