IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v69y2016i10p4056-4064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How durable are compromise effects?

Author

Listed:
  • Lichters, Marcel
  • Müller, Holger
  • Sarstedt, Marko
  • Vogt, Bodo

Abstract

The compromise effect, according to which consumers tend to prefer options positioned as a compromise in a given set of extreme options, ranks among the most prominent context effects in marketing research. Tying in with the recent debate on the robustness of the effect, this research shows that the effect is robust in terms of durable goods when using real branded products, including real payments, the possibility of a pre-choice evaluation, and no-buy options. The results of a comparative analysis based on previous studies' effect sizes suggest that, compared to decisions on fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), the amount of cognitive effort spent on decisions regarding durables fosters the compromise effect. A second study supports this notion by showing that, regarding choices between durables, the compromise effect diminishes under a serotonin-deficiency-induced cognitive impairment, but its decrease is not as pronounced as with FMCG.

Suggested Citation

  • Lichters, Marcel & Müller, Holger & Sarstedt, Marko & Vogt, Bodo, 2016. "How durable are compromise effects?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4056-4064.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:10:p:4056-4064
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296316300662
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.039?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. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    3. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:513-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Petty, Richard E & Cacioppo, John T & Schumann, David, 1983. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(2), pages 135-146, September.
    8. Alexander Chernev, 2005. "Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(2), pages 213-223, September.
    9. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    10. 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.
    11. Drolet, Aimee, 2002. "Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change's Sake," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 293-305, December.
    12. Mehdi Mourali & Ulf Bckenholt & Michel Laroche, 2007. "Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 234-247, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Francisca Sinn & Sandra Milberg & Leonardo Epstein & Ronald Goodstein, 2007. "Compromising the compromise effect: Brands matter," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 223-236, December.
    15. Bettman, James R. & Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W., 1990. "A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 111-139, February.
    16. Ahearne, Michael & Gruen, Thomas & Saxton, M. Kim, 2000. "When the Product is Complex, Does the Advertisement's Conclusion Matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 55-62, April.
    17. Koc, Erdogan & Boz, Hakan, 2014. "Psychoneurobiochemistry of tourism marketing," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 140-148.
    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. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Braga, Jacinto & Humphrey, Steven J. & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Market experience eliminates some anomalies--and creates new ones," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 401-416, May.
    23. Alistair Munro & Danail Popov, 2013. "A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 335-348, September.
    24. Langner, Tobias & Krengel, Martin, 2013. "The mere categorization effect for complex products: The moderating role of expertise and affect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 924-932.
    25. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    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. 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.
    28. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    29. Pan, Yigang & Lehmann, Donald R, 1993. "The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 76-86, June.
    30. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Lichters, Marcel & Wackershauser, Verena & Han, Shixing & Vogt, Bodo, 2019. "On the applicability of the BDM mechanism in product evaluation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-7.
    3. 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.
    4. Bag, Sujoy & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Chan, Felix T.S., 2019. "Predicting the consumer's purchase intention of durable goods: An attribute-level analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 408-419.
    5. Pravesh Kumar Padamwar & Jagrook Dawra & Vinay Kumar Kalakbandi, 2018. "Range effect on extremeness aversion," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 45(4), pages 345-355, December.
    6. Alexander Dilger & Thomas Gehrig & Marko Sarstedt, 2019. "(Ir)Rationality of decisions in business research and practice: introduction to the special issue," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, April.
    7. Im, Changkuk & Lee, Jinkwon, 2022. "On the fragility of third-party punishment: The context effect of a dominated risky investment option," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    8. Kühn, Frauke & Lichters, Marcel & Krey, Nina, 2020. "The touchy issue of produce: Need for touch in online grocery retailing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 244-255.
    9. 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).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Marcel Lichters & Paul Bengart & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2017. "What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 127-138, March.
    4. 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.
    5. K. Sivakumar, 2016. "A unified conceptualization of the attraction effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 39-58, June.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Marco Marini & Alessandro Ansani & Fabio Paglieri, 2020. "Attraction comes from many sources: Attentional and comparative processes in decoy effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 704-726, September.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:704-726 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    16. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    17. 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.
    18. 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, vol. 8(2), pages 289-351, June.
    19. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    20. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    21. 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.

    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:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:10:p:4056-4064. 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/jbusres .

    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.