IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v51y2015icp168-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Shin-Shin
  • Chang, Chung-Chau
  • Liao, Yen-Yi

Abstract

The attraction effect refers to a situation in which adding an inferior alternative to a choice set increases the share of the relatively dominating alternative. This research posits that decision task type affect the attraction effect. People usually seek justification for their decisions. In a selection (or rejection) task, they are more likely to emphasize the positive (or negative) features of each option. The addition of an asymmetrically dominated decoy to a binary set of options undoubtedly provides an extra positive feature for the dominant option, and therefore induces a greater attraction effect. Contrarily, in a rejection task condition, the decoy in the trinary set seems to be the worst option and would be eliminated first, and the remaining comparison is identical with the original binary condition. Therefore, the attraction effect may decrease. Besides, the decision task type interacts with the construal level to affect the attraction effect. Specifically, a low construal level, compared with a high construal level, dampens the attraction effect to a greater extent in a rejection task than in a selection task. Results from three experiments support the proposed hypotheses.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:51:y:2015:i:c:p:168-182
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701500121X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2015.09.007?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. Ganzach, Yoav, 1995. "Attribute Scatter and Decision Outcome: Judgment versus Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 113-122, April.
    2. Anish Nagpal & Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy, 2008. "Attribute Conflict in Consumer Decision Making: The Role of Task Compatibility," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(5), pages 696-705, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy & Anish Nagpal, 2010. "Making choices under conflict: The impact of decision frames," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 37-51, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Sen, Sankar, 1998. "Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(1), pages 64-77, June.
    7. Heller, Daniel & Levin, Irwin P. & Goransson, Martin, 2002. "Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1194-1213, November.
    8. Terry Connolly & Jochen Reb, 2012. "Regret aversion in reason-based choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 35-51, July.
    9. Yaniv, Ilan & Schul, Yaacov, 2000. "Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status quo," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 293-313, July.
    10. Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward, 2004. "Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 114-128, March.
    11. Jonathan Levav & Ran Kivetz & Cecile K. Cho, 2010. "Motivational Compatibility and Choice Conflict," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 429-442, October.
    12. Levin, Irwin P. & Huneke, Mary E. & Jasper, J. D., 2000. "Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 171-193, July.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Ordonez, Lisa D. & Benson, Lehman & Beach, Lee Roy, 1999. "Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 63-80, April.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Shih-Chieh Chuang & HsiuJu Yen, 2007. "The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 279-291, December.
    19. Juliano Laran & Keith Wilcox, 2011. "Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Preference-Inconsistent Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 229-241.
    20. Susan Jung Grant & Alice M. Tybout, 2008. "The Effect of Temporal Frame on Information Considered in New Product Evaluation: The Role of Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(6), pages 897-913, February.
    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. 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.
    23. 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.
    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. Gaudeul, Alexia & Crosetto, Paolo, 2019. "Fast then slow: A choice process explanation for the attraction effect," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 386, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    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. 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.
    4. Mourali, Mehdi & Nagpal, Anish, 2013. "The powerful select, the powerless reject: Power's influence in decision strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 874-880.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Attraction effect; Decision task type; Construal level;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising

    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:joepsy:v:51:y:2015:i:c:p:168-182. 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/joep .

    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.