IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v34y2007i2p234-247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi Mourali
  • Ulf Bckenholt
  • Michel Laroche

Abstract

This article examines the influence of consumers' motivational orientations on their susceptibilities to context effects. Prevention-focused consumers were found to be more sensitive to the compromise effect and less sensitive to the attraction effect than promotion-focused consumers. In addition, the effects of promotion and prevention motivations were amplified when consumers were asked to justify their choices. Finally, we found that products associated with a prevention concern are more attractive when presented as compromise than asymmetrically dominant options, whereas products associated with a promotion concern are more attractive when presented as asymmetrically dominant options than compromise options. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:34:y:2007:i:2:p:234-247
    DOI: 10.1086/519151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/519151
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/519151?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. K. Sivakumar, 2016. "A unified conceptualization of the attraction effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 39-58, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Kikyoung Park & Gangseog Ryu, 2018. "The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Individuals’ Donation Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Lim, Jooyoung & Hahn, Minhi, 2020. "Regulatory focus and decision rules: Are prevention-focused consumers regret minimizers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 343-350.
    6. Kim, Jungkeun & Spence, Mark T. & Marshall, Roger, 2018. "The Color of Choice: The Influence of Presenting Product Information in Color on the Compromise Effect," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 167-185.
    7. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Jungkeun Kim, 2017. "The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes on the compromise effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 397-409, September.
    9. 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.
    10. (Gina) Cui, Yuanyuan & (Sam) Kim, Seongseop & Kim, Jungkeun, 2021. "Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 641-652.
    11. Wang, Xingyuan & Liu, Yun & Wang, Shuyang & Chen, Haipeng (Allan), 2022. "Keep it vague? New product preannouncement, regulatory focus, and word-of-mouth," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    12. Mosteller, Jill & Poddar, Amit, 2017. "To Share and Protect: Using Regulatory Focus Theory to Examine the Privacy Paradox of Consumers' Social Media Engagement and Online Privacy Protection Behaviors," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 27-38.
    13. Chien-Huang Lin & Ming Chen, 2019. "The icon matters: how design instability affects download intention of mobile apps under prevention and promotion motivations," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 211-229, March.
    14. 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).
    15. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    16. Liangyan Wang & Brian Wu & Cornelia Pechmann & Yitong Wang, 2023. "The performance effects of creative imitation on original products: Evidence from lab and field experiments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 171-196, January.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    More about this item

    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:oup:jconrs:v:34:y:2007:i:2:p:234-247. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.