IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2509.13887.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can the decoy effect increase cooperation in networks? An experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Cerrone
  • Francesco Feri
  • Anita Gantner
  • Paolo Pin

Abstract

This paper investigates whether the decoy effect - specifically the attraction effect - can foster cooperation in social networks. In a lab experiment, we show that introducing a dominated option increases the selection of the target choice, especially in early decisions. The effect is stronger in individual settings but persists in networks despite free-riding incentives, with variation depending on the decision-maker's strategic position.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Cerrone & Francesco Feri & Anita Gantner & Paolo Pin, 2025. "Can the decoy effect increase cooperation in networks? An experiment," Papers 2509.13887, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2509.13887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.13887
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Wilfred Amaldoss & James R. Bettman & John W. Payne, 2008. "—Biased but Efficient: An Investigation of Coordination Facilitated by Asymmetric Dominance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 903-921, 09-10.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. Chong, Juin-Kuan & Ho, Teck-Hua & Camerer, Colin, 2016. "A generalized cognitive hierarchy model of games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 257-274.
    3. Ayala Arad & Benjamin Bachi & Amnon Maltz, 2023. "On the relevance of irrelevant strategies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 1142-1184, November.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Giarlotta, Alfio & Petralia, Angelo & Watson, Stephen, 2023. "Context-sensitive rationality: Choice by salience," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2010. "Rational indecisive choice," MPRA Paper 25481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2017. "A Model of Focusing in Political Choice," CEPR Discussion Papers 12407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. 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.
    11. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    12. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    13. David M. Harrison & Kimberly F. Luchtenberg & Michael J. Seiler, 2023. "Improving Mortgage Default Collection Efforts by Employing the Decoy Effect," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 840-860, May.
    14. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    15. Belton, Cameron A. & Lunn, Peter D., 2020. "Smart choices? An experimental study of smart meters and time-of-use tariffs in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    16. Jiangbo Yu, 2022. "An elementary mechanism for simultaneously modeling discrete decisions and decision times," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 215-245, July.
    17. Thomas Otter & Joe Johnson & Jörg Rieskamp & Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & Adele Diederich & J. Hutchinson & Steven MacEachern & Shiling Ruan & Jim Townsend, 2008. "Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 255-267, December.
    18. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. 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.
    20. Bogard, Jonathan E. & Reiff, Joseph S. & Caruso, Eugene M. & Hershfield, Hal E., 2024. "Social inferences from choice context: Dominated options can engender distrust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2509.13887. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.