IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gbl/wpaper/2014-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing the strength and robustness of the attraction effect in consumer decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Crosetto, P.
  • Gaudeul, A.

Abstract

We report the results of an original experiment that was designed to test the strength and robustness of the attraction effect. Rather than the usual simple tests for this effect, we consider a conceptually simple consumer purchasing task where alternatives are however difficult to evaluate. For the attraction effect to be observed, the consumer must go through two steps: the first is to find out that two or more options are comparable, which leads him to exclude the dominated alternatives. The second is to favor the dominant option over those that are not comparable. Our experiment allows us to determine whether and how many individuals stop before each of those two steps. The results confirm the existence of an attraction effect in our setting, but the effect is not strong. Indeed, only a minority of subjects perform the second step. The effect is not robust to introducing larger differences in prices among options and to widening the range of options to choose from. We conclude by showing that our subjects would benefit from relying more on performing asymmetric dominance editing rather than on their skills in the purchasing task.

Suggested Citation

  • Crosetto, P. & Gaudeul, A., 2014. "Testing the strength and robustness of the attraction effect in consumer decision making," Working Papers 2014-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    • Handle: RePEc:gbl:wpaper:2014-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gael.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/sites/gael/files/doc-recherche/WP/A2014/gael2014-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Sugden, 2004. "The Opportunity Criterion: Consumer Sovereignty Without the Assumption of Coherent Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1014-1033, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    4. Spiegler, Ran, 2014. "Bounded Rationality and Industrial Organization," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199334261.
    5. Glenn Ellison, 2005. "A Model of Add-On Pricing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 585-637.
    6. Robert Sugden, 2005. "Spontaneous Order," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare, chapter 1, pages 1-9, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Annamaria Lusardi, 2008. "Financial Literacy: An Essential Tool for Informed Consumer Choice?," NFI Working Papers 2008-WP-13, Indiana State University, Scott College of Business, Networks Financial Institute.
    8. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Robert E. Krider & Priya Raghubir & Aradhna Krishna, 2001. "Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 405-425, March.
    11. Ernst R. Berndt & Bronwyn H. Hall & Robert E. Hall & Jerry A. Hausman, 1974. "Estimation and Inference in Nonlinear Structural Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 3, number 4, pages 653-665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2009. "Search, Obfuscation, and Price Elasticities on the Internet," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 427-452, March.
    13. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2010. "Why Does the Law of One Price Fail? An Experiment on Index Mutual Funds," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1405-1432, April.
    14. Chris M. Wilson & Catherine Waddams Price, 2010. "Do consumers switch to the best supplier?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(4), pages 647-668, October.
    15. Friedman, Daniel, 1998. "Monty Hall's Three Doors: Construction and Deconstruction of a Choice Anomaly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 933-946, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Mitchell, Olivia S. & Utkus, Stephen P. (ed.), 2004. "Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199273393.
    18. Zeithaml, Valarie A, 1982. "Consumer Response to In-Store Price Information Environments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 357-369, March.
    19. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, December.
    20. Michele Piccione & Ran Spiegler, 2012. "Price Competition Under Limited Comparability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 97-135.
    21. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    22. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2003. "Choosing the Wrong Calling Plan? Ignorance and Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 297-310, March.
    23. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    24. Carlin, Bruce I., 2009. "Strategic price complexity in retail financial markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 278-287, March.
    25. Alexia Gaudeul & Robert Sugden, 2012. "Spurious Complexity and Common Standards in Markets for Consumer Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 79(314), pages 209-225, April.
    26. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    27. KalaycI, Kenan & Potters, Jan, 2011. "Buyer confusion and market prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 14-22, January.
    28. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    29. 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.
    30. Cynthia Schuck-Paim & Lorena Pompilio & Alex Kacelnik, 2004. "State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-1, November.
    31. Sumit Agarwal & Gene Amromin & Itzhak Ben-David & Souphala Chomsisengphet & Douglas D. Evanoff, 2010. "Learning to Cope: Voluntary Financial Education and Loan Performance during a Housing Crisis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 495-500, May.
    32. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2006. "Paying Not to Go to the Gym," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 694-719, June.
    33. 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.
    34. 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. Gotfredsen, Andreas & Nielsen, Carsten S. & Sebald, Alexander C. & Webb, Edward J.D., 2021. "Manipulating perception: The effect of product similarity on valuations and markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 263-286.
    2. Crosetto, Paolo & Gaudeul, Alexia, 2016. "A monetary measure of the strength and robustness of the attraction effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 38-43.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2014. "Choosing whether to compete: Price and format competition with consumer confusion," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-026, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "Do Consumers Take Advantage of Common Pricing Standards? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2126-2143, May.
    5. Ernst Fehr & Keyu Wu, 2021. "Obfuscation in competitive markets," ECON - Working Papers 391, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Feb 2023.
    6. Abeler, Johannes & Jäger, Simon, 2013. "Complex Tax Incentives: An Experimental Investigation," IZA Discussion Papers 7373, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2011. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2014. "Choosing whether to compete: Price and format competition with consumer confusion," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-026, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2017. "Choosing not to compete: Can firms maintain high prices by confusing consumers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 897-922, December.
    4. Ioana Chioveanu & Jidong Zhou, 2013. "Price Competition with Consumer Confusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2450-2469, November.
    5. Lunn, Pete & Somerville, Jason J., 2015. "Surplus Identification with Non-Linear Returns," Papers WP522, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    6. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    7. Timothy J. Richards & Gordon J. Klein & Celine Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, 2020. "Strategic Obfuscation and Retail Pricing," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(4), pages 859-889, December.
    8. Ernst Fehr & Keyu Wu, 2021. "Obfuscation in competitive markets," ECON - Working Papers 391, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Feb 2023.
    9. Arno Apffelstaedt & Lydia Mechtenberg, 2021. "Competition for Context-Sensitive Consumers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2828-2844, May.
    10. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Yiquan Gu & Tobias Wenzel, 2014. "Strategic Obfuscation and Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 632-660, December.
    12. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Yiquan Gu & Tobias Wenzel, 2017. "Consumer confusion, obfuscation and price regulation," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 64(2), pages 169-190, May.
    14. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    15. Friesen, Lana & Earl, Peter E., 2015. "Multipart tariffs and bounded rationality: An experimental analysis of mobile phone plan choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 239-253.
    16. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Behavioral Consumers in Industrial Organization: An Overview," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 247-258, November.
    17. Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "Do Consumers Take Advantage of Common Pricing Standards? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2126-2143, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Bienenstock Sophie, 2018. "Utility Misperception in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-43, November.
    20. Huck, Steffen & Zhou, Jidong, 2011. "Consumer behavioural biases in competition: A survey," MPRA Paper 31794, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ASYMMETRIC DOMINANCE EDITING; ATTRACTION EFFECT; COMPARABILITY; CONSUMER CHOICE; EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS; PRICING FORMATS;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:gbl:wpaper:2014-04. 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: Adrien Hervouet (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inragfr.html .

    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.