IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/grewdp/012011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Präferenzwirkung nicht-verfügbarer Alternativen: Der Phantomeffekt

Author

Listed:
  • Pechtl, Hans

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Pechtl, Hans, 2011. "Die Präferenzwirkung nicht-verfügbarer Alternativen: Der Phantomeffekt," Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere 01/2011, University of Greifswald, Faculty of Law and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:grewdp:012011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/48879/1/658141015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Commentary on "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code" by Payne, Bettman and Schkade," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 273-275, December.
    2. Fitzsimons, Gavan J, 2000. "Consumer Response to Stockouts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 249-266, September.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1989. "Preference Reversal: Information-Processing Effect or Rational Non-transitive Choice?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(395), pages 140-151, Supplemen.
    4. Highhouse, Scott, 1996. "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 68-76, January.
    5. Itamar Simonson & Stephen Nowlis & Katherine Lemon, 1993. "The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower Price and Higher Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 357-377.
    6. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    7. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    8. Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 1988. "Information displays and preference reversals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Morris, Michael W. & Simonson, Itamar & Briley, Donnel A., 2000. "Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic vs. Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making," Research Papers 1607, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Shwarz, Norbert, 1999. "Defensible Preferences and the Public: Commentary on "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code" by Payne, Bettman and Schkade," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 271-272, December.
    11. Colman, Andrew M. & Pulford, Briony D. & Bolger, Fergus, 2007. "Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 193-206, November.
    12. Biehal, Gabriel & Chakravarti, Dipankar, 1982. "Information-Presentation Format and Learning Goals as Determinants of Consumers' Memory Retrieval and Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 431-441, March.
    13. Dhar, Ravi & Nowlis, Stephen M & Sherman, Steven J, 1999. "Comparison Effects on Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 293-306, December.
    14. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    15. Thomas Kramer & Ryall Carroll, 2009. "The effect of incidental out-of-stock options on preferences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 197-208, June.
    16. Lichtenstein, Donald R & Burton, Scot & Karson, Eric J, 1991. "The Effect of Semantic Cues on Consumer Perceptions of Reference Price Ads," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 380-391, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Briley, Donnel A & Morris, Michael W & Simonson, Itamar, 2000. "Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic versus Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 157-178, September.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Wedell, Douglas H. & Pettibone, Jonathan C., 1996. "Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 326-344, September.
    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. Huang, Yunhui & Zhang, Y. Charles, 2016. "The Out-of-Stock (OOS) Effect on Choice Shares of Available Options," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 13-24.
    2. 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.
    3. Coby Morvinski, 2022. "The effect of unavailable donation opportunities on donation choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 45-60, March.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    6. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Martin Adam & Michael Wessel & Alexander Benlian, 2019. "Of early birds and phantoms: how sold-out discounts impact entrepreneurial success in reward-based crowdfunding," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 545-560, June.
    10. Loibl, Cäzilia & Kraybill, David S. & DeMay, Sara Wackler, 2011. "Accounting for the role of habit in regular saving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 581-592, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Sowon Ahn & Juyoung Kim & Young-Won Ha, 2015. "Feedback weakens the attraction effect in repeated choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 449-459, December.
    13. Bonaccio, Silvia & Reeve, Charlie L., 2006. "Consideration of preference shifts due to relative attribute variability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 200-214, November.
    14. Min, Dong-Jun & Cunha, Marcus, 2019. "The influence of horizontal and vertical product attribute information on decision making under risk: The role of perceived competence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 174-183.
    15. Julien Milanesi, 2010. "Measuring demand for sanitation in developing countries: A new theoretical and methodological framework for contingent valuation surveys," Post-Print hal-00633288, HAL.
    16. Marek Kapera, 2022. "Learning own preferences through consumption," KAE Working Papers 2022-074, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    17. Stachtiaris, Spiros & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Klonaris, Stathis, 2011. "The "more is less" phenomenon in Contingent and Inferred valuation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    19. Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    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:zbw:grewdp:012011. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wwgrede.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.