Current Psychology

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 392–409 | Cite as

The Influence of Task Difficulty on Context Effect - Compromise and Attraction Effects

  • Chao-Feng Lee
  • Shih-Chieh Chuang
  • Chou-Kang Chiu
  • Kuo-Hao Lan
Article
First Online:
  • 344 Downloads

Abstract

Research in psychology finds strong context effects in consumer behavior and help consumer make up their mind from choice set when none of each option better than the others in all aspects. Context effect signifies that when evaluating a focal option, individuals take into consideration characteristics of other comparative alternatives rather than only the features of that focal alternative, complicating the decision-making process. The compromise effect and attraction effect (known together as context effect) explain the underlying motivations that cause consumers to choose the middle option and introduce an inferior option to make the originally dominated option more preferable. But past research on this domain has predominantly used an easy-to-count choice scenario (refers to the ease of using individual’s math skill on comparative attributes in the choice task) which is not ideally existed in real world situation. In real world purchasing situations, most of the time consumers become confused by a variety of products presented with irregular pricing, packaging or attributes which are apparently difficult to compare by math skill. This paper aim to examine “When the level of difficulty changed while processing the comparative task on the context of a choice set, how does this influence the resultant occurrence of context effect?” Results from four experiments demonstrate that both compromise and attraction effects decreased when the choice task become more difficult.

Keywords

Task difficulty, Context effect, Asymmetric attribute-weighting Compromise effect Attraction effect 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1989). Strategies for designing persuasive messages: Deductions from the resource matching hypothesis. In P. Cafferata & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 135–159). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswas, D., & Grau, S. L. (2008). Consumer choices under product option framing: loss aversion principles or sensitivity to price differentials? Psychology and Marketing, 25, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkmann, K., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2008). Does depression interfere with effort mobilization? effects of dysphoria and task difficulty on cardiovascular response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 146–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognitive approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, C.-C., & Liu, H.-H. (2008). Information format-option characteristics compatibility and the compromise effect. Psychology and Marketing, 25, 881–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng, Y.-H., Chuang, S.-C., Huang, M. C.-J., & Hsieh, W.-C. (2012). More than two choices: the influence of context on the framing effect. Current Psychology, 31, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chuang, S.-C., & Yen, H. (2007). The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coupey, E. (1994). Restructuring: constructive processing of information displays in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coupey, E., Irwin, J., & Payne, J. (1998). Product category familiarity and preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darmon, R. Y., & Rouzies, D. (1991). Internal validity assessment of conjoint estimated attribute importance weights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dhar, R., Menon, A., & Maach, B. (2004). Toward extending the compromise effect to complex buying contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 258–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drolet, A., Luce, M. F., & Simonson, I. (2009). When does choice reveal preference? moderators of heuristic versus goal-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frieze, I., & Weiner, B. (1971). Cue utilization and attributional judgments for success and failure. Journal of Personality, 39, 591–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garbarino, E. C., & Edell, J. A. (1997). Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: when person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gill, T. G., & Hicks, R. C. (2006). Task complexity and informing science: A synthesis. Information Sciences, 9, 1–30.Google Scholar
  24. Goodstein, R. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hackman, J. R. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadjimarcou, J., & Hu, M. (1999). Global product stereotypes and heuristic processing: the impact of ambient task complexity. Psychology and Marketing, 16, 583–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: the effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huber, J., Payne, J., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huber, V. L. (1985). Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy on performance of a heuristic task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynch, J. G., Chakravarti, D., & Mitra, A. (1991). Contrast effects in consumer judgments: changing mental representations or anchoring rating scales. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1990). The impact of distraction on the processing and category-based and attribute-based evaluations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mantel, S. P., & Kellaris, J. J. (2003). Cognitive determinants of consumers’ time perceptions: the impact of resources required and available. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagpal, A., & Krishnamurthy, P. (2007). Attribute conflict in consumer decision making: the role of task compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ornstein, R. E. (1969). On the perception of time. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  42. Park, C., & Lessig, V. (1977). Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park, Y. H., Ding, M., & Rao, V. R. (2008). Eliciting preference for complex products: A web-based upgrading method. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 562–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pavelchak, M. (1989). Piecemeal and category-based evaluation: An idiographic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pelham, B. W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation on judgment depends on the difficulty of the judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pelham, B. W., Sumarta, T. T., & Myaskovsky, L. (1994). The easy path from many to much: the numerosity heuristic. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources: resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.Google Scholar
  50. Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward understanding the attraction effect: the implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 520–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reinhard, M., & Dickhauser, O. (2009). Need for cognition, task difficulty, and the formation of performance expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1062–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scarabis, M., Florack, A., & Gosejohann, S. (2006). When consumers follow their feelings: the impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers’ choice. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 1015–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sheng, S. S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 591–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simon, A. F., Fagley, N. S., & Halleran, J. G. (2004). Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slaughter, J. E., Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2006). Context effects on group-based employee selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slaughter, J. E., Sinar, E. F., & Highhouse, S. (1999). Decoy effects and attribute-level inferences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 823–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Srinivasan, V., & Park, C. S. (1997). Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tansey, R., White, M., Long, R. G., & Smith, M. (1996). A comparison of log linear modeling and logistic regression in management research. Journal of Management, 22, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: the left digit effect in price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3, 358–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 767–778.Google Scholar
  69. Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao-Feng Lee
    • 1
  • Shih-Chieh Chuang
    • 1
  • Chou-Kang Chiu
    • 2
  • Kuo-Hao Lan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationNational Chung Cheng UniversityChia-Yi CountyTaiwan
  2. 2.National Taichung University of EducationTaichung CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations