, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 345–355 | Cite as

Range effect on extremeness aversion

  • Pravesh Kumar PadamwarEmail author
  • Jagrook Dawra
  • Vinay Kumar Kalakbandi
Research Article


Extremeness aversion is the tendency of choice makers to avoid extreme options and choose an intermediate option. This leads to an increase in the relative choice share of an extreme alternative (target) by the introduction of a new extreme alternative that makes the target an intermediate option. This paper examines the range effect, which is the impact of the increase in the perceived distance between the target alternative and the new extreme alternative, on extremeness aversion. To examine the research question, an experimental study is conducted in a classroom setting using four product categories. The results show that extremeness aversion is the highest when the distance between the new extreme alternative and the target alternative is such that the target alternative is placed exactly at the center in the trinary choice set. This paper validates the existing models of extremeness aversion. The findings of this paper support the reference-dependent model, which is based on the principle of loss aversion. The findings of this paper have noteworthy practical implications for the design of extreme alternatives to achieve effective extremeness aversion.


Choice behavior Consumer decision making Extremeness aversion Compromise effect Context effect 

JEL Classification

M30 M31 M39 


  1. Boldt L, Arora N (2017) Dyadic compromise effect. Mark Sci 36:436–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: an analysis of context effects in choice. J Consum Psychol 9:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dhar R, Menon A, Maach B (2004) Toward extending the compromise effect to complex buying contexts. J Mark Res 41:258–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geyskens I, Gielens K, Gijsbrechts E (2010) Proliferating private-label portfolios: how introducing economy and premium private labels influences brand choice. J Mark Res 47:791–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hedgcock WM, Rao RS, Chen HA (2016) Choosing to choose: the effects of decoys and prior choice on deferral. Manag Sci 62:2952–2976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hristina N, Lamberton C (2016) Men and the middle: gender differences in dyadic compromise effects. J Consum Res 43:355–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consum Res 9:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jang JM, Yoon SO (2016) The effect of attribute-based and alternative-based processing on consumer choice in context. Mark Lett 27:511–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim S, Hasher L (2005) The attraction effect in decision making: superior performance by older adults. Q J Exp Psychol 58A:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim S, Kim J (2016) The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect. Mark Lett 27:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004a) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect in multiattribute logit choice models. J Mark Res 41:237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004b) Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. J Mark Res 41:262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lehmann DR, Pan Y (1994) Context effects, new brand entry, and consideration sets. J Mark Res 31:364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levav J, Kivetz R, Cho CK (2010) Motivational compatibility and choice conflict. J Consum Res 37:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lichters M, Brunnlieb C, Nave G et al (2015) the Influence of serotonin deficiency on choice deferral and the compromise effect. J Mark Res 53:183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lichters M, Muller H, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2016) How durable are compromise effects? J Bus Res 69:4056–4064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichters M, Bengart P, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2017) What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences. Mark Lett 28:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luce RD (1977) The choice axiom after twenty years. J Math Psychol 15:215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mao W (2016) When one desires too much of a good thing: the compromise effect under maximizing tendencies. J Consum Psychol 26:66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muller H, Vogt B, Kroll EB (2012) To be or not to be price conscious - a segment-based analysis of compromise effect in market-like framings. Psychol Mark 29:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller H, Kroll EB, Vogt B (2012) Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings. Mark Lett 23:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neumann N, Böckenholt U, Sinha A (2016) A meta-analysis of extremeness aversion. J Consum Psychol 26:193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pan Y, Lehmann DR (1993) The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand judgments. J Consum Res 20:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pettibone JC, Wedell DH (2007) Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. J Behav Decis Mak 20:323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rooderkerk RP, Van Heerde HJ, Bijmolt THA (2011) Incorporating context effects into a choice model. J Mark Res 48:767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheng S, Parker AM, Nakamoto K (2005) Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects. Psychol Mark 22:591–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consum Res 16:158–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simonson I, Nowlis SM (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. J Consum Res 27:49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J Mark Res 29:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A, Busemeyer JR (2013) Not just for consumers: context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psychol Sci 24:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev 79:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context- dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39:1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Management Calcutta 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pravesh Kumar Padamwar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jagrook Dawra
    • 1
  • Vinay Kumar Kalakbandi
    • 2
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Management RaipurRaipurIndia
  2. 2.Institute of Management Technology HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations