According to the attraction effect, the addition of a decoy, or dominated, option to a choice set increases the relative choice share of the dominating option. This study shows that the attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in judgment and decision making. In contrast, the attraction effect is equally pronounced for consumers who rely more and those who rely less on rational thinking. Over 600 members of a national online consumer panel participated. The results highlight the importance of understanding individual differences in relation to context effects and choice behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Ariely, D., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: an explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 223–232.
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chameleons: biculturals, conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 351–362.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
Chang, S-C., & Yen, H. R. (2007). The impact of a product's country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18, 279–291.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Chatterjee, S., Roy, R., & Malshe, A. V. (2011). The role of regulatory fit on the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 473–481.
Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249–263.
Chernev, A. (2005). Context effects without a context: attribute balance as a reason for choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213–223.
Danziger, S., Moran, S., & Rafaely, V. (2006). The influence of ease of retrieval on judgment as a function of attention to subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 191–195.
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819–829.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146–160.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5–8.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Ha, Y. W., Park, S., & Ahn, H. (2009). The influence of categorical attributes on choice context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 463–477.
Hamilton, R. P., Hong, Jie. Wen., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual focus effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 187–199.
Haugtvedt, C. P., Liu, K., & Min, K. S. (2008). Individual differences: tools for theory testing and understanding in consumer psychology research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 268–284.
Hedgcock, W., & Rao, A. R. (2009). Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 1–13.
Houghton, D. C., Kardes, F. R., Mathieu, A., & Simonson, I. (1999). Correction processes in consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 107–112.
Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Yangjie, G. U., & Jie, C. (2009). Specification seeking: how product specifications influence consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 952–966.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.
Hutchinson, J. W., Kamakura, W. A., & Lynch, J. G. (2000). Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for ‘reversal effects’ in behavioral. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 324–344.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics & biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levav, J., Kivetz, R., & Cho, C. K. (2010). Motivational compatibility and choice conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 429–442.
Mourali, M., Bockenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234–247.
Müller, H., Kroll, E. B., & Vogt, B. (2011). Do real payments really matter? A reexamination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings. Marketing Letters, online first, 7 April 2011, doi:10.1007/s11002-011-9137-2.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347–356.
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972–987.
Park, J., & Kim, Jung. Keun. (2005). The effects of decoys on preference shifts: the role of attractiveness and providing justification. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 94–107.
Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 300–328.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135.
Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 167–188.
Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. (2009). Deciding without resources: psychological depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344–355.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49–68.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.
About this article
Cite this article
Mao, W., Oppewal, H. The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning. Mark Lett 23, 339–351 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-011-9157-y
- Context effects
- Attraction effect
- Information processing
- Thinking styles
- Rational–experiential inventory