The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chernev, A. (2005). Context effects without a context: attribute balance as a reason for choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamilton, R. P., Hong, Jie. Wen., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual focus effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Houghton, D. C., Kardes, F. R., Mathieu, A., & Simonson, I. (1999). Correction processes in consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Levav, J., Kivetz, R., & Cho, C. K. (2010). Motivational compatibility and choice conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mourali, M., Bockenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harmen Oppewal.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Choice stimuli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Context effects
  • Attraction effect
  • Information processing
  • Thinking styles
  • Rational–experiential inventory