Researchers have recently strongly questioned the robustness of the attraction effect, according to which adding a decoy option to an existing choice set affects consumers’ choice behavior. Tying in with this debate, we identify the persistent use of hypothetical choices in the domain to be a major shortcoming in attraction effect research. In an experiment on the attraction effect with a realistic choice setting that fosters external validity, we manipulate the choice framing by contrasting hypothetical choices with binding choices that entail economic consequences. We find the attraction effect to be much stronger when decisions are binding, underlining the effect’s usefulness as a marketing tool.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Aaker, J. (1991). The negative attraction effect? A study of the attraction effect under judgment and choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 462–469.
Ahn, H., Novoa, N. V. (2015) The decoy effect in relative performance evaluation and the debiasing role of DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, forthcoming.
Ahn, S., Kim, J., & Ha, Y. (2015). Feedback weakens the attraction effect in repeated choices. Marketing Letters, forthcoming.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–207.
Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1-3), 7–42.
Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 360–370.
Celedon, P., Milberg, S., & Sinn, F. (2013). Attraction and superiority effects in the Chilean marketplace: do they exist with real brands? Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1780–1786.
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. (2005). Context effects without a context: attribute balance as a reason for choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213–223.
Chiang, J., & Wilcox, R. (1997). A cross-category analysis of shelf-space allocation, product variety, and retail margins. Marketing Letters, 8(2), 183–191.
Chuang, S.-C., & Yen, H. R. (2007). The Impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18(4), 279–291.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (1992). The effect of the focus of comparison on consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(4), 430–440.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146–160.
Doyle, J. R., O’Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in‐store purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16(3), 225–243.
Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 487–507.
Gijsbrechts, E., & Lourenço, C. J. S. (2013). The impact of national brand introductions on hard-discounter image and share-of-wallet. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 368–382.
Herne, K. (1999). The effects of decoy gambles on individual choice. Experimental Economics, 2(1), 31–40.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (2014). Let’s be honest about the attraction effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 520–525.
Jang, J. M., Yoon, S. O. (2015). The effect of attribute-based and alternative-based processing on consumer choice in context. Marketing Letters, forthcoming.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.
Johnson, E. J., Shu, S. B., Dellaert, B. G. C., Fox, C., Goldstein, D. G., Häubl, G., Larrick, R. P., Payne, J. W., Peters, E., Schkade, D., Wansink, B., & Weber, E. U. (2012). Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Letters, 23(2), 487–504.
Kurtuluş, M., & Toktay, L. B. (2011). Category captainship vs. retailer category management under limited retail shelf space. Production and Operations Management, 20(1), 47–56.
Latty, T., & Beekman, M. (2011). Irrational decision-making in an amoeboid organism: transitivity and context-dependent preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1703), 307–312.
Lichters, M., Brunnlieb, C., Nave, G., Sarstedt, M., & Vogt, B. (2015a). The influence of serotonin deficiency on choice deferral and the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, forthcoming.
Lichters, M., Sarstedt, M., & Vogt, B. (2015b). On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: a cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments. AMS Review, 5(1-2), 1–19.
Malkoc, S. A., Hedgcock, W., & Hoeffler, S. (2013). Between a rock and a hard place: the failure of the attraction effect among unattractive alternatives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 317–329.
Mao, W., & Oppewal, H. (2012). The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 339–351.
Milberg, S. J., Silva, M., Celedon, P., & Sinn, F. (2014). Synthesis of attraction effect research: practical market implications? European Journal of Marketing, 48(7/8), 1413–1430.
Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem, D. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: an information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 331–349.
Mochon, D. (2013). Single-option aversion. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 555–566.
Mourali, M., Böckenholt, 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. (2010). Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contexts. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(5), 441–448.
Müller, H., Kroll, E. B., & Vogt, B. (2012a). Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 73–92.
Müller, H., Vogt, B., & Kroll, E. B. (2012b). To be or not to be price conscious: a segment-based analysis of compromise effects in market-like framings. Psychology & Marketing, 29(2), 107–116.
Munro, A., & Popov, D. (2013). A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 1–14.
Murphy, J. J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(3), 313–325.
Palmeira, M. M. (2011). The zero-comparison effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 16–26.
Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., & Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(1), 85–101.
Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2007). Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(3), 323–341.
Pettibone, J. C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 513–523.
Ryu, G., Suk, K., Yoon, S., & Park, J. (2014). The underlying mechanism of self-regulatory focus impact on compromise choice. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2056–2063.
Schuck-Paim, C., Pompilio, L., & Kacelnik, A. (2004). State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PLoS biology, 2(12), e402.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295.
Simonson, I. (2014). Vices and virtues of misguided replications: the case of asymmetric dominance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 514–519.
Simonson, I. (2015). Mission (largely) accomplished: what’s next for consumer BDT-JDM researchers? Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1(1), 9–35.
Sinn, F., Milberg, S. J., Epstein, L. D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2007). Compromising the compromise effect: brands matter. Marketing Letters, 18(4), 223–236.
Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660.
Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D., Heathcote, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Not just for consumers: context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psychological Science, 24(6), 901–908.
Yang, S., & Lynn, M. (2014). More evidence challenging the robustness and usefulness of the attraction effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 508–513.
About this article
Cite this article
Lichters, M., Bengart, P., Sarstedt, M. et al. What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences. Mark Lett 28, 127–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9394-6
- Asymmetrical dominance
- Attraction effect
- Context effect
- No-buy option
- Real payments