Abstract
Extant theories of decoy effects on evaluations of attribute values were assessed with respect to their ability to account for a one-dimensional analogue of the asymmetric dominance effect. Parducci’s (1965, 1995) range-frequency theory, Krumhansl’s (1978) distance-density model, Tversky’s (1977) diagnosticity principle, and reference point theories (e.g., Holyoak & Mah, 1982) were unable to account for this effect. One version of Helson’s (1964) adaptation-level theory and our comparisoninduced distortion theory (Choplin & Hummel, 2002) were able to account for the qualitative effect. Quantitative fits revealed that comparison-induced distortion theory provides a better account of this effect than does adaptation-level theory. These results suggest that, in some cases, biases created by language-expressible magnitude comparisons mediate the effects of decoys on evaluation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ariely, D., &Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,63, 223–232.
Choplin, J. M., &Hummel, J. E. (2002). Magnitude comparisons distort mental representations of magnitude.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131, 270–286.
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, 225–243.
Frederick, S., &Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.),Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Sage.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Helson, H. (1964).Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper.
Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,65, 68–76.
Holyoak, K. J., &Mah, W. A. (1982). Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude.Cognitive Psychology,14, 328–352.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., &Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis.Journal of Consumer Research,9, 90–98.
Huber, J., &Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects.Journal of Consumer Research,10, 31–44.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density.Psychological Review,85, 445–463.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Markman, A. B. (1995). Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processes and decision processes.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 1–19.
Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., &Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections.Journal of Consumer Psychology,4, 85–101.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgments: A range-frequency model.Psychological Review,72, 407–418.
Parducci, A. (1995).Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pettibone, J. C., &Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,81, 300–328.
Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., &Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making.Psychological Review,108, 370–392.
Rusiecki, J. (1985).Adjectives and comparison in English. New York: Longman.
Sedikides, C., Ariely, D., &Olsen, N. (1999). Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection: Of asymmetric dominance and prominence.Social Cognition,17, 118–139.
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science.Science,237, 1317–1323.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects.Journal of Consumer Research,16, 158–174.
Simonson, I., &Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion.Journal of Marketing Research,29, 281–295.
Stevens, S. S. (1962). The surprising simplicity of sensory metrics.American Psychologist,17, 29–39.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model.Quarterly Journal of Economics,106, 1039–1061.
Tversky, A., &Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences.Management Science,39, 1179–1189.
Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.),Social psychology at the crossroads (pp. 273–296). New York: Harper.
Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 767–778.
Wedell, D. H. (1995). Contrast effects in paired comparisons: Evidence for both stimulus-based and response-based processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1158–1173.
Wedell, D. H., &Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,67, 326–344.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choplin, J.M., Hummel, J.E. Comparison-induced decoy effects. Mem Cogn 33, 332–343 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195321
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195321