The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 225-243

  Doyle, John R ^a   O'Connor, David J ^b   Reynolds, Gareth M ^b   Bottomley, Paul A ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033438457     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199905)16:3<225::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-X     Document Type: Article

References (18)

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, 223-232.
2. Barwise, P. (1995). Good empirical generalizations. Marketing Science, 14, Part 2, G29-G35.
3. Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 339-350.
4. Farquhar, P. H., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Decision structuring with phantom alternatives. Management Science, 39, 1214-1226.
5. Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 113-122.
6. Gilovich, T. (1981). Seeing the past in the present: The effect of associations to familiar events on judgments and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 797-808.
7. 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.
8. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31-44.
9. Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem, D. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 331-349.
10. Potter, R. E., & Beach, L. R. (1994). Decision making when the acceptable options become unavailable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 468-483.
11. Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 520-533.
12. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
13. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
14. Slovic, P., Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: Theory and applications. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
15. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
16. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.
17. Tyszka, T. (1983). Contextual multiattribute decision rules. In Sjöberg (Ed.), Human decision making. Amsterdam: North Holland.
18. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 767-778.