Explaining context effects on choice using a model of comparative judgment

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 167-177

  Bhargava, Mukesh ^a   Kim, John ^a   Srivastava, Rajendra K ^b  

^a OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034403262     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15327663JCP0903_4     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundation of information integration theory. New York: Academic.
2. Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Academic.
3. Ariely, D., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 223-232.
4. Assar, A., & Chakravarti, D. (1984). Attribute range knowledge: Effects on consumers' evaluation of brand - attributes information search patterns in choice. In R. Belk et al. (Eds.), AMA educator's proceedings (pp. 62-67). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
5. Batsell, R. R., & Polking, J. C. (1985). A new class of market share models. Marketing Science, 4, 177-198.
6. Bettman, J. R. (1986). Consumer psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 257-289.
7. Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1-15.
8. Burton, S., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1987). Changes in consumer choice: Further investigation of similarity and attraction effects. Psychology and Marketing, 4, 255-266.
9. Buyukkurt, K. B. (1986). Integration of serially sampled price information: Modelling and some findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 357-373.
10. Farquhar, P. H., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Decision structuring with phantom alternatives. Management Science, 39, 1214-1226.
11. Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1991). How entrants affect multiple brands: A dual attraction mechanism. In R. H. Holman & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 18, pp. 768-772). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
12. Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: Meta-analystic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268-284.
13. Hogarth, R. (1983). Judgement and choice. New York: Wiley.
14. Huber, J., Payne, J., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violation of the regularity and similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
15. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31-44.
16. Kamakura, W. A., & Srivastava, R. K. (1984). Predicting choice shares under condition of brand interdependence. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 420-434.
17. Klein, N. M., & Yadav, M. S. (1989). Context effects on effort and accuracy in choice: An enquiry into adaptive decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 411-421.
18. Lehmann, D. R., & Pan, Y. (1994). Context effects, new brand, and consideration sets. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 364-374.
19. Louviere, J. J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. (Series Rep. No. 07-067). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20. Lutz, R. J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 49-59.
21. Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1985). Uniqueness issues in decompositional modelling of multiattribute overall evaluations: An information integration perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 1-19.
22. MacKay, D. B. (1989). Probabilistic multidimensional scaling: An anistropic model for distance judgement (Working Paper). Bloomington: Indiana University, Graduate School of Business.
23. Meyer, R. J., & Eagle, T. C. (1982). Context induced parameter instability in a disaggregate-stochastic model of store choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 62-71.
24. Meyer, R. J., & Kahn, B. E. (1988). Probabilistic models of consumer choice behavior (Working Paper). Los Angeles: University of California, Anderson Graduate School of Management.
25. Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem, D. E., Jr. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 331-349.
26. Pan, Y., & Lehmann, D. R. (1993). The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 76-86.
27. Pan, Y., O'Curry, S., & Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85-101.
28. Parducci, A. (1974). Context effects: A range-frequency analysis. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception: Vol. 2. (pp. 127-141). New York: Academic.
29. Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382-402.
30. 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.
31. Sen, S. (1998). Knowledge, information mode, and the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 64-77.
32. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
33. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
34. Sivakumar, K., & Cherian, J. (1995). Role of product entry and exit on the attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 29, 45-51.
35. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.