Comparison-induced decoy effects

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 332-343

  Choplin, Jessica M ^a   Hummel, John E ^b  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HUMAN; OBJECT MANIPULATION; PREDICTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; THEORY CONSTRUCTION; BAYES THEOREM; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISION;

BAYES THEOREM; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 23044493985     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03195321     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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.
2. CHOPLIN, J. M., & HUMMEL, J. E. (2002). Magnitude comparisons distort mental representations of magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 270-286.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. GARNER, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. HELSON, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper.
7. HIGHHOUSE, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 65, 68-76.
8. HOLYOAK, K. J., & MAH, W. A. (1982). Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 328-352.
9. 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.
10. HUBER, J., & PUTO, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31-44.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. PAN, Y., O'CURRY, S., & PITTS, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85-101.
14. PARDUCCI, A. (1965). Category judgments: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407-418.
15. PARDUCCI, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. PETTIBONE, J. C., & WEDELL, D. H. (2000). Examining models of non-dominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 81, 300-328.
17. 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.
18. RUSIECKI, J. (1985). Adjectives and comparison in English. New York: Longman.
19. SEDIKIDES, C., ARIELY, D., & OLSEN, N. (1999). Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection: Of asymmetric dominance and prominence. Social Cognition, 17, 118-139.
20. SHEPARD, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
21. SIMONSON, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
22. SIMONSON, I., & TVERSKY, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
23. STEVENS, S. S. (1962). The surprising simplicity of sensory metrics. American Psychologist, 17, 29-39.
24. TVERSKY, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
25. TVERSKY, A., & KAHNEMAN, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.
26. TVERSKY, A., & SIMONSON, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.
27. 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.
28. WEDELL, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 767-778.
29. 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.
30. WEDELL, D. H., & PETTIBONE, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67, 326-344.