Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 323-341

  Pettibone, Jonathan C ^a   Wedell, Douglas H ^b  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attraction effect; Choice; Context effects; Decoy effects; Loss aversion; Phantom decoy

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547515869     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.557     Document Type: Article

References (26)

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. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
3. Choplin, J. M., & Hummel, J. E. (2005). Comparison-induced decoy effects. Memory & Cognition, 33, 332-343.
4. Dhar, R., & Glazer, R. (1996). Similarity in context: Cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 280-293.
5. Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 68-76.
6. 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.
7. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 31-44.
8. Hurly, T. A., & Oseen, M. D. (1999). Context-dependent, risk sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour, 58, 59-66.
9. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
10. Martin, L. L., Seta, J. L., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 21-31.
11. Mellers, B. A., & Biagini, K. (1994). Similarity and choice. Psychological Review, 101, 505-518.
12. Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 300-328.
14. Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 103-122.
15. 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.
16. Shafir, S., Waite, T. A., & Smith, B. H. (2002). Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis melifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 51, 180-187.
17. Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
18. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
19. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371-384.
20. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.
21. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757-769.
22. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 767-778.
23. Wedell, D. H. (1994). Contextual contrast in evaluative judgments: Test of pre- versus post-integration models of contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1007-1019.
24. Wedell, D. H. (1998). Testing models of trade-off contrast in pairwise choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception and Performance, 24, 49-65.
25. Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 326-344.
26. Wedell, D. H., & Senter, S. M. (1997). Looking and weighting in judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 41-64.