Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 736-759

  Pechtl, Hans ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67949103668     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: 15206793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20297     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Aaker, J. (1991). The negative attraction effect? A study of the attraction effect under judgment and choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 462-469.
2. 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.
3. Armstrong, J. S. (2003). Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals. Journal of Business Research, 56, 69-84.
4. Balakrishnan, P. V., Nataraajan, R., & Desai, A. (2000). Consumer rationality and economic efficiency: Is the assumed link justified? Marketing Management Journal, 10, 1-11.
5. Bettman, J. R., Luce,M. F., & Payne, J.W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217.
6. Corter, J. E. (1987). Similarity, confusability, and the density hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 238-249.
7. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (1997). The nature of differences between similarity and preference judgments: A replication with extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 81-87.
8. Dhar, R., & Glazer, R. (1996). Similarity in context: Cognitive representation and violations of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 280-293.
9. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146-160.
10. 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.
11. Fasolo, B., Misuraca, R., Mcclelland, G. H., & Cardaci, M. (2006). Animation attracts: The attraction effect in an on-line shopping environment. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 799-811.
12. Glazer, R., Kahn, B. E., & Moore,W. L. (1991). The influence of external constraints on brand choice: The lone-alternative effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 119-127.
13. 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.
14. Hutchinson, J.W., Kamakura,W. A., & Lynch, J. G. (2000). Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for "ldquo;reversal"rdquo; effects in behavioral research. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 324-344.
15. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan,V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 237-257.
16. 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.
17. Lim, R. G. (1995). A range-frequency explanation of shifting reference points in risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 6-20.
18. Malaviya, P., & Sivakumar, K. (1998). The moderating effect of product category knowledge and attribute importance on the attraction effect. Marketing Letters, 9, 93-106.
19. Mcnemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrica, 12, 153-157.
20. Mellers, B.A. (1982). Equity judgment: A revision of Aristotelian views. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 242-270.
21. Mellers, B. A., & Cooke, A. D. J. (1994). Trade-offs depend on attribute range. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1055-1067.
22. 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.
23. Moran, S., & Meyer, J. (2006). Using context effects to increase a leader's advantage: What set of alternatives should be included in the comparison set? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 141-154.
24. Mourali, M., Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 234-247.
25. Pan, Y., & Lehmann, D. R. (1993). The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 76-86.
26. Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Park, J., & Kim, J. K. (2005). The effects of decoy on preference shifts: The role of attractiveness and providing justification. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 94-107.
28. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87-131.
29. 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.
30. Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2007). Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 323-341.
31. Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Steward, D. W. (1987). Towards understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus, meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 520-533.
32. Sen, S. (1998). Knowledge, information mode, and the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 64-77.
33. Shafir, E., Simonson, L., & Tversky,A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11-36.
34. Sheng, S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 591-609.
35. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Philadelphia: Saunders.
36. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
37. Simonson, I., & Tversky,A. (1992). Choice in context: Trade-off contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 281-292.
38. Sinn, F., Milberg, S. J. N., Epstein, L. D.,& Goodstein, R. C. (2007). Compromise the compromise effect: Brands matter. Marketing Letters, 18, 223-236.
39. Wänke, M., Bless, H., & Schwarz,N. (1999). Assimilation and contrast in brand and product evaluations: Implications for marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 95-98.
40. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 767-778.
41. Wedell, D. H. (1994). Contextual contrast in evaluative judgments: Test of pre- versus postintegration models of contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1007-1019.
42. Wedell,D. H. (1996). A constructive-associative model of the contextual dependence of unidimensional similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 634-661.
43. Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 326-344.
44. Wedell, D, H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 230-249.