Could ralph nader's entrance and exit have helped al gore? The impact of decoy dynamics on consumer choice

Journal of Marketing Research

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 330-343

  Hedgcock, William ^a   Rao, Akshay R ^b   Chen, Haipeng Allan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer choice; Decoy effect; Phantom decoy; Political choice

Indexed keywords

EID: 68649101795     PISSN: 00222437     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.46.3.330     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Amir, On and Jonathan Levav (2008), "Choice Construction Versus Preference Construction: The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context," Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (April), 145-58.
2. Anderson, N.H. (1981), Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press.
3. Ariely, Dan and Thomas S. Walisten (1995), "Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63 (September), 223-32.
4. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator- Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-82.
5. Bem, Daryl J. (1967), "Self-Perception: An Alternative Interpretation of the Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena," Psychological Review, 74 (3), 183-200.
6. Brenner, Lyle, Yuval Rottenstreich, and Sanjay Sood (1999), "Comparison, Grouping, and Preference," Psychological Science, 10 (May), 225-29.
7. Chen, Haipeng (Allan) and Akshay R. Rao (2002), "Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed Hopes," Marketing Science, 21(2), 178-96.
8. Dhar, Ravi and Rashi Glazer (1996), "Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (September), 280-93.
9. Doyle, John, David O'Connor, Gareth Reynold, and Paul Bottomley (1999), "The Robustness of the Asymmetrically Dominated Effect: Buying Frames, Phantom Alternatives, and In-Store Purchases," Psychology and Marketing, 16 (May), 225-43.
10. Farquhar, Peter H. and Anthony R. Pratkanis (1987), "Phantom Choices: The Effects of Unavailable Alternatives on Decision Making," Technical Report No. 87-2, Center for Decision Technology and Strategy Research, Carnegie Mellon University.
11. Hardie, Bruce G.S., Eric J. Johnson, and Peter S. Fader (1993), "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, 12 (Fall), 378-94.
12. Heath, Timothy B. and Subimal Chatterjee (1995), "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 268-84.
13. Heath, Timothy B. and Subimal Chatterjee, Gangseog Ryu, Subimal Chatterjee, Michael S. McCarthy, David L. Mothersbaugh, Sandra Milberg, et al. (2000), "Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 29 1-308.
14. Hedgcock, William and Akshay R. Rao (2009), "Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study," Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), 1-13.
15. Highhouse, Scott (1996), "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (1), 68-76.
16. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982), "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 90-98.
17. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne and Christopher Puto (1983), "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (1), 31-44.
18. Kahn, Barbara, William L. Moore, and Rashi Glazer (1987), "Experiments in Constrained Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 96-113.
19. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler (1991), "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (Winter), 193-206.
20. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch and Amos Tversky (1979), "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," Econometrica, 47 (2), 263-91.
21. Kaplan, Jonas T., Joshua Freedman, and Marco Iacoboni (2007), "Us Versus Them: Political Attitudes and Party Affiliation Influence Neural Response to Faces of Presidential Candidates," Neuropsychologica, 45 (3), 55-64.
22. Luce, Mary Frances (1998), "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 409-433.
23. Luce, Mary Frances, James R. Bettman, and John W. Payne (2001), "Emotional Decisions: Trade-Off Difficulty and Coping in Consumer Choice," Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1-209.
24. Luce, Mary Frances, John W. Payne, and James R. Bettman (1999), "Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty and Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 143-59.
25. Luce, R.D, (1959), Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
26. Marinucci, Carla and Lynda Gledhill (2000), "Nader's Gains Seen as Real Threat to Gore," San Francisco Chronicle, (October 23), Al.
27. Mellers, Barbara and Karen Biagini (1994), "Similarity and Choice," Psychological Review, 101 (3), 505-5 18. (Pubitemid 24976814)
28. Min, Kyeong Sam, Patricia M. West, and Joel Huber (2006), "Timing Is Everything: Communicating Product Unavailability," working paper, Beacom School of Business, University of South Dakota.
29. Mishra, Sanjay, U.N. Umesh, and Donald E. Stem Jr. (1993), "Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information Processing Approach," Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (August), 331-49.
30. Pan, Yigang, Sue O'Curry, and Robert Pitts (1995), "The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (1), 85-101.
31. Parducci, A. (1974), "Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequency Analysis," in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 2, E.C. Carterette and M.P. Friedman, eds. New York: Academic Press, 127-41.
32. Parducci, A. (1995), Happiness, Pleasure and Judgment: The Contextual Theory and Its Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Park, Jongwon and Jungkeun Kim (2005), "The Effects of Decoys on Preference Shifts: The Role of Attractiveness and Providing Justification," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (2), 94-107.
34. Pettibone, Jonathan C. and Douglas H. Wedell (2000), "Examining Models of Nondommnated Decoy Effects Across Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 300-328.
35. Pratkanis, Anthony R. and Peter H. Farquhar (1992), "A Brief History of Research on Phantom Alternatives: Evidence for Seven Empirical Generalizations About Phantoms," Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), 103-122.
36. Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989), "The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers' Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 351-57.
37. Samuelson, William and Richard Zeckhauser (1988), "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1 (1), 7-59.
38. Simonson, Itamar (1989), "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158-74.
39. Tversky, Amos (1972), "Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice," Psychological Review, 79 (4), 28 1-99.
40. Tversky, Amos and Itamar Simonson (1993), "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, 39 (10), 1179-89.
41. Wedell, Douglas H. (1991), "Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17 (July), 767-78.
42. Wedell, Douglas H. and J.C. Pettibone (1996), "Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 326-44.