The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning

Marketing Letters

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 339-351

  Mao, Wen ^a   Oppewal, Harmen ^b  

^a SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Attraction effect; Context effects; Information processing; Rational experiential inventory; Thinking styles

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857624088     PISSN: 09230645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11002-011-9157-y     Document Type: Article

References (42)

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(3), 223-232.
2. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217.
3. Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chameleons: biculturals, conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 351-362.
4. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.
5. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
6. Chang, S-C., & Yen, H. R. (2007). The impact of a product's country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18, 279-291.
7. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
8. Chatterjee, S., Roy, R., & Malshe, A. V. (2011). The role of regulatory fit on the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 473-481.
9. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249-263.
10. Chernev, A. (2005). Context effects without a context: attribute balance as a reason for choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213-223.
11. Danziger, S., Moran, S., & Rafaely, V. (2006). The influence of ease of retrieval on judgment as a function of attention to subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 191-195.
12. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819-829.
13. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146-160.
14. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390-405.
15. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
16. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5-8.
17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
18. Ha, Y. W., Park, S., & Ahn, H. (2009). The influence of categorical attributes on choice context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 463-477.
19. Hamilton, R. P., Hong, Jie. Wen., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual focus effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 187-199.
20. Haugtvedt, C. P., Liu, K., & Min, K. S. (2008). Individual differences: tools for theory testing and understanding in consumer psychology research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
21. Heath, T. B., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 268-284.
22. Hedgcock, W., & Rao, A. R. (2009). Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 1-13.
23. Houghton, D. C., Kardes, F. R., Mathieu, A., & Simonson, I. (1999). Correction processes in consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 107-112.
24. Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Yangjie, G. U., & Jie, C. (2009). Specification seeking: how product specifications influence consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 952-966.
25. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
26. Hutchinson, J. W., Kamakura, W. A., & Lynch, J. G. (2000). Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for 'reversal effects' in behavioral. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 324-344.
27. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics & biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267-293). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Levav, J., Kivetz, R., & Cho, C. K. (2010). Motivational compatibility and choice conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 429-442.
30. Mourali, M., Bockenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234-247.
31. Müller, H., Kroll, E. B., & Vogt, B. (2011). Do real payments really matter? A reexamination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings. Marketing Letters, online first, 7 April 2011, doi: 10. 1007/s11002-011-9137-2.
32. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
33. Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347-356.
34. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972-987.
35. Park, J., & Kim, Jung. Keun. (2005). The effects of decoys on preference shifts: the role of attractiveness and providing justification. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 94-107.
36. Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 300-328.
37. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135.
38. Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 167-188.
39. Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. (2009). Deciding without resources: psychological depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344-355.
40. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
41. Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49-68.
42. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22.