Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings

Marketing Letters

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 73-92

  Müller, Holger ^a   Kroll, Eike Benjamin ^b   Vogt, Bodo ^a  

^a OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Behavioral anomalies; Compromise effect; Experimental designs; Hypothetical choices; Real choices; Real payments

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857626103     PISSN: 09230645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11002-011-9137-2     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(2), 155-168.
2. Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 111-139.
3. Braga, J., Humphrey, S. J., & Starmer, C. (2009). Market experience eliminates some anomalies-and creates new ones. European Economic Review, 53(4), 401-416.
4. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207.
5. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766.
6. Chang, C. C., & Liu, H. H. (2008). Information format-option characteristics compatibility and the compromise effect. Psychology & Marketing, 25(9), 881-900.
7. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness Aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249-263.
8. Chernev, A. (2005). Context effects without a context: Attribute-balance as a reason for choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 213-223.
9. Chu, Y.-P., & Chu, R.-L. (1990). The subsidence of preference reversals in simplified and market-like experimental settings: A note. The American Economic Review, 80(4), 902-911.
10. Cox, J. C., & Grether, D. M. (1996). The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives. Economic Theory, 7(3), 381-405.
11. Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 215-231.
12. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 189-200.
13. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146-160.
14. Doyle, J. R., O'Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. E. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16(3), 225-243.
15. Gierl, H., & Stiegelmayr, K. (2010). Preis und Qualität als Dimensionen von Kompromissoptionen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 80(5), 495-531.
16. Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 623-638.
17. Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M., Morgan, R., Henneberg, C. H., & Landwehr, J. (2009). Consumer decision making and variety of offerings: The effect of attribute alignability. Psychology & Marketing, 26(4), 333-358.
18. Houghton, D. C., Kardes, F. R., Mathieu, A., & Simonson, I. (1999). Correction processes in consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 107-112.
19. Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchased product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 141-148.
20. Hubbard, H., & Armstrong, J. S. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11(3), 233-248.
21. Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31-44.
22. 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.
23. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. S. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-57.
24. Knetsch, J., & Sinden, J. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99(3), 173-193.
25. Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1162-1175.
26. Lehmann, D. R., & Pan, Y. (1994). Context effects, new brand entry, and consideration sets. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 364-374.
27. Lin, C.-H., Yen, H. R., & Chuang, S.-C. (2006). The effects of emotion and need for cognition on consumer choice involving risk. Marketing Letters, 17(1), 47-60.
28. List, J. A. (2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: the "more is less" phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1636-1643.
29. McIntyre, S. H., & Miller, C. M. (1999). The selection and pricing of retail assortments: An empirical approach. Journal of Retailing, 75(3), 295-319.
30. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
31. Murphy, J., Allen, J. P., Stevens, T., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30(3), 313-325.
32. Nagpal, A., Khare, A., Chowdhury, T., Labrecque, L. I., & Pandit, A. (2010). The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features. Marketing Letters, forthcoming. doi: 10. 1007/s11002-010-9132-z.
33. Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1997). Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 205-218.
34. Pan, Y., & Lehmann, D. R. (1993). The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 76-86.
35. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Toward a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1-3), 243-270.
36. Pechtl, H. (2009). Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment. Psychology & Marketing, 26(8), 736-759.
37. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450-461.
38. Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2007). Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(3), 323-341.
39. Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 520-33.
40. Sen, S. (1998). Knowledge, information mode, and the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 64-77.
41. Sheng, S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), 591-609.
42. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-74.
43. Simonson, I. (1999). The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 75(3), 347-70.
44. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 281-95.
45. Sinn, F., Milberg, S. J., Epstein, L. D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2007). Compromising the compromise effect: Brands matter. Marketing Letters, 18(4), 223-36.
46. Smith, D., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 296-313.
47. Sonsino, D. (2010). The irrelevant-menu affect on valuation. Experimental Economics, 13(3), 309-333.
48. Voelckner, F. (2006). An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers' willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 137-149.
49. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: using market data to infer utilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), 621-633.
50. Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumer willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228-241.
51. Wilcox, N. (1993). Lottery choice: Incentives, complexity and decision time. The Economic Journal, 103(421), 1397-1417.
52. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.