Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 513-523

  Pettibone, Jonathan C ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

Asymmetric dominance; Choice; Compromise; Context; Decision making; Time pressure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864626704     PISSN: 19302975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 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, 189-200.
2. Huber, J., Payne, J.W., &Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-99.
3. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 237-257.
4. Mellers, B. A., & Biagini, K. (1994). Similarity and choice. Psychological Review, 101, 505-518.
5. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Pettibone, J. C., &Wedell, D. (2007). Testing Alternative Explanations of Phantom Decoy Effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 341, 323-341.
7. 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.
8. Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: how opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 127, 258-276. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.05.004
9. Roe, R., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370-392.
10. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice of Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
11. Smith, A. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2011). Biased calculations: Numeric anchors influence answers to math equations. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 139-146.
12. Tsetsos, K., Usher, M., & Chater, N. (2010). Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psychological review, 117, 1275-1293.
13. Tversky, A. & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.
14. Usher, M. & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757-769.
15. Wedell, D. H. (1998). Testing models of trade-off contrast in pairwise choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception, and Performance, 24, 49-65.
16. Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 326-344.
17. Yoon, S. & Simonson, I. (2008.) Choice set configuration as a determinant of preference attribution and strength. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 324-336.