Compromise and attraction effects in food choice

International Journal of Consumer Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 636-641

  Carroll, Ryall ^a   Vallen, Beth ^b  

^a ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attraction effect; Calories; Compromise effect; Context effect; Decision making

Indexed keywords

EID: 84911981866     PISSN: 14706423     EISSN: 14706431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12135     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bekker-Grob, E. & Chorus, C. (2013) Random regret-based discrete-choice modeling: an application to healthcare. Pharmacoeconimics, 31, 623-634.
2. Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Hans-Peter, H. & Siebler, F. (2003) When small is comfortable: relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 454-463.
3. Burton, S., Creyer, E.H., Kees, J. & Huggins, K.A. (2006) Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1669-1675.
4. Burton, S., Howlett, E.A. & Tangari, A. (2009) Food for thought: how will the nutrition labeling of quick service menu items influence consumers' product evaluations, purchase intentions, and choices? Journal of Retailing, 85, 258-273.
5. Cawley, J. & Meyerhoefer, C. (2012) The medical care cost of obesity: an instrumental variables approach. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 1348-1366.
6. Chandon, P. & Wansink, B. (2012) Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions. Nutrition Reviews, 10, 571-593.
7. Conner, M. (1994) Accounting for gender, age, and socioeconomic differences in food choice. Appetite, 23, 195.
8. de Witt Huberts, J.C., Evers, C. & De Ridder, D.D. (2012) License to sin: self-licensing as a mechanism underlying hedonic consumption. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 490-496.
9. Dhar, R. & Simonson, I. (1999) Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: highlighting versus balancing. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 29-44.
10. Hawley, K.L., Roberto, C.A., Bragg, M.A., Liu, P.J., Schwartz, M.B. & Brownell, K.D. (2012) The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutrition, 16, 430-439.
11. Howlett, E.A., Burton, S., Bates, K. & Huggins, K. (2009) Coming to a restaurant near you? Potential consumer responses to nutrition information disclosure on menus. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 494-503.
12. 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.
13. Lippi, A. (2014) Does menu design influence retirement investment choices? evidence from Italian occupational pension funds. Judgment & Decision Making, 9, 77-82.
14. Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R.W. & Hoyer, W.D. (2006) The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing, 70, 170-184.
15. 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, 520-533.
16. Roberto, C.A., Shivaram, M., Martinex, O., Boles, C., Harris, J.L. & Brownell, K.D. (2012) The smart choices front-of-package nutrition label. Influence on perceptions and intake of cereal. Appetite, 58, 651-657.
17. Sharpe, K., Staelin, R. & Huber, J. (2008) Using extremeness aversion to fight obesity: policy implications of context dependent demand. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 406-422.
18. Simonson, I. (1989) Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
19. Simonson, I. & Tversky, A. (1992) Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
20. Wilcox, K., Vallen, B., Block, L. & Fitzsimons, G. (2009) Vicarious goal fulfillment: when the mere presence of a healthy option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 380-393.