Why Context Influences Preferences Elicited with Willingness to Pay Less Than Preferences Elicited with Choice

References

• Ainslie G (1975) Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychol. Bull. 82(4):463–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ainslie G, Haendel V (1983) The Motive of Will. Etiologic Aspects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (Thomas, Springfield, IL), 119–139.Google Scholar
• Amir O, Lobel O (2008) Stumble, predict, nudge: How behavioral economics informs law and policy. Columbia Law Rev. 108(8):2098–2137.Google Scholar
• Amir O, Ariely D, Carmon Z (2008) The dissociation between monetary assessment and predicted utility. Marketing Sci. 27(6):1055–1064.Link, Google Scholar
• Bahník Š, Houdek P, Vrbová L, Hájek J (2019) Variations on anchoring: Sequential anchoring revisited. Judgment Decision Making 14(6):711–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer BW, Karnick A, Wells TT, Tucker RP, Capron DW (2021) Altering preferences for suicide crisis resources using the decoy nudge: Evidence of context-dependent effects in suicide prevention decision making. J. Consulting Clin. Psych. 89(1):11–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bird KA, Castleman BL, Denning JT, Goodman J, Lamberton C, Rosinger KO (2021) Nudging at scale: Experimental evidence from FAFSA completion campaigns. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 183:105–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catapano R, Shennib F, Levav J (2022) Preference reversals between digital and physical goods. J. Marketing Res. 59(2):353–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandrashekar SP, Weber J, Chan ZY, Cho WY, Chu TCC, Cheng BL, Feldman G (2021) Accentuation and compatibility: Replication and extensions of Shafir (1993) to rethink choosing versus rejecting paradigms. Judgment Decision Making 16(1):36–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang LW, Cikara M (2018) Social decoys: Leveraging choice architecture to alter social preferences. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 115(2):206–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chater N, Loewenstein G (2023) The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on the individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav. Brain Sci. 46:e147. Google Scholar
• Chen J, Proctor RW (2017) Role of accentuation in the selection/rejection task framing effect. J. Experiment. Psych. General 146(4):543–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernev A (2009) Choosing versus rejecting: The impact of goal-task compatibility on decision confidence. Soc. Cognition 27(2):249–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cubitt R, McDonald R, Read D (2018) Time matters less when outcomes differ: Unimodal vs. cross-modal comparisons in intertemporal choice. Management Sci. 64(2):873–887.Link, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Linos E (2022) RCTs to scale: Comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica 90(1):81–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Wertenbroch K (2000) Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J. Marketing Res. 37(1):60–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Draganska M, Jain DC (2006) Consumer preferences and product-line pricing strategies: An empirical analysis. Marketing Sci. 25(2):164–174.Link, Google Scholar
• Evangelidis I, Jung MH, Moon A (2022) When willingness-to-pay seems irrational: The role of perceived market price. Preprint, submitted December 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4294247.Google Scholar
• Evangelidis I, Levav J, Simonson I (2018) The asymmetric impact of context on advantaged versus disadvantaged options. J. Marketing Res. 55(2):239–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer GW, Hawkins SA (1993) Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. J. Experiment. Psych. Human Percept. Performance 19(3):580–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanushek EA, Quigley JM (1980) What is the price elasticity of housing demand? Rev. Econom. Stat. 62(3):449–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoch SJ, Loewenstein GF (1991) Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. J. Consumer Res. 17(4):492–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(5):576–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Yang Y, Li N, Shen L (2009) Wealth, warmth, and well-being: Whether happiness is relative or absolute depends on whether it is about money, acquisition, or consumption. J. Marketing Res. 46(3):396–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Puto C (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J. Consumer Res. 10(1):31–44.Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto CP (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. 9(1):90–98.Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto CP (2014) Let’s be honest about the attraction effect. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):520–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Shu SB, Dellaert BGC, Fox C, Goldstein DG, Häubl G, Larrick RH, et al. (2012) Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Lett. 23(2):487–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Miller DT (1986) Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psych. Rev. 93(2):136–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econom. Perspect. 5(1):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamberton CP, Rose RL (2012) When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Marketing 76(4):109–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CY, Morewedge CK (2022) Noise increases anchoring effects. Psych. Sci. 33(1):60–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1971) Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(1):46–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1973) Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. J. Experiment. Psych. 101(1):16–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):41–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein GF, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quart. J. Econom. 107(2):573–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luan CC, Phan TA (2024) The effect of emotion type and similarity of experience on consumers’ willingness to pay for cause‐related products: Construal level perspective. J. Consumer Behav. 23(2):808–824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maier E, Wilken R (2014) The impact of stress on consumers’ willingness to pay. Psych. Marketing 31(9):774–785.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Soman D (2022) Behavioral Science in the Wild (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Koszegi B, Ariely D (2014) True context-dependent preferences? The causes of market-dependent valuations. J. Behav. Decision Making 27(3):200–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazumdar T, Raj SP, Sinha I (2005) Reference price research: Review and propositions. J. Marketing 69(4):84–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers BA, Schwartz A, Ho K, Ritov I (1997) Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psych. Sci. 8(6):423–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milkman KL, Gandhi L, Patel MS, Graci HN, Gromet DM, Ho H, Kay JS, et al. (2022) A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(6):e2115126119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milkman KL, Patel MS, Gandhi L, Graci HN, Gromet DM, Ho H, Kay JS, et al. (2021) A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(20):e2101165118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moon A, Nelson LD (2020) The uncertain value of uncertainty: When consumers are unwilling to pay for what they like. Management Sci. 66(10):4686–4702.Link, Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK (2015) Utility: Anticipated, experienced, and remembered. Keren G, Wu G, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1 (John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), 295–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Giblin CE (2015) Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends Cognitive Sci. 19(6):339–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (2005) The least likely of times: How remembering the past biases forecasts of the future. Psych. Sci. 16(8):626–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Kassam KS, Hsee CK, Caruso EM (2009) Duration sensitivity depends on stimulus familiarity. J. Experiment. Psych. General 138(2):177–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noguchi T, Stewart N (2018) Multialternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data. Psych. Rev. 125(4):512–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nowlis SM, Simonson I (1997) Attribute–task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. J. Marketing Res. 34(2):205–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Donnell M, Evers ERK (2019) Preference reversals in willingness to pay and choice. J. Consumer Res. 45(6):1315–1330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Eckles D, Rand DG (2021) Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592(7855):590–595.Google Scholar
• Pham MT, Hung IW, Gorn GJ (2011) Relaxation increases monetary valuations. J. Marketing Res. 48(5):814–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D (2007) Experienced utility: Utility theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman. Thinking Reasoning 13(1):45–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reich T, Savary J, Kupor D (2021) Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 164:147–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reijnen E, Kühne SJ, Stöcklin M, Wolfe JM (2019) Choosing or rejecting a food item, does framing matter? And what has sugar to do with it! Appetite 143:104410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafir E (1993) Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition 21(4):546–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Griffin D, Tversky A (1990) Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. Hogarth RM, ed. Insights in Decision Making: Theory and Application: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 5–27.Google Scholar
• Sokolova T, Krishna A (2016) Take it or leave it: How choosing versus rejecting alternatives affects information processing. J. Consumer Res. 43(4):614–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soman D, Ainslie G, Frederick S, Li X, Lynch J, Moreau P, Mitchell A, et al. (2005) The psychology of intertemporal discounting: Why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones? Marketing Lett. 16(3):347–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah AK, Shafir E, Mullainathan S (2015) Scarcity frames value. Psych. Sci. 26(4):402–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spektor MS, Bhatia S, Gluth S (2021) The elusiveness of context effects in decision making. Trends Cognitive Sci. 25(10):843–854.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GDA (2006) Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychol. 53(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoffel ST, Yang J, Vlaev I, Wagner CV (2019) Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening. PLoS One 14(3):e0213668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 4(3):199–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science (1979) 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D (1990) The causes of preference reversal. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(1):204–217.Google Scholar
• Ungemach C, Stewart N, Reimers S (2011) How incidental values from the environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay. Psych. Sci. 22(2):253–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1974) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Brown GD (2024) Incomparability and incommensurability in choice: No common currency of value? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 19(6):1011–1030.Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2015) How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. J. Experiment. Psych. General 144(1):7–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wedell DH (1997) Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Memory & Cognition 25(6):873–887.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White K, Habib R, Hardisty DJ (2019) How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Marketing 83(3):22–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woolley K, Liu PJ (2021) How you estimate calories matters: Calorie estimation reversals. J. Consumer Res. 48(1):147–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu C, Cosguner K (2020) Profiting from the decoy effect: A case study of an online diamond retailer. Marketing Sci. 39(5):974–995.Link, Google Scholar
• Wu L, Liu P, Chen X, Hu W, Fan X, Chen Y (2020) Decoy effect in food appearance, traceability, and price: Case of consumer preference for pork hindquarters. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 87:101553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao Q, Zeng S, Feldman G (2021) Revisiting the decoy effect: Replication and extension of Ariely and Wallsten (1995) and Connolly, Reb, and Kausel (2013). Comprehensive Results Soc. Psychol. 4(2):164–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang S, Lynn M (2014) More evidence challenging the robustness and usefulness of the attraction effect. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):508–513.Crossref, Google Scholar