The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems

References

• Acquisti A, Adjerid I, Balebako R, Brandimarte L, Cranor LF, Komanduri S, Leon PG, et al. (2017) Nudges for privacy and security: Understanding and assisting users’ choices online. ACM Comput. Survey 50(3):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adamopoulos P (2013) Beyond rating prediction accuracy: On new perspectives in recommender systems. Proc. 7th ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 459–462.Google Scholar
• Adamopoulos P, Tuzhilin A (2013) Recommendation opportunities: Improving item prediction using weighted percentile methods in collaborative filtering systems. Proc. 7th ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 351–354.Google Scholar
• Adamopoulos P, Tuzhilin A (2014a) On over-specialization and concentration bias of recommendations: Probabilistic neighborhood selection in collaborative filtering systems. Proc. 8th ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 153–160.Google Scholar
• Adamopoulos P, Tuzhilin A (2014b) On unexpectedness in recommender systems: Or how to better expect the unexpected. ACM Trans. Intelligent Systems Tech. 5(4):1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adamopoulos P, Ghose A, Tuzhilin A (2021) Heterogeneous demand effects of recommendation strategies in a mobile application: Evidence from econometric models and machine-learning instruments. MIS Quart. 46(1):101–150.Google Scholar
• Adjerid I, Acquisti A, Loewenstein G (2019) Choice architecture, framing, and cascaded privacy choices. Management Sci. 65(5):2267–2290.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Adomavicius G, Bockstedt J, Curley S, Zhang J (2021a) Effects of personalized and aggregate Top-N recommendation lists on user preference ratings. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 39(2):1–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adomavicius G, Bockstedt J, Curley S, Zhang J (2021b) Effects of personalized recommendations versus aggregate ratings on post-consumption preference responses. MIS Quart. 46(1):627–644.Google Scholar
• Adomavicius G, Bockstedt JC, Curley SP, Zhang J (2013) Do recommender systems manipulate consumer preferences? A study of anchoring effects. Inform. Systems Res. 24(4):956–975.Link, Google Scholar
• Adomavicius G, Bockstedt JC, Curley SP, Zhang J (2018) Effects of online recommendations on consumers’ willingness to pay. Inform. Systems Res. 29(1):84–102.Link, Google Scholar
• Areni CS, Lutz RJ (1988) The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. ACR North Amer. Adv. 15(1):197–203.Google Scholar
• Ariely D (2009) Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions (HarperCollins Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Wallsten TS (1995) Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 63(3):223–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benbasat I, Wang W (2005) Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 6(3):72–101.Google Scholar
• Benoit WL (1987) Argumentation and credibility appeals in persuasion. Southern J. Comm. 52(2):181–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berkovsky S, Freyne J, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2012) Influencing individually: Fusing personalization and persuasion. ACM Trans. Interactive Intelligent Systems 2(2):1–8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhargava M, Kim J, Srivastava RK (2000) Explaining context effects on choice using a model of comparative judgment. J. Consumer Psych. 9(3):167–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleier A, Eisenbeiss M (2015) The importance of trust for personalized online advertising. J. Retailing 91(3):390–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boag P (2021) 5 ways to overcome choice paralysis and improve conversion. Accessed August 30, 2022, https://www.shopify.com/partners/blog/choice-paralysis.Google Scholar
• Bonaccio S, Dalal RS (2006) Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 101(2):127–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown SA, Venkatesh V, Goyal S (2014) Expectation confirmation in information systems research: A test of six competing models. MIS Quart. 38(3):729–756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgman MA (2016) Trusting Judgements: How to Get the Best Out of Experts (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Business Insider (2021) Context is often the most influential factor driving consumer choices, according to recent research. Here’s why. Accessed August 10, 2022, https://www.businessinsider.com/sc/how-context-influences-consumer-shopping-decisions-2021-1.Google Scholar
• Chernev A, Böckenholt U, Goodman J (2015) Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. J. Consumer Psych. 25(2):333–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• ChoiceHacking (2020) The choice overload effect: Why simplicity is the key to winning customers. Accessed August 10, 2022, https://www.choicehacking.com/2020/07/08/the-choice-overload-effect/.Google Scholar
• Clark JK, Evans AT (2014) Source credibility and persuasion: The role of message position in self-validation. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 40(8):1024–1036.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooke ADJ, Sujan H, Sujan M, Weitz BA (2002) Marketing the unfamiliar: The role of context and item-specific information in electronic agent recommendations. J. Marketing Res. 39(4):488–497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Czapiński J, Lewicka M (1979) Dynamics of interpersonal attitudes: Positive–negative asymmetry. Political Psych. Bull. 10(1):31–40.Google Scholar
• Design for Growth (2020) Are you using the decoy effect in your favour? Accessed July 29, 2021, http://pony.studio/design-for-growth/decoy-effect.Google Scholar
• Dooley R (2019) Decoy marketing. Accessed August 10, 2022, https://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/decoy-marketing.htm.Google Scholar
• Dooms S, De Pessemier T, Martens L (2013) Movietweetings: A movie rating dataset collected from Twitter. Workshop Crowdsourcing Human Comput. Recommender Systems (CrowdRec at RecSys) (ACM,New York), 43.Google Scholar
• Evdelo (2020) Amazon’s recommendation algorithm drives 35% of its sales. Accessed August 10, 2022, https://evdelo.com/amazons-recommendation-algorithm-drives-35-of-its-sales/Google Scholar
• Fitzsimons GJ, Lehmann DR (2004) Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Sci. 23(1):82–94.Link, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gai PJ, Klesse AK (2019) Making recommendations more effective through framings: Impacts of user- vs. item-based framings on recommendation click-throughs. J. Marketing 83(6):61–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goled S (2021) Inside Netflix’s recommendation engine. Accessed December 19, 2022, https://analyticsindiamag.com/inside-netflixs-recommendation-engine/.Google Scholar
• Hedgcock W, Rao AR, Chen H (2009) Could Ralph Nader’s entrance and exit have helped Al Gore? The impact of decoy dynamics on consumer choice. J. Marketing Res. 46(3):330–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heesacker M, Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1983) Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. J. Personality 51(4):653–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Terveen LG, Riedl JT (2004) Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 22(1):5–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herne K (1997) Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. Eur. J. Political Econom. 13(3):575–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirsh JB, Kang SK, Bodenhausen GV (2012) Personalized persuasion: Tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psych. Sci. 23(6):578–581.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho SY, Bodoff D (2014) The Effects of web personalization on user attitude and behavior: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and consumer search theory. MIS Quart. 38(2):492–520.Google Scholar
• Ho SY, Lim KH (2018) Nudging moods to induce unplanned purchases in imperfect mobile personalization contexts. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 42(3):757–778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho SY, Bodoff D, Tam KY (2011) Timing of adaptive web personalization and its effects on online consumer behavior. Inform. Systems Res. 22(3):660–679.Link, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Puto C (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J. Consumer Res. 10(1):31–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. 9(1):90–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(6):995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kawaguchi K, Uetake K, Watanabe Y (2019) Effectiveness of product recommendations under time and crowd pressures. Marketing Sci. 38(2):253–273.Link, Google Scholar
• Komiak SY, Benbasat I (2006) The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30(4):941–960.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumkale GT, Albarracín D, Seignourel PJ (2010) The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 40(6):1325–1356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lankton N, McKnight DH, Thatcher JB (2014) Incorporating trust-in-technology into expectation disconfirmation theory. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 23(2):128–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li SS, Karahanna E (2015) Online recommendation systems in a B2C e-commerce context: A review and future directions. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 16(2):72–107.Google Scholar
• Linder M (2018) Make e-commerce more human to cure choice overload. Accessed August 30, 2022, https://www.mytotalretail.com/article/make-online-shopping-more-human-to-cure-choice-overload/.Google Scholar
• Long X, Sun J, Dai H, Zhang DJ, Zhang J, Chen Y, Hu H, et al. (2022) The choice overload effect in online recommender systems: Theoretical framework and field experiment. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Luce RD (2012) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Courier Corporation, Chelmsford, MA).Google Scholar
• Mathias J, Dietmar J (2021) Digital nudging with recommender systems: Survey and future directions. Comput. Human Behav. Rep. 3(2021):100052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meltzer R (2022) How Netflix utilizes data science. Accessed August 22, 2022, https://www.lighthouselabs.ca/en/blog/how-netflix-uses-data-to-optimize-their-product.Google Scholar
• Mishra S, Umesh UN, Stem DE (1993) Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. J. Marketing Res. 30(3):331–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Keefe DJ, Jackson S (1995) Argument quality and persuasive effects: A review of current approaches. Argumentation Values: Proc. 9th Alta Conf. Argumentation (Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA), 88–92.Google Scholar
• Page A (2021) 5 ways to use cognitive bias to your e-commerce or retail store’s advantage. Accessed August 30, 2022, https://www.agiliron.com/blog/2021/07/5-ways-to-use-cognitive-bias-to-your-ecommerce-or-retail-stores-advantage/.Google Scholar
• Petty RE (2018) Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches (Routledge, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 37(10):1915.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 46(1):69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pornpitakpan C (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 34(2):243–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Radova K (2022) The decoy effect: Everything you need to know. Accessed August 14, 2022, https://insidebe.com/articles/the-decoy-effect/.Google Scholar
• Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B (2015) Recommender Systems: Introduction and Challenges. Recommender systems handbook (Springer, New York), 1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robson D (2019) The trick that makes you overspend. Accessed August 14, 2022, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190801-the-trick-that-makes-you-overspend.Google Scholar
• Salazar K, Moran K (2019) The dangers of overpersonalization. Accessed July 27, 2022, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/overpersonalization/.Google Scholar
• Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J. Consumer Res. 37(3):409–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneider C, Weinmann M, Vom Brocke J (2018) Digital nudging: Guiding online user choices through interface design. Comm. ACM 61(7):67–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schumpe BM, Bélanger JJ, Nisa CF (2020) The reactance decoy effect: How including an appeal before a target message increases persuasion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 119(2):272–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharif MA, Oppenheimer DM (2021) The effect of categories on relative encoding biases in memory-based judgments. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 162(2021):1–8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharma I (2020) How to make more profit with decoy effect. Accessed September 5, 2021, https://medium.com/global-startup-corner/how-to-make-more-profit-with-decoy-effect-f97b8f08aeec.Google Scholar
• Shen A (2014) Recommendations as personalized marketing: Insights from customer experiences. J. Service Marketing 28(5):418–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shrupti S, John O, Jim G, Jane H (2019) Nudging for good. Accessed June 30, 2021, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/www/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/government-trends/2020/government-nudge-thinking.html.Google Scholar
• Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. 16(2):158–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I (2014) Vices and virtues of misguided replications: The case of asymmetric dominance. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):514–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. 29(3):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Brown GD, Chater N (2005) Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psych. Rev. 112(4):881.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoffel ST, Yang J, Vlaev I, von Wagner C (2019) Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening. PLoS One 14(3):e0213668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sue O’Curry YP, Pitts R (1995) The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. J. Consumer Psych. 4(1):85–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swol LM, Sniezek JA (2005) Factors affecting the acceptance of expert advice. British J. Soc. Psych. 44(3):443–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics (Pearson, Boston).Google Scholar
• Tam KY, Ho SY (2005) Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Inform. Systems Res. 16(3):271–291.Link, Google Scholar
• Tam KY, Ho SY (2006) Understanding the impact of web personalization on user information processing and decision outcomes. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30(4):865–890.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin, London).Google Scholar
• The Decision Laboratory (2021) The decision laboratory. Accessed July 29, 2021, https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/decoy-effect/.Google Scholar
• Theocharous G, Healey J, Mahadevan S, Saad M (2019) Personalizing with human cognitive biases. Accessed August 13, 2022, https://research.adobe.com/publication/personalizing-with-human-cognitive-biases.Google Scholar
• Thomadsen R, Rooderkerk RP, Amir O, Arora N, Bollinger B, Hansen K, John L, et al. (2018) How context affects choice. Customer Needs Solutions 5(1):3–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Todorović D (2010) Context effects in visual perception and their explanations. Rev. Psych. 17(1):17–32.Google Scholar
• Tomer Hochma (2017) Decoy effect: A complete practical guide to the psychological pricing and marketing hack. Accessed July 29, 2021, http://humanhow.com/the-decoy-effect-complete-guide/.Google Scholar
• Tormala ZL, Petty RE (2004) Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. J. Consumer Psych. 14(4):427–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsekouras D, Dellaert BG, Donkers B, Häubl G (2019) Product set granularity and consumer response to recommendations. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 48(2):186–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang X, Du X (2018) Why does advice discounting occur? The combined roles of confidence and trust. Frontiers Psych. 9(2018):238.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(2020):101553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao B, Benbasat I (2007) E-commerce product recommendation agents: Use, characteristics, and impact. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 31(1):137–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao B, Benbasat I (2018) An empirical examination of the influence of biased personalized product recommendations on consumers’ decision-making outcomes. Decision Support Systems 110(2018):46–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yagoda B (2018) The cognitive biases tricking your brain. Accessed August 14, 2022, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/cognitive-bias/565775/.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