Differentiate or Imitate? The Role of Context-Dependent Preferences

References

• Amaldoss W, Jain S. Conspicuous consumption and sophisticated thinking. Management Sci. (2005a) 51(10):1449–1466Link, Google Scholar
• Amaldoss W, Jain S. Pricing of conspicuous goods: A competitive analysis of social effects. J. Marketing Res. (2005b) 44(1):30–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amaldoss W, Jain S. Reference groups and product line decisions: An experimental investigation of limited editions and product proliferation. Management Sci. (2008a) 56(4):621–644Link, Google Scholar
• Amaldoss W, Jain S. Trading up: A strategic analysis of reference group effects. Marketing Sci. (2008b) 27(5):932–942Link, Google Scholar
• Bhargava M, Kim J, Srivastava RK. Explaining context effects on choice using a model of comparative judgment. J. Consumer Psych. (2000) 9(3):167–177Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter GS, Nakamoto K. Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. J. Marketing Res. (1989) 26(3):285–298Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Iyer G, Pazgal A. Limited memory, categorization, and competition. Marketing Sci. (2010) 29(4):650–670Link, Google Scholar
• Chernev A. The impact of common features on consumer preferences: A case of confirmatory reasoning. J. Consumer Res. (2001) 27(4):475–488Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernev A. Feature complementarity and assortment in choice. J. Consumer Res. (2005) 31(March):748–759Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cui TH, Raju JS, Zhang ZJ. Fairness and channel coordination. Management Sci. (2007) 53(8):1303–1314Link, Google Scholar
• Della Vigna S. Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. J. Econom. Literature (2009) 47(2):315–372Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J. Consumer Res. (1997a) 24(2):215–231Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R. Context and task effects on choice deferral. Marketing Lett. (1997b) 8(1):119–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM. To buy or not to buy: Response mode effects on consumer choice. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(2):423–432Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Zhu N. Up close and personal: Investor sophistication and the disposition effect. Management Sci. (2006) 52(5):726–740Link, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ. Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. J. Consumer Psych. (2000) 9(4):189–200Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drolet A, Simonson I, Tversky A. Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Lett. (2000) 11(3):199–209Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feinberg FM, Krishna A, Zhang ZJ. Do we care what others get? A behaviorist approach to targeted promotions. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(3):277–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenleaf EA. The impact of reference price effects on the profitability of price promotions. Marketing Sci. (1995) 14(1):82–104Link, Google Scholar
• Grubb MD. Selling to overconfident consumers. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2009) 99(5):1770–1807Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardie BGS, Johnson EJ, Fader PS. Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12(4):378–394Link, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Koszegi B. Competition and price variation when consumers are loss averse. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2008) 98(4):1245–1268Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho T-H, Zhang J. Designing pricing contracts for boundedly rational customers: Does the framing of the fixed fee matter? Management Sci. (2008) 54(4):686–700Link, Google Scholar
• Ho T-H, Lim N, Camerer CF. Modeling the psychology of consumer and firm behavior with behavioral economics. J. Marketing Res. (2006) 43(3):307–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoeffler S, Ariely D. Constructing stable preferences: A look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. J. Consumer Psych. (1999) 82(2):113–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houston DA, Sherman SJ. Cancellation and focus: The role of shared and unique features in the choice process. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1995) 31(4):357–378Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. (1982) 9(1):90–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jain S. Self-control and optimal goals: A theoretical analysis. Marketing Sci. (2009) 28(6):1027–1045Link, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Schrift R. The synthesis of preferences: Bridging behavioral decision research and marketing science. J. Consumer Psych. (2008) 18(3):179–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V. Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. (2004a) 41(3):237–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V. Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. J. Marketing Res. (2004b) 41(3):262–268Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kopalle PK, Rao AG, Assunção JL. Asymmetric reference price effects and dynamic pricing policies. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(1):60–85Link, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. (2006) 121(4):1133–1165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li S, Zheng R, Li L-B. Do shared features of offered alternatives have an effect in consumer choice? J. Econom. Psych. (2007) 28(6):658–677Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim N, Ho T-H. Designing price contracts for boundedly rational customers: Does the number of blocks matter? Marketing Sci. (2007) 26(3):312–326Link, Google Scholar
• List JA. Does market experience eliminate market anomolies? Quart. J. Econom. (2003) 118(1):41–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA. Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica (2004) 72(2):615–625Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazumdar T, Raj SP, Sinha I. Reference price research: Review and propositions. J. Marketing (2005) 69:84–102Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narasimhan C, He C, Anderson ET, Brenner L, Desai P, Kuksov D, Messinger P, et al. Incorporating behavioral anomalies in strategic models. Marketing Lett. (2005) 16(3):361–373Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orhun AY. Optimal product line design when consumers exhibit choice set-dependent preferences. Marketing Sci. (2009) 28(5):868–886Link, Google Scholar
• Park CW, Jun SY, Macinnis DJ. Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. J. Marketing Res. (2000) 37(2):187–202Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajendran KN, Tellis GJ. Contextual and temporal components of reference prices. J. Marketing (1994) 58(1):22–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rooderberk RP, Van Heerde HJ, Bijmolt THA. Incorporating context effects into a choice model. J. Marketing Res. (2011) 48(3):767–780Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I. Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. J. Consumer Psych. (2008) 18(3):155–169Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Tversky A. Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. (1992) 29(3):281–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Syam N, Krishnamurthy P, Hess JD. That's what I thought I wanted? Miswanting and regret for a standard good in a mass-customized world. Marketing Sci. (2008) 27(3):379–397Link, Google Scholar
• Thomadsen R. Product positioning and competition: The role of location in fast food industry. Marketing Sci. (2007) 26(6):792–804Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. (1972) 79(4):281–299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I. Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. (1993) 39(10):1179–1189Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang ZJ. Price-matching policy and the principle of minimum differentiation. J. Indust. Econom. (1995) 43(3):287–299Crossref, Google Scholar