Dyadic Compromise Effect

References

• Aribarg A, Arora N, Bodur HO (2002) Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group decisions. J. Marketing Res. 39(3):336–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aribarg A, Arora N, Kang MY (2010) Predicting joint choice using individual data. Marketing Sci. 29(1):139–157.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora N, Allenby G (1999) Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J. Marketing Res. 36(November):476–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N (2006) Estimating joint preference using data imputation: A subsampling approach. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 23(4):409–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker R, Blumberg S, Brick JM, Couper MP, Courtwright M, Dennis M, Dillman D, Frankel MR, Garland P, Groves RM, Kennedy C (2010) AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quart. 74(4):711–781.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler R (2001) Naive diversification strategies in retirement saving plans. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(1):79–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler R (2002) How much is investor autonomy worth? J. Finance 57(4):1593–1616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consumer Res. 25(3):187–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binmore K, Rubinstein A, Wolinsky A (1986) The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling. RAND J. Econom. 17(2):176–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradlow E, Hu Y, Ho TH (2004) A learning-based model for imputing missing levels in partial conjoint profiles. J. Marketing Res. 41(4):369–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brennan MJ, Torous WN (1999) Individual decision-making and investor welfare. Econom. Notes 28(2):119–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Business Wire (2011) Fidelity couples study finds husbands and wives not having critical conversations needed to achieve retirement goals. (June 29), http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110629005966/en/Fidelity-Couples-Study-Finds-Husbands-Wives-Critical.Google Scholar
• Chernev A (2004) Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. J. Consumer Res. 31(2):249–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Curry DJ, Menasco MB, Van Ark JW (1991) Multiattribute dyadic choice: Models and tests. J. Marketing Res. 28(3):259–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis HL (1970) Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision making. J. Marketing Res. 7(2):168–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Menon A, Maach B (2004) Toward extending the compromise effect to complex buying contexts. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):258–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. J. Consumer Psych. 9(4):189–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M (2007) An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 44(2):214–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drolet A (2002) Inherent rule variability in consumer choice: Changing rules for change’s sake. J. Consumer Res. 29(3):293–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliashberg J, LaTour SA, Rangaswamy A, Stern LW (1986) Assessing the predictive accuracy of two utility-based theories in a marketing channel negotiation context. J. Marketing Res. 23(2):101–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Employee Benefits Security Administration (2016) Private pension plan bulletin, historical tables and graphs 1975–2014. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Gilbride TJ, Allenby GM (2004) A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Sci. 23(3):391–406.Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta S, Kohli R (1990) Designing products and services for consumer welfare: Theoretical and empirical issues. Marketing Sci. 9(3):230–246.Link, Google Scholar
• Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility. J. Political Econom. 63(4):309–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hensher D, Louviere J, Swait J (1999) Combining sources of preference data. J. Econometrics 89:197–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hira TK, Loibl C (2008) Gender differences in investment behavior. Xiao JJ, ed. Handbook of Consumer Finance Research (Springer, New York), 253–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004a) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):237–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004b) Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):262–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• LPL Financial (2012) Women and finance. White paper. http://blog.amcpros.com/wp-content/LPL_Financial_Whitepaper.pdf.Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and Decisions (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18(2):155–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nash JF (1953) Two person cooperative games. Econometrica 21(1):128–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neslin SA, Greenhalgh L (1983) Nash’s theory of cooperative games as a predictor of the outcomes of buyer-seller negotiations: An experiment in media purchasing. J. Marketing Res. 20(4):368–379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newton MA, Raftery AE (1994) Approximate Bayesian inference with the weighted likelihood bootstrap. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 56(1):3–48.Google Scholar
• Nowlis SM, Simonson I (2000) Sales promotions and choice context as competing influences on consumer decision making. J. Consumer Psych. 9(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owen G (1969) Game Theory (W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Peters H, Van Damme E (1991) Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa bargaining solutions by disagreement point axioms. Math. Oper. Res. 16(3):447–461.Link, Google Scholar
• Rooderkerk RP, van Heerde HJ, Bijmolt THA (2011) Incorporating context effects into a choice model. J. Marketing Res. 48(4):767–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1979) Axiomatic Models of Bargaining (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharpe KM, Staelin R, Huber J (2008) Using extremeness aversion to fight obesity: Policy implications of context dependent demand. J. Consumer Res. 35(October):406–422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheng S, Parker AM, Nakamoto K (2005) Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects. Psych. Marketing 22(7):591–609.Crossref, 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, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. 29(3):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 64(4):583–639.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• UBS (2014) Couples and money: Who decides? UBS Investor Watch. https://www.ubs.com/content/dam/WealthManagementAmericas/documents/investor-watch-2Q2014-report.pdf.Google Scholar
• Vanguard (2012) Principle 2: Develop a suitable asset allocation using broadly diversified funds. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/investingtruths/investing-truth-about-risk.Google Scholar
• Wertenbroch K, Skiera B (2002) Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J. Marketing Res. 39(2):228–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang S, Zhao Y, Erdem T, Zhao Y (2010) Modeling the intra-household behavioral interaction. J. Marketing Res. 47(3):470–484.Crossref, Google Scholar