Profiting from the Decoy Effect: A Case Study of an Online Diamond Retailer

References

• Bell DR, Lattin JM (2000) Looking for loss aversion in scanner panel data: The confounding effect of price response heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. 19(2):185–200.Link, Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consumer Res. 25(3):187–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biswas A, Blair EA (1991) Contextual effects of reference prices in retail advertisements. J. Marketing 55(3):1–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burdett K, Judd KL (1983) Equilibrium price dispersion. Econometrica 51(4):955–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiang J, Chib S, Narasimhan C (1998) Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity. J. Econometrics 89(1–2):223–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De los Santos B, Hortaçsu A, Wildenbeest MR (2012) Testing models of consumer search using data on web browsing and purchasing behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(6):2955–2980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L, Wang W (2016) Compromise effects explained by contextual deliberation reveal the rationality in preference construction. Working paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
• Hardie BGS, Johnson EJ, Fader PS (1993) Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Sci. 12(4):378–394.Google Scholar
• Heath TB, Chatterjee S, France KR (1995) Mental accounting and changes in price: The frame dependence of reference dependence. J. Consumer Res. 22(1):90–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Honka E (2014) Quantifying search and switching costs in the us auto insurance industry. RAND J. Econom. 45(4):847–884.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.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
• 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
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalyanaram G, Winer RS (1995) Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Sci. 14(3):G161–G169.Google Scholar
• Kamakura WA, Srivastava RK (1984) Predicting choice shares under conditions of brand interdependence. J. Marketing Res. 21(4):420–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan U, Zhu M, Kalra A (2011) When trade-offs matter: The effect of choice construal on context effects. J. Marketing Res. 48(1):62–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. 41(3):237–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lancaster T (1979) Econometric methods for the duration of unemployment. Econometrica 47(4):939–956.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lehmann DR, Pan Y (1994) Context effects, new brand entry, and consideration sets. J. Marketing Res. 31(3):364–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1977) The choice axiom after twenty years. J. Math. Psych. 15(3):215–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynch JG Jr, Chakravarti D, Mitra A (1991) Contrast effects in consumer judgments: Changes in mental representations or in the anchoring of rating scales? J. Consumer Res. 18(3):284–297.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
• Monroe KB (1973) Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. J. Marketing Res. 10(1):70–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Zhu M, Buechel EC, Morales AC (2019) Hedonic contrast effects are larger when comparisons are social. J. Consumer Res. 46(2):286–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Müller H, Schliwa V, Lehmann S (2014) Prize decoys at work—New experimental evidence for asymmetric dominance effects in choices on prizes in competitions. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 31(4):457–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orhun AY (2009) Optimal product line design when consumers exhibit choice set-dependent preferences. Marketing Sci. 28(5):868–886.Link, Google Scholar
• Rajendran KN, Tellis GJ (1994) Contextual and temporal components of reference price. J. Marketing 58(1):22–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratneshwar S, Shocker AD, Stewart DW (1987) Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. J. Consumer Res. 13(4):520–533.Crossref, 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
• Royle JR, O’Connor DJ, Reynolds GM, Bottomley PA (1999) The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternative, and instore purchases. Psych. Marketing 16(3):225–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siddarth S, Bucklin RE, Morrison DG (1995) Making the cut: Modeling and analyzing choice set restriction in scanner panel data. J. Marketing Res. 32(3):255–266.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 (2014) Vices and virtues of misguided replications: The case of asymmetric dominance. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):514–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. 79(4):281–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Nierop E, Bronnenberg B, Paap R, Wedel M, Franses PH (2010) Retrieving unobserved consideration sets from household panel data. J. Marketing Res. 47(1):63–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wedell DH (1991) Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learn., Memory, Cognition 17(4):767–778.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