Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral

References

• Arkes HR, Hirshleifer D, Jiang D, Lim S (2008) Reference point adaptations: Tests in the domain of security trading. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 105(1):67–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arkes H, Hirshleifer D, Jiang D, Lim S (2010) A cross-cultural study of reference point adaptation: Evidence from China, Korea, and the US. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 112(2):99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Weber M, Welfens F (2011) Reference-point formation and updating. Management Sci. 57(3):506–519.Link, Google Scholar
• Bem DJ (1967) Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psych. Rev. 74(3):183–200.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
• Brehm JW (1966) A Theory of Psychological Reactance (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R (1978) Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 36(8):917–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H, Rao AR (2002) Close encounters of two kinds: False alarms and dashed hopes. Marketing Sci. 21(1):178–96.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen MK, Risen JL (2009) Is choice a reliable predictor of choice? A comment on Sagarin and Skowronski. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 45(2):425–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R (1997a) Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J. Consumer Res. 24(2):215–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R (1997b) Context and task effects on choice deferral. Marketing Lett. 8(1):119–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM (1999) The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. J. Consumer Res. 25(4):369–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Simonson I (2003) The effect of forced choice on choice. J. Marketing Res. 40(2):146–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Huber J, Khan U (2007) The shopping momentum effect. J. Marketing Res. 44(3):370–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis AP, Bos M, Nordgren L, van Baaren RB (2006) On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science 311(17):1005–1007.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dinner I, Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG, Liu K (2011) Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. 17(4):332–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doyle J, O’Connor D, Reynolds G, Bottomley P (1999) The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psych. Marketing 16(3): 225–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farquhar PH, Pratkanis AR (1993) Decision structuring with phantom alternatives. Management Sci. 39(10):1214–1226.Link, Google Scholar
• Fitzsimons GJ (2000) Consumer response to stockouts. J. Consumer Res. 27(2):249–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Loewenstein G (1999) Hedonic adaptation. Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwartz N, eds. Foundations of Hedonic Psychology: Scientific Perspectives on Enjoyment and Suffering (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), 302–329.Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Johnson E, Herrmann A (2010) Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Discussion Paper 2010-20, CeDEx, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
• Ge X, Messinger PR, Li J (2009) Influence of soldout products on consumer choice. J. Retailing 85(9):274–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenleaf E, Lehmann D (1995) Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. J. Consumer Res. 22(2):186–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Hedgcock W, Rao A (2009) Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Marketing Res. 46(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hedgcock W, Rao A, 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
• Hedgcock W, Crowe D, Leuthold A, Georgopoulos A (2010) A magnetoencephalography study of choice bias. Experiment. Brain Res. 202(1):121–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heyman JE, Orhun Y, Ariely D (2004) Auction fever: The effect of opponents and quasi-endowment on product valuations. J. Interactive Marketing 18(4):7–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Highhouse S (1996) Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 65(1):68–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Puto CP (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 CP (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
• Huettel SA, Payne JW, Yoon C, Gonzalez R, Bettman JR, Hedgcock W, Rao AR (2009) Commentaries and rejoinder to trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Marketing Res. 46(1):14–24.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):995–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman T, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.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
• Kramer T, Carroll R (2009) The effect of incidental out-of-stock options on preferences. Marketing Lett. 20(2):197–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce MF (1998) Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. J. Consumer Res. 24(4):409–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malkoc S, Hedgcock W, Hoeffler S (2013) Between a rock and a hard place: The failure of the attraction effect among unattractive alternatives. J. Consumer Psych. 23(3):317–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason J, Johnson E (2012) Obama campaign mulls what to do with lauded ground game. Reuters (November 8), http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSBRE8A800J20121109.Google Scholar
• McCall JJ (1970) Economics of information and job search. Quart. J. Econom. 84(1):113–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Min KS, West PM, Huber J (2006) Timing is everything: Communicating product unavailability. Working paper, Beacom School of Business, University of South Dakota, Vermillion.Google Scholar
• Mochon D (2013) Single-option aversion. J. Consumer Res. 40(3):555–566.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moorthy S, Ratchford BT, Talukdar D (1997) Consumer information search revisited: Theory and empirical analysis. J. Consumer Res. 23(4):263–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muthukrishnan AV, Wathieu L (2007) Superfluous choices and the persistence of preference. J. Consumer Res. 33(4):454–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettibone JC, Wedell DH (2000) Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 81(2):300–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratkanis AR, Farquhar PH (1992) A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 13(1):103–122.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
• Sagarin BJ, Skowronski JJ (2009) The implications of imperfect measurement for free-choice carry-over effects: Reply to M. Keith Chen’s (2008) “Rationalization and cognitive dissonance: Do choices affect or reflect preferences?”. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 45(2):421–423.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
• Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. J. Political Econom. 69(3):213–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strahilevitz M, Loewenstein G (1998) The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. J. Consumer Res. 25(3):276–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. 79(4):281–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Shafir E (1992) Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psych. Sci. 3(6):358–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Varian HR (1980) A model of sales. Amer. Econom. Rev. 70(4):651–659.Google Scholar
• Wilson TD, Gilbert DT (2005) Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 14(3):131–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolf JR, Arkes HR, Muhanna WA (2008) The power of touch: An examination of the effect of duration of physical contact on the valuation of objects. Judgment Decision Making 3(6):476–482.Google Scholar
• Zhao X, Lynch JG, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consumer Res. 37(2):197–206.Crossref, Google Scholar