Competition for Context-Sensitive Consumers

References

• Ali SN (2011) Learning self-control. Quart. J. Econom. 126(2):857–893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apffelstaedt A, Mechtenberg L (2016) Competition for context-sensitive consumers. Working paper, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):74–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong M (2015) Search and ripoff externalities. Rev. Indust. Organ. 47(3):273–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azar O (2007) Relative thinking theory. J. Socio-Econom. 36(1):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Salience and consumer choice. J. Political Econom. 121(5):803–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2016) Competition for attention. Rev. Econom. Stud. 83(2):481–513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushong B, Rabin M, Schwartzstein J (2020) A model of relative thinking. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bushong B, King LM, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2010) Pavlovian processes in consumer choice: The physical presence of a good increases willingness-to-pay. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(4):1–18.Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Malmendier U (2004) Contract design and self-control: Theory and evidence. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):353–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Malmendier U (2006) Paying not to go to the gym. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(3):694–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Köhler K (2016) Exchange asymmetries for bads? Experimental evidence. Eur. Econom. Rev. 82(February):231–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Köhler K, Lange MRJ, Wenzel T (2017) Demand shifts due to salience effects: Experimental evidence. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 15(3):626–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Spiegler R (2006) Contracting with diversely naive agents. Rev. Econom. Stud. 73(3):689–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Spiegler R (2011a) Consideration sets and competitive marketing. Rev. Econom. Stud. 78(1):235–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Spiegler R (2011b) On the strategic use of attention grabbers. Theoret. Econom. 6(1):127–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellison G (2005) A model of add-on pricing. Quart. J. Econom. 120(2):585–637.Google Scholar
• Ellison G, Ellison SF (2009) Search, obfuscation, and price elasticities on the internet. Econometrica 77(2):427–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabaix X (2014) A sparsity-based model of bounded rationality. Quart. J. Econom. 129(4):1661–1710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabaix X, Laibson D (2006) Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):505–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerstner E, Hess JD (1990) Can bait and switch benefit consumers? Marketing Sci. 9(2):114–124.Link, Google Scholar
• Grubb MD (2009) Selling to overconfident consumers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(5):1770–1807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gul F, Pesendorfer W (2001) Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69(6):1403–1435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath C, Soll JB (1996) Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. J. Consumer Res. 23(1):40–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2010) Exploiting naivete about self-control in the credit market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(5):2279–2303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2017) Naivete-based discrimination. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):1019–1054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2018) Behavioral industrial organization. Bernheim BD, DellaVigna S, Laibson D, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Economics, Volume 1: Applications and Foundations (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 517–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B, Murooka T (2017) Inferior products and profitable deception. Rev. Econom. Stud. 84(1):323–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herne K (1999) The effects of decoy gambles on individual choice. Experiment. Econom. 2(1):31–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herweg F, Rosato A (2020) Bait and ditch: Consumer naivete and salesforce incentives. J. Econom. Management Strategy 29(1):97–121.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
• Kamenica E (2008) Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2127–2149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan U, Zhu M, Karla A (2011) When trade-offs matter: The effect of choice construal on context effects. J. Marketing Res. 48(1):62–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Szeidl A (2013) A model of focusing in economic choice. Quart. J. Econom. 128(1):53–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koch AK, Nafziger J (2019) Correlates of narrow bracketing. Scand. J. Econom. 121(4):1441–1472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (1995) Bait and switch. J. Political Econom. 103(4):813–830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee P (2013) The Williams-Sonoma Bread Maker: A Case Study. Wall Street Journal (April 10), https://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/04/10/paul-lee-the-williams-sonoma-bread-maker-a-case-study/.Google Scholar
• Matějka F, McKay A (2015) Rational inattention to discrete choice: A new foundation for the multinomial logit model. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(6):272–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazar N, Kőszegi B, Ariely D (2014) True context-dependent preferences? The causes of market-dependent valuations. J. Behav. Decision Making 27(4):200–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2001) Choice and procrastination. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):1825–1849.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ok EA, Ortoleva P, Riella G (2015) Revealed (p)reference theory. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(1):299–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrizek F, Shiskin D (2019) Screening with frames. Working paper, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Parducci A (1965) Category judgement: A range-frequency model. Psych. Rev. 72(6):407–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettibone JC, Wedell DH (2000) Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgement and choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 81(2):300–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piccione M, Spiegler R (2012) Price competition under limited comparability. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):97–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pollak RA (1968) Consistent planning. Rev. Econom. Stud. 35(2):201–208.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
• Rosato A (2016) Selling substitute goods to loss-averse consumers: Limited availability, bargains, and rip-offs. RAND J. Econom. 47(3):709–733.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salant Y, Rubinstein A (2008) (A,f): Choices with frames. Rev. Econom. Stud. 75(4):1287–1296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salant Y, Siegel R (2018) Contracts with framing. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 10(3):315–346.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
• Sims CA (2003) Implications of rational inattention. J. Monetary Econom. 50(3):665–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strotz RH (1959) Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Rev. Econom. Stud. 23(3):165–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 4(3):199–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N (2003) Temporal construal. Psych. Rev. 110(3):403–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N, Wakslak C (2007) Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consumer Psych. 17(2):83–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1179–1189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1995) A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. J. Consumer Res. 21(4):627–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilkie WL, Mela CF, Gundlach GT (1998) Does “bait and switch” really benefit consumers? Marketing Sci. 17(3):273–282.Link, Google Scholar