Testing the Role of Contextual Deliberation in the Compromise Effect

References

• Amir O, Levav J (2008) Choice construction versus preference construction: the instability of preferences learned in context. J. Marketing Res. 45(2):145–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) ‘Coherent arbitrariness’: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q. J. Econom. 118(1):73–105.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
• DellaVigna S, Malmendier U (2004) Contract design and self-control: Theory and evidence. Q. J. Econom. 119(2):353–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM (1999) The effect of time constraint 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(May):146–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. J. Consumer Psychol. 9(4):189–200.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
• Gu X, Kannan PK, Liye M (2018) Selling the premium in freemium. J. Marketing 82(6):10–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L (2016) Contextual deliberation and preference construction. Management Sci. 62(10):2977–2993.Link, Google Scholar
• Guo L, Zhang J (2012) Consumer deliberation and product line design. Marketing Sci. 31(6):995–1007.Link, Google Scholar
• Ha YW, Park S, Ahn HK (2009) The influence of categorical attributes on choice context effects. J. Consumer Res. 36(3):463–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Wernerfelt B (1990) An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. J. Consumer Res. 16(4):393–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Koszegi B (2008) Competition and price variation when consumers are loss averse. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1245–1268.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
• Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(5):1449–1475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribution substitution in intuitive judgment. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics of Intuitive Judgment: Extensions and Applications (Cambridge University Press), 49–81.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, Values, and Frames. (Cambridge University Press).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
• Kenny DA (2018) Mediation. http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm.Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. 41(August):237–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Bartling B, Hare T, Fehr E (2015) Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nat. Commun. 6(1):1–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuksov D, Miguel Villas-Boas J (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Sci. 29(3):507–524.Link, Google Scholar
• Lehman DR, Pan Y (1994) Context effects, new brand entry, and consideration sets. J. Marketing Res. 31(3):364–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The Construction of Preference. (Cambridge University Press).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim N, Ham SH (2014) Relationship organization and price delegation: an experimental study. Management Sci. 60(3):586–605.Link, Google Scholar
• Lim N, Ahearne MJ, Ham SH (2009) Designing sales contests: does the prize structure matter? J. Marketing Res. 46(3):356–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neumann N, Bockenholt U, Sinha A (2016) A meta-analysis of extremeness aversion. J. Consumer Psych. 26(2):193–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pan Y, Lehman DR (1993) The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand judgments. J. Consumer Res. 20(1):76–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettibone J (2012) Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment Decision Making 7(4):513–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettibone J, Wedell DH (2007) Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. J. Behav. Decision Making 20:323–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pinger P, Ruhmer-Krell I, Schumacher H (2016) The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant’s menu. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 128:14–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pocheptsova A, Amir O, Dhar R, Baumeister RF (2009) Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. J. Marketing Res. 46(3):344–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instruments Comput. 36(4):717–731.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D, Wernerfelt B, Zettelmeyer F (1997) the role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. J. Consumer Res. 24(1):118–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ronayne D, Brown GDA (2017) Multi-attribute decision by sampling: An account of the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects. J. Math. Psychol 81:11–27Google Scholar
• Shugan SM (1980) The Cost of Thinking. J. Consumer Res. 7:99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shultz TR, Leveille E, Lepper MR (1999) Free choice and cognitive dissonance revisited: Choosing “lesser evils” versus “greater goods”. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 25(1):40–48.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, Nowlis SM (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. J. Consumer Res. 27(June):49–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. 29(August):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Amer. Psych. 50(5):364–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A (2014) The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. Psych. Rev. 121(2):179–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. 95(3):371–384.Crossref, 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
• Wilcox NT (1993) Lottery choice: Incentives, complexity, and decision time. Econom. J. (Lond.) 103(421):1397–1417.Google Scholar
• Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consumer Res. 37(August):197–206.Crossref, Google Scholar