Turning on Dimensional Prominence in Decision Making: Experiments and a Model

References

• Ariely D, Wallsten TS (1995) Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 63(3):223–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azar OH (2007) Relative thinking theory. J. Socio-Economics 36(1):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azar OH (2011) Do people think about absolute or relative price differences when choosing between substitute goods? J. Econom. Psych. 32(3):450–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis NC (2013) Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. J. Econom. Perspect. 27(1):173–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barbos A (2010) Context effects: A representation of choices from categories. J. Econom. Theory 145(3):1224–1243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bargh JA, Chartrand TL (2000) The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. Reis HT, Judd CM, eds. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 253–285.Google Scholar
• Bateman I, Dent S, Peters E, Slovic P, Starmer C (2007) The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. J. Behav. Decision Making 20(4):365–380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Salience and consumer choice. J. Political Econom. 121(5):803–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushong B, Rabin M, Schwartzstein J (2021) A model of relative thinking. Rev. Econom. Stud. 88(1):162–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng-Ming J, Hong-Mei S, Long-Fei Z, Zhao L, Hong-Zhi L, Hong-Yue S (2017) Better is worse, worse is better: Reexamination of violations of dominance in intertemporal choice. Judgment Decision Making 12(3):253–259.Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Maréchal MA (2016) Priming in economics. Current Opinion Psych. 12:17–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Clippel G, Eliaz K (2012) Reason-based choice: A bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects. Theoret. Econom. 7(1):125–162.Crossref, 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
• Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Köster M (2015) Violations of first-order stochastic dominance as salience effects. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 59:42–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Köhler K, Lange MR, Wenzel T (2017) Demand shifts due to salience effects: Experimental evidence. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 15(3):626–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dertwinkel-Kalt M, Gerhardt H, Riener G, Schwerter F, Strang L (2021) Concentration bias in intertemporal choice. Rev. Econom. Stud., ePub ahead of print September 27, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab043. Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Glazer R (1996) Similarity in context: Cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 67(3):280–293. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doyle JR, O’Connor DJ, Reynolds GM, Bottomley PA (1999) The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psych. Marketing 16(3):225–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Spiegler R (2006) Contracting with diversely naive agents. Rev. Econom. Stud. 73(3):689–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furtado BA, Nascimento L, Riella G (2019) Rational choice with full-comparability domains. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.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
• Gneezy U, Rey-Biel P (2014) On the relative efficiency of performance pay and noncontingent incentives. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(1):62–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA, Wu G (2006) The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1283–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hedgcock W, Rao AR, 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
• 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 C (2014) Let’s be honest about the attraction effect. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):520–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Simonson I (2000) The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice. J. Marketing Res. 37(4):427–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Szeidl A (2012) A model of focusing in economic choice. Quart. J. Econom. 128(1):53–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lombardi M (2009) Reason-based choice correspondences. Math. Social Sci. 57(1):58–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maltz A (2020) Exogenous endowment—Endogenous reference point. Econom. J. (London) 130(625):160–182.Google Scholar
• Manzini P, Mariotti M (2012) Categorize then choose: Boundedly rational choice and welfare. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 10(5):1141–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Nakajima D (2013) Choice by iterative search. Theoret. Econom. 8(3):701–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ok EA, Ortoleva P, Riella G (2015) Revealed (p)reference theory. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(1):299–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palmeira MM (2010) The zero-comparison effect. J. Consumer Res. 38(1):16–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scarpi D (2008) The impact of decoys and background information on consumers’ preferences and decision making. Internat. Rev. Retail Distribution Consumer Res. 18(1):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scholten M, Read D (2014) Better is worse, worse is better: Violations of dominance in intertemporal choice. Decision (Washington DC) 1(3):215–222.Google Scholar
• Shafir E, Simonson I, Tversky A (1993) Reason based choice. Cognition 49(1–2):11–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shampanier K, Mazar N, Ariely D (2007) Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Sci. 26(6):742–757.Link, 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
• Slovic P, MacPhillamy D (1974) Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 11(2):172–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A, Busemeyer JR (2013) Not just for consumers: Context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psych. Sci. 24(6):901–908.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. 79(4):281–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, 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
• Zhang Y, Slovic P (2019) Much ado about nothing: The zero effect in life-saving decisions. J. Behav. Decision Making 32(1):30–37.Crossref, Google Scholar