Fast Then Slow: Choice Revisions Drive a Decline in the Attraction Effect

References

• Agranov M, Caplin A, Tergiman C (2015) Naive play and the process of choice in guessing games. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(2):146–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Annis J, Miller BJ, Palmeri TJ (2017) Bayesian inference with Stan: A tutorial on adding custom distributions. Behav. Res. Methods 49(3):863–886.Crossref, Google Scholar
• 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
• Benjamin DJ, Fontana MA, Kimball MS (2020) Reconsidering risk aversion. NBER Working Paper No. 28007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Berkowitsch NA, Scheibehenne B, Rieskamp J (2014) Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. J. Experiment. Psych. General 143(3):1331–1348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhatia S (2013) Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psych. Rev. 120(3):522–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Salience and consumer choice. J. Political Econom. 121(5):803–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown SD, Heathcote A (2008) The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psych. 57(3):153–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brownback A, Imas A, Kuhn M (2023) Behavioral food subsidies. Rev. Econom. Statist., ePub ahead of print February 6, https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Martin D (2011) Search and satisficing. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(7):2899–2922.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castillo G (2020) The attraction effect and its explanations. Games Econom. Behav. 119:123–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cataldo AM, Cohen AL (2019) The comparison process as an account of variation in the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 26(3):934–942.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cataldo AM, Cohen AL (2021) Modeling preference reversals in context effects over time. Computational Brain Behav. 4(4):101–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cherchye L, De Rock B, Griffith R, O’Connell M, Smith K, Vermeulen F (2020) A new year, a new you? Within-individual variation in food purchases. Eur. Econom. Rev. 127:103478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen PM, Santos LR (2017) Capuchins (Cebus apella) fail to show an asymmetric dominance effect. Animal Cognition 20(2):331–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colonius H, Marley AAJ (2015) Decision and choice: Random utility models of choice and response time. Wright JD, ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Elsevier, Oxford, UK), 901–905.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crosetto P, Gaudeul A (2016) A monetary measure of the strength and robustness of the attraction effect. Econom. Lett. 149:38–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crosetto P, Güth W (2021) What are you calling intuitive? Subject heterogeneity as a driver of response times in an impunity game. J. Econom. Psych. 87:102419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. J. Consumer Psych. 9(4):189–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dieckmann A, Dippold K, Dietrich H (2009) Compensatory vs. noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences. Judgment Decision Making 4(3):200–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U (2008) Representative trust and reciprocity: Prevalence and determinants. Econom. Inquiry 46(1):84–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Enke B, Graeber T (2019) Cognitive uncertainty. Quart. J. Econom. 2023:qjad025. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad025.Google Scholar
• Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H (1996) Individual differences in intuitive—Experiential and analytical—Rational thinking styles. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 71(2):390–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSB, Stanovich KE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 8(3):223–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans NJ, Holmes WR, Trueblood JS (2019) Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 26(3):901–933.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farmer GD, Warren PA, El-Deredy W, Howes A (2016) The effect of expected value on attraction effect preference reversals. J. Behav. Decision Making 30(4):785–793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferreira J (2023) Which choices merit deference? A comparison of three behavioural proxies of subjective welfare. Econom. Philos. 39(1):124–151.Google Scholar
• Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(4):25–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, Group AR (2000) Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Hedgcock W, Rao AR (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
• Herne K (1999) The effects of decoy gambles on individual choice. Experiment. Econom. 2(1):31–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howes A, Warren PA, Farmer G, El-Deredy W, Lewis RL (2016) Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value. Psych. Rev. 123(4):368–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu J, Yu R (2014) The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions. Frontiers Behav. Neurosci. 8:271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Puto C (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J. Consumer Res. 10(1):31–41.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
• Imas A, Kuhn MA, Mironova V (2022) Waiting to choose: The role of deliberation in intertemporal choice. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 14(3):414–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York).Google Scholar
• Kessler J, Kivimaki H, Niederle M (2017) Thinking fast and slow: Generosity over time. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University.Google Scholar
• Król M, Król M (2019) Inferiority, not similarity of the decoy to target, is what drives the transfer of attention underlying the attraction effect: Evidence from an eye-tracking study with real choices. J. Neuroscience Psych. Econom. 12(2):88–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kroll EB, Vogt B (2012) The relevance of irrelevant alternatives. Econom. Lett. 115(3):435–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichters M, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2015) On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments. AMS Rev. 5(1–2):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liew SX, Howe PDL, Little DR (2016) The appropriacy of averaging in the study of context effects. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 23(5):1639–1646.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lohse GL, Johnson EJ (1996) A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 68(1):28–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (2012) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY).Google Scholar
• Malkoc SA, 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
• Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J (2013) Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341(6149):976–980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mao W, Oppewal H (2012) The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning. Marketing Lett. 23(1):339–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masicampo E, Baumeister RF (2008) Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: Lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psych. Sci. 19(3):255–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mishra S, Umesh U, Stem DE Jr (1993) Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. J. Marketing Res. 30(3):331–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molloy MF, Galdo M, Bahg G, Liu Q, Turner BM (2019) What’s in a response time?: On the importance of response time measures in constraining models of context effects. Decision 6(2):171–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen K, Rehbeck J (2022) When choices are mistakes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 112(7):2237–2268.Google Scholar
• Noguchi T, Stewart N (2014) In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions. Cognition 132(1):44–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noguchi T, Stewart N (2018) Multialternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data. Psych. Rev. 125(4):512–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park J, Kim J (2005) The effects of decoys on preference shifts: The role of attractiveness and providing justification. J. Consumer Psych. 15(2):94–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1988) Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 14(3):534–552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettibone JC (2012) Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment Decision Making 7(4):513–521.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
• 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
• Ray D, Robson A (2018) Certified random: A new order for coauthorship. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(2):489–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2011) Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):900–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making. Psych. Rev. 108(2):370–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schuck-Paim C, Pompilio L, Kacelnik A (2004) State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PLoS Biology 2(12):2305–2315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafir S, Waite TA, Smith BH (2002) Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behav. Ecology Sociobiology 51(2):180–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1959) Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. Amer. Econom. Rev. 49(3):253–283.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
• Sonsino D (2010) The irrelevant-menu affect on valuation. Experiment. Econom. 13(3):309–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spektor MS, Gluth S, Fontanesi L, Rieskamp J (2019) How similarity between choice options affects decisions from experience: The accentuation-of-differences model. Psych. Rev. 126(1):52–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sürücü O, Djawadi BM, Recker S (2019) The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice—An experimental study. J. Econom. Psych. 73:102–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team (2021) Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual. Accessed July 22, 2023, https://mc-stan.org/users/documentation/.Google Scholar
• Stanovich KE, West RF (2008) On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 94(4):672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trendl A, Stewart N, Mullett T (2021) A zero attraction effect in naturalistic choice. Decision 8(1):55–68.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
• 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 (2003) Preference, Belief, and Similarity: Selected Writings (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Usher M, McCelland JL (2004) Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multi-alternative choice. Psych. Rev. 111(3):757–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsh G, Hennig-Thurau T, Mitchell V-W (2007) Consumer confusion proneness: Scale development, validation, and application. J. Marketing Management 23(7–8):697–721.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Jusup M, Shi L, Lee J-H, Iwasa Y, Boccaletti S (2018) Exploiting a cognitive bias promotes cooperation in social dilemma experiments. Nature Comm. 9(1):2954.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