en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Zobacz wydanie
Rok 6/2019 
Numer 31

Nieistotne alternatywy wyboru mają znaczenie. Przegląd wiedzy o efekcie asymetrycznej dominacji

Maciej Kościelniak
SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny

Tadeusz Tyszka
Kozminski University

6/2019 (31) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123

Abstrakt

W niniejszym arty kule podejmujemy próbę przeglądu badań nad efektem asymetrycznej dominacji. Zjawisko to wyraża się we wzroście popularności jednej z opcji wyboru w sytuacji, kiedy towarzyszy jej alternatywa podobna – ale zauważalnie gorsza (zdominowana). Liczne badania oraz obserwacje pokazują, że efekt ten występuje w tak różnych dziedzinach jak ekonomia, polityka, sądownictwo czy medycyna. W literaturze naukowej wiąże się z nim wiele niejasności oraz sprzecznych teorii, dotyczących np. jego uwarunkowań w świetle teorii dwóch systemów. Nie jest do końca jasne, czy zjawisko asymetrycznej dominacji jest efektem refl eksyjnego, deliberatywnego sposobu przetwarzania informacji, czy też myślenia szybkiego i intuicyjnego. Niejednoznaczna
jest też odpowiedź na pytanie o to, czy efekt ten jest przejawem ludzkiej nieracjonalności,
czy też stanowi adaptacyjną i efektywną strategię podejmowania decyzji w warunkach niepewności oraz szumu informacyjnego. Niniejszy artykuł zawiera przegląd badań nad efektem asymetrycznej dominacji wśród ludzi i w świecie zwierząt. Omówiono w nim teksty poświęcone zmianom w uległości wobec efektu asymetrycznej dominacji na kolejnych etapach życia. Wreszcie, dyskusji poddano wykorzystanie tego mechanizmu do osiągania celów społecznie pożądanych w ramach tzw. libertariańskiego paternalizmu

Powiązania

  1. Ariely, D. (2009). Potęga irracjonalności: Ukryte siły, które wpływają na nasze decyzje. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Dolnośląskie. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arrow, K.J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. Nowy Jork: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baltes, P.B., Baltes, M.M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences, 1, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bateson, M., Healy, S.D., Hurly, T.A. (2003). Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 270, 1271–1276. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2003.2365 [Google Scholar]
  5. Besedeš, T., Deck, C., Sarangi, S., Shor, M. (2012). Age effects and heuristics in decision making. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00174 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A.M., Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decisionmaking competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938–956. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruine de Bruin, W., Strough, J., Parker, A.M. (2014). Getting older isn’t all that bad: Better decisions and coping when facing “sunk costs”. Psychology and Aging, 29, 642–647. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0036308 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burton, S., Zinkhan, G.M. (1987). Changes in consumer choice: Further investigation of similarity and attraction effects. Psychology and Marketing, 4, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/ mar.4220040308 [Google Scholar]
  9. Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T. (1993). Decision fi eld theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459. [Google Scholar]
  10. Calvert, S.L. (2008). Children as Consumers: Advertising and Marketing. The Future of Children, 18, 205–234. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chung, H.-K., Sjöström, T., Lee, H.-J., Lu, Y.-T., Tsuo, F.-Y., Chen, T.-S.i in.Huang, C.-Y. (2017). Why Do Irrelevant Alternatives Matter? An fMRI-TMS Study of Context- Dependent Preferences. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(48), 11647–11661. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2307-16.2017 [Google Scholar]
  12. Co hen, P.M., Santos, L. R. (2017). Capuchins (Cebus apella) fail to show an asymmetric dominance effect. Animal Cognition, 20, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1055-5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crosetto, P., Gaudeul, A. (2012). Do Consumers Prefer Offers that are Easy to Compare? An Experimental Investigation. Jena Economic Research Papers. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2149615 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dhar, R., Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards, S.C., Pratt, S.C. (2009). Rationality in collective decision-making by ant colonies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 3655–3661. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0981 [Google Scholar]
  17. E pstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49, 709–724. [Google Scholar]
  18. Frederick, S., Lee, L., Baskin, E. (2014). The Limits of Attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0061 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., The ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fomez, Y., Martínez-Molés, V., Urbano, A., Vila, J. (2016). The attraction effect in mid-involvement categories: An experimental economics approach. Journal of Business Research, 69, 5082–5088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.084 [Google Scholar]
  21. Feath, T.B., Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1086/209449 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hedgcock, W., Rao, A.R. (2009). Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-(97)00020-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Howes, A., Warren, P.A., Farmer, G., El-Deredy, W., Lewis, R.L. (2016). Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value. Psychological Review, 123(4), 368–391. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0039996 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hsee, C.K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67, 247–257. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu, J., Yu, R. (2014). The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00271 [Google Scholar]
  27. Huber, J., Payne, J.W., Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98. https:// doi.org/10.1086/208899 [Google Scholar]
  28. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., Puto, C. P. (2014). Let’s Be Honest About the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 520–525. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0208 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kahneman, D., Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 49–81. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kelman, M., Rottenstreich, Y., Tversky, A. (1996). Context-dependence in legal decision making. The Journal of Legal Studies, 25, 287–318. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim, J., Park, J., Ryu, G. (2006). Decoy effects and brands. ACR North American Advances. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, S., Hasher, L. (2005). The attraction effect in decision making: superior performance by older adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A, 58, 120–133. https://doi. org/10.1080/02724980443000160 [Google Scholar]
  33. Koscielniak, M., Rydzewska, K., Sedek, G. (2018). Commentary: The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older Adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2321. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02321 [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y., Baldassi, M., Johnson, E.J., Weber, E.U. (2013). Complementary cognitive capabilities, economic decision making, and aging. Psychology and Aging, 28, 595–613. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0034172 [Google Scholar]
  35. Li , M., Sun, Y., Chen, H. (2018). The Decoy Effect as a Nudge: Boosting Hand Hygiene With a Worse Option. Psychological Science, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618761374 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lu ce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Dover Publications, 191–243. [Google Scholar]
  37. Luce, M.F., Bettman, J.R., Payne, J.W. (2001). Emotional decisions: Tradeoff diffi culty and coping in consumer choice. Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1–209. [Google Scholar]
  38. Malaviya, P., Sivakumar, K. (2015). The Infl uence of Choice Justifi cation and Stimulus Meaningfulness on the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501923 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mao, W., Oppewal, H. (2012). The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning. Marketing Letters, 23, 339–351. [Google Scholar]
  40. Masicampo, E.J., Baumeister, R.F. (2008). Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psychological Science, 19, –260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x [Google Scholar]
  41. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mata, R., Helversen, B. von, Rieskamp, J. (2010). Learning to choose: Cognitive aging and strategy selection learning in decision making. Psychology and Aging, 25, 299–309. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0018923 [Google Scholar]
  43. Milberg, S.J., Silva, M., Celedon, P., Sinn, F. (2014). Synthesis of attraction effect research: Practical market implications? European Journal of Marketing, 48, 1413–1430. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EJM-07-2012-0391 [Google Scholar]
  44. McArdle, J.J., Ferrer-Caja, E., Hamagami, F., Woodcock, R.W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span. Developmental Psychology, 38, 115–142. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., Pitts, R. (1995). The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_04 [Google Scholar]
  46. Parrish, A.E., Afrifa, E., Beran, M.J. (2018). Exploring decoy effects on computerized task preferences in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.05.02.06.2018 [Google Scholar]
  47. Parrish, A.E., Evans, T.A., Beran, M.J. (2015). Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) exhibit the decoy effect in a perceptual discrimination task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(5), 1715–1725. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0885-6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pettibone, J.C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 513–523. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A.D., Stewart, D.W. (1987). Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1086/209085 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roe, R.M., Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T. (2001). Multialternative decision fi eld theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108(2), 370–392. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370 [Google Scholar]
  52. Roy, P. (2018). A strategic view of refurbished goods: A strategic view of refurbished goods. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. [Google Scholar]
  53. Salthouse, T.A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103(3), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.403 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schwartz, J.A., Chapman, G.B. (1999). Are More Options Always Better? The Attraction Effect in Physicians’ Decisions about Medications. Medical Decision Making, 19(3), 315–323. https://doi. org/10.1177/0272989X9901900310 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sedikides, C., Ariely, D., Olsen, N. (1999). Contextual and Procedural Determinants of Partner Selection: Of Asymmetric Dominance and Prominence. Social Cognition, 17, 118–139. https:// doi.org/10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.118 [Google Scholar]
  56. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205 [Google Scholar]
  57. Shafi r, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1–2), 11–36. [Google Scholar]
  58. Simonson, I. (2008). Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 155–169. [Google Scholar]
  59. Simonson, I., Rosen, E. (2014). Absolute value: What really infl uences customers in the age of (nearly) perfect information (First edition). New York, NY: Harper Business. [Google Scholar]
  60. Slaughter, J.E., Kausel, E.E., Quiñones, M.A. (2011). The decoy effect as a covert infl uence tactic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.687 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tentori, K., Osherson, D., Hasher, L., May, C. (2001). Wisdom and aging: Irrational preferences in college students but not older adults. Cognition, 81(3), B87–B96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00100277(01)00137-8 [Google Scholar]
  64. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C.R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tyszka, T. (1983). Contextual multi-attribute decision rules. W: Sjöberg, L., Tyszka, T., Wise, J.A. (red.), Human Decision Making. Clifton: Doxa Books. vo n Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  67. Yang, S.S. (2013). The attraction effect: An overview, its fragility, and a meta-analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhen, S., Yu, R. (2016). The development of the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect in young children. Scientifi c Reports, 6. [Google Scholar]

Kompletne metadane

Cytowanie zasobu

APA style

Nieistotne alternatywy wyboru mają znaczenie. Przegląd wiedzy o efekcie asymetrycznej dominacji. (2019). Nieistotne alternatywy wyboru mają znaczenie. Przegląd wiedzy o efekcie asymetrycznej dominacji. Decyzje, (31), 91-114. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123 (Original work published 6/2019n.e.)

MLA style

„Nieistotne Alternatywy Wyboru Mają Znaczenie. Przegląd Wiedzy O Efekcie Asymetrycznej Dominacji”. 6/2019n.e. Decyzje, nr 31, 2019, ss. 91-114.

Chicago style

„Nieistotne Alternatywy Wyboru Mają Znaczenie. Przegląd Wiedzy O Efekcie Asymetrycznej Dominacji”. Decyzje, Decyzje, nr 31 (2019): 91-114. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123.