en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 6/2019 
Issue 31

Irrelevant Alternatives Matter! Review Of Literature On The Asymmetric Dominance Effect

Maciej Kościelniak
SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny

Tadeusz Tyszka
Kozminski University

6/2019 (31) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123

Abstract

In this article we attempt to summarize the fi ndings from a number of studies on the asymmetric dominance effect (attraction effect, decoy effect). This is a phenomenon where popularity of one of the decision alternatives increases when accompanied by a similar but inferior (dominated) option. Scientifi c research and numerous observational studies show that the attraction effect occurs in various fi elds, incl. the economy, politics, law or medicine. In the literature there are many ambiguities and contradictory theories about, for example, its determinants in the light of the dual-systems theory. It is not ntirely clear whether the phenomenon of asymmetric domination is the result of a refl ective, deliberative way of information processing or of quick and intuitive thinking. There is also no unequivocal answer to the question whether this effect is a manifestation of human irrationality or whether it is an adaptive and effective decision-making strategy in conditions of uncertainty and information noise. The article contains a broad overview of research on the effect of asymmetric dominance among people and animals. The hanges in the susceptibility to this effect across the lifespan are analysed. Finally, the paper discusses using the asymmetric dominance effect to achieve socially desirable goals as described in the theory of libertarian paternalism.

References

  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]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Irrelevant Alternatives Matter! Review Of Literature On The Asymmetric Dominance Effect. (2019). Irrelevant Alternatives Matter! Review Of Literature On The Asymmetric Dominance Effect. Decyzje, (31), 91-114. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123 (Original work published 6/2019AD)

MLA style

“Irrelevant Alternatives Matter! Review Of Literature On The Asymmetric Dominance Effect”. 6/2019AD. Decyzje, no. 31, 2019, pp. 91-114.

Chicago style

“Irrelevant Alternatives Matter! Review Of Literature On The Asymmetric Dominance Effect”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 31 (2019): 91-114. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123.