Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-2wr7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-25T18:38:16.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Kaisa Herne
Kaisa Herne*
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Department of Political Science, FIN 20014 Turku, Finland
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of studies demonstrate that individual choice can be influenced by alternatives which should be irrelevant according to standard choice theory. In these studies it has been observed that introducing a decoy option, which is either asymmetrically dominated by a target option or which makes the target a compromise, increases the likelihood of choosing the target. A common feature of earlier research on decoy effects is the use of hypothetical choice tasks. The aim of this paper is to investigate decoy effects in a properly controlled experiment where subjects are given real incentives. Here, monetary gambles are used as alternatives. The results demonstrate that decoy effects persist despite the use of real incentives.

Keywords

asymmetric domination effectcompromise effectdecoy effectsindividual decision making

JEL classification

D11: Consumer Economics: Theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , August 1999 , pp. 31 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bohm, P. (1994). “Time Preference and Preference Reversal Among Experienced Subjects: The Effects of Real Payments.” Economic Journal. 104, 1370–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. and Lind, H. (1993). “Preference Reversal, Real-World Lotteries, and Lottery-Interested Subjects.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 22, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (1995). “Individual Decision Making.” In Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 587–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J.C. and Grether, D.M. (1996). “The Preference Reversal Phenomenon: Response Mode, Markets and Incentives.” Economic Theory. 7, 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grether, D.M. and Plott, C.R. (1979). “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon.” American Economic Review. 69, 623–638.Google Scholar
Heath, T.B. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herne, K. (1996). “The Role of Decoys in Choice: A Review of Research on Context Dependent Preferences.” Risk Decision and Policy. 1, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herne, K. (1997). “Decoy Alternatives in Policy Choices: Asymmetric Domination and Compromise Effects.” European Journal of Political Economy. 13, 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S. (1996). “Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 65, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J., Payne, J.W., and Puto, C. (1982). “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis.” Journal of Consumer Research. 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. and Puto, C. (1983). “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research. 10, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, D.R. and Pan, Y. (1994). “Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets.” Journal of Marketing Research. 31, 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1971). “Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. 89, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P (1973). “Response-Induced Reversals of Preference in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. 101, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., and Pitts, R. (1995). “The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. 4, 85–101.Google Scholar
Pommerehne, W.W., Schneider, F., and Zweifel, P (1982). “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon: A Reexamination.” American Economic Review. 73, 569–584.Google Scholar
Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A.D., and Stewart, D.W. (1987). “Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity.” Journal of Consumer Research. 13, 520–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, R.J. (1982). “Preference Reversal: Further Evidence and Some Suggested Modifications in Experimental Design.” American Economic Review 72, 576–584.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research. 16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992). “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion.” Journal of Marketing Research. 29, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science. 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” Journal of Business. 59, 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Slovic, P., and Kahneman, D. (1990). “The Cause of Preference Reversal.” American Economic Review. 80, 204–217.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Simonson, I. (1993). “Context Dependant Preferences.” Management Science. 39, 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedell, D.H. (1991). “Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Included Preference Reversals.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 17, 767–778.Google Scholar