Could Ralph Nader's Entrance and Exit Have Helped Al Gore? The Impact of Decoy Dynamics on Consumer Choice

Abstract

People are frequently faced with making a new choice decision after a preferred option becomes unavailable. Prior research on the attraction effect has demonstrated how the introduction of an option into a choice set increases the share of one of the original options. The authors examine the related but previously unaddressed issue of whether the unexpected exit of an option from a choice set returns the choice shares of the original options to the status quo. In a series of experiments, they observe that when an option turns out to be unselectable following a choice problem in which it was selectable, the choice shares of the remaining options are predictably different from those of a choice problem in which the option was unselectable from the start. They also observe that this attraction effect due to the disappearance of a decoy is likely a consequence of changes in the importance of decision criteria. They conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications of the research.

Red, blue and purple states of mind: Segmenting the political marketplace

“…The phenomenon is likely multiply determined. One argument that has received empirical support is that the presence of multiple options that perform well on a particular attribute tends to increase the weight attached to that attribute, as a consequence of which the observer chooses the option that performs best on that attribute (Hedgcock et al, 2009). Another, neuroscience‐based analysis suggests that the presence of the third (decoy) option makes the decision problem easier, relative to when only two, equally attractive options are present in a choice set, as evidenced by dampened amygdala activation in the three‐option choice set (Hedgcock & Rao, 2009a).…”

“…Third , the article acknowledges the potential that the disciplines of marketing and consumer psychology have to influence thinking in political science and political psychology, much like the literature in those fields has influenced research in marketing and consumer psychology on political persuasion (cf. Hedgcock, Rao, & Chen, 2009; Klein & Ahluwalia, 2005). It is this last element of Jost's essay that will serve as a point of departure for my commentary.…”

Reversing the Similarity Effect in Stock‐Outs: A New Look at a Renowned Phenomenon in Consumers’ Brand Switching Behavior

“…As an example, Hedgcock, Rao, and Chen () examine the yet unaddressed issue of whether the unexpected exit of an option from a choice set returns the choice shares of the initial options to the status quo. In a series of experiments in different categories (e.g., presidential candidates, health plans, automobiles), they observe that when an option turns out to be unavailable for choosing following a first choice stage in which it was selectable (then termed an “unknown phantom”), the choice shares of the remaining options are predictably different from those of a choice problem in which the phantom was not selectable from the start.…”

“…As an example, Hedgcock et al. () labeled their options with letters, thereby excluding brands despite the evidenced meaning of brands for consumers’ real purchase decisions. Additionally, and even more critical, the findings are based throughout on forced and hypothetical choices of student samples .…”

A focus on partisanship: How it impacts voting behaviors and political attitudes

“…Marketing scholars have already started working in the domain of political persuasion (Adaval, Isbell, & Wyer, 2007;Ahluwalia, 2000;Hedgcock, Rao, & Chen, 2009;Kim, Rao, & Lee, 2008;Klein & Ahluwalia, 2005). We have as well: we studied why the polls went wrong in the 2016 U.S. election (Krishna, 2016), and examined how people make voting decisions when they dislike presidential candidates (Sokolova & Krishna, 2017).…”