The Upscaling Effect: How the Decision Context Influences Tradeoffs between Desirability and Feasibility

Abstract

Purchase decisions typically involve tradeoffs between attributes associated with desirability (e.g., quality) and feasibility (e.g., price). In this paper we examine how the decision context impacts consumers’ preference between a high-desirability (HD) option and a high-feasibility (HF) alternative. Nineteen studies demonstrate a novel context effect, the “upscaling effect,” whereby introducing a symmetrically dominated decoy option to a set (i.e., an option that is inferior compared to all alternatives in the set) leads to an increase in the choice share of the HD option. To account for the upscaling effect, we advance a two-stage model of consumer decision-making for decisions that involve tradeoffs between desirability and feasibility. According to our model, when the decision context provides a reason for choosing either option, such as when a decoy option is added to the set, consumers prioritize reasons that support choice of HD options over HF alternatives. Our model can explain the upscaling effect, as well as other findings reported in the literature, such as asymmetric attraction effects (Heath and Chatterjee 1995) and asymmetric sales promotion effects (Blattberg and Wisniewski 1989). Further, the upscaling effect holds important managerial implications because it provides an effective way to increase sales of high-end products.

Forty years of context effect research in marketing: a bibliometric analysis

“…Third, utilizing the well-established justification account in context effect research to explain common features' influence on consumers' choice processes, Chernev (2001) proposed that attractive common features stabilize a consumer's already existing preferences (and vice versa). This confirmatory reasoning also applies to the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al 2022), which proposes that adding a symmetrical dominated decoy alternative encourages choosing an alternative that consumers tend to prefer but are hesitant to select. Further research may also test phantom alternatives in the upscaling effect paradigm, or further elaborate effects arising from different decoy positions.…”

“…Adding a decoy product to this choice set can shift consumer preferences toward one of these options. Context effects in this group include the attraction effect (Huber et al 1982), the repulsion effect (Frederick and Lee 2008;Simonson 2014), the compromise effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), the polarization effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), the phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993), as well as the more recently proposed abrupt disparity effect (Dogerlioglu-Demir et al 2022) and the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al 2022). To illustrate this group of context effects, suppose a consumer has to choose between two products.…”

“…The alternatives are described in terms of two attributes-quality and price-where Product 1 (the target of manipulation) is better on the quality dimension, but Product 2 (the competitor) is better on the price dimension. Figure 1 portrays such a situation, which we will use to introduce the attraction effect (Huber et al 1982), the compromise effect (Simonson 1989), the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al 2022), and the phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993).…”

“…Recently, prominent context effect researchers emphasized that asymmetric dominance is not necessary for the relationship between the target alternative and the decoy product. Specifically, to evoke the so-called upscaling effect, Evangelidis et al (2022) added a symmetrically dominated decoy (see option U in Fig. 1) to the choice set and observed increased choice shares of the highly desirable Product 1 as a result.…”

“…The most prominent examples include the attraction and compromise effects (Huber et al 1982;Simonson 1989). Moreover, researchers have identified a growing number of other context effects, such as the phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993), the background contrast effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), and, more recently, the abrupt disparity effect (Dogerlioglu-Demir et al 2022) as well as the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al 2022).…”