What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences

Lichters, Marcel; Bengart, Paul; Sarstedt, Marko; Vogt, Bodo

doi:10.1007/s11002-015-9394-6

Cited by 44 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From a theoretical point of view, we would expect both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 to be supported. In this case, the literature of DNLs [41][42][43][44][45] and DE [35][36][37][38]40,50,62] would be consistent with the study results of this work on sustainable OOHC food. Based on the combination of the two nudges, we also expect to find support for hypothesis 3.…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…The present research provides insights into the ability to increase the choice of sustainable dishes by combining nudges. Two nudges were examined: the use of different descriptive name labels (DNLs) that, according to the previous literature [41][42][43][44][45], increase choice frequency compared to respectively named dishes without DNLs, and the decoy effect [35][36][37][38]40,50,62], which in non−food contexts has been able to influence consumer choices in an intended direction. The feasibility and application of both nudges were evaluated in two different OOHC settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nudges we combine and compare are (i) descriptive name labels (DNL), commonly referred to as food names, and (ii) the attraction effect or decoy effect (DE). The decoy effect in general, e.g., [35][36][37][38][39][40], and particularly descriptive name labels, e.g., [34,[41][42][43][44][45], have been found to influence consumers' perceptions and choices of goods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

Ohlhausen

Langen

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports results from three consecutive studies focusing on the comparison of the effectiveness of different nudges and their combinations to increase sustainable food choices out of the home. The nudges compared are the use of descriptive name labels (DNLs) for the most sustainable dish of a choice set (menu) and the decoy effect (DE), created by adding a less attractive decoy dish to a more attractive target dish with the goal of increasing the choice frequency of the target dish. In the literature, both nudges have been found to influence consumers’ choices. In the first study, six category names of sustainability indicators were deduced from a focus group. These were tested with 100 students to identify the most attractive DNLs. Study II, a randomized choice study (n = 420), tested the DE, the DNLs and a combination of the DNLs and the DE used on four different dishes in a university canteen. In study III, 820 guests of a business canteen voted during four weeks for the special meals of the following week (identical to the four choice sets displayed in study II). Results indicate that the combination of DNLs and the DE is not recommended for fostering sustainable food choices. Pure DNLs were more efficient in increasing the choice frequency of the more sustainable meal, whereas the decoy effect resulted in decreased choice frequencies. Regional and sustainable DNLs were favoured by consumers.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

Ohlhausen

Langen

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, other domains of seemingly irrational decision-making would benefit from experiments drawing on real consequences involving losses. For example, in case of violations of rational choice such as context-dependent choice (Cox et al 2014), researchers recently discovered that some choice anomalies decrease (e.g., the compromise effect, Lichters et al 2015) while others increase (e.g., the attraction effect, Lichters et al 2017) in magnitude with the introduction of economic consequences instead of mere hypothetical choices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study

Cox

Kroll

Lichters

et al. 2018

Bus Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The St. Petersburg paradox is one of the oldest challenges of expected value theory. Thus far, explanations of the paradox aim at small probabilities being perceived as zero and the boundedness of utility of the outcome. This paper provides experimental results showing that neither diminishing marginal utility of the outcome nor perception of small probabilities can explain the paradox. We find that even in situations where subjects are risk-seeking, and zeroing-out small probabilities supports risk-taking, the St. Petersburg paradox exists. This indicates that the paradox cannot be resolved by the arguments advanced to date.

show abstract

“…Figure 1 provides an illustration of the effect. Decades of research have established a plethora of situations under which attraction effects occur, ranging from consumer choice (e.g., Lichters et al, 2017) and risky choice (e.g., Castillo, 2020) to perceptual choice (e.g., Trueblood et al, 2013) and market behavior (Wu & Yu, 2020), from human decision makers (Gluth et al, 2017) to monkeys (Parrish et al, 2015) and slime mould (Latty & Beekman, 2011). At a theoretical level, attraction effects are one of the "benchmark" phenomena that any serious account of multi-alternative decision making needs to successfully capture (e.g., Noguchi & Stewart, 2018;Soltani et al, 2012;Trueblood et al, 2014;Tsetsos et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The repulsion effect in preferential choice and its relation to perceptual choice

Spektor¹,

Kellen²,

Kc³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People rely on the choice context to guide their decisions, violating fundamental principles of rational choice theory and exhibiting phenomena called context effects. Recent research has uncovered that dominance relationships can both increase or decrease the choice share of the dominating option, marking the two ends of an attraction–repulsion continuum. However, theoretical accounts and empirical links between the two opposing effects are missing. The present study (N = 55) used eye tracking and a within-subject design of a perceptual task and its preferential counterpart to bridge this gap and uncover the information-search processes underlying choices. Although individuals differed in their perceptual and preferential choices, a repulsion effect was present in both conditions and they generally engaged in alternative-wise comparisons. Repulsion effects became weaker the more predominant the attribute-wise comparisons were. Altogether, our study highlights how repulsion effects can occur even in preferential choices when people have to rely on perceptual information.

show abstract

What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences

Cited by 44 publications

References 49 publications

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

When A Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-of-Home—The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels

The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study

The repulsion effect in preferential choice and its relation to perceptual choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About