IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i3p315-323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are More Options Always Better?

Author

Listed:
  • Janet A. Schwartz
  • Gretchen B. Chapman

Abstract

Consumer choice research has shown that, contrary to normative theory, the intro duction of an inferior alternative to an existing choice set can increase the likelihood that one of the original alternatives will be chosen. This phenomenon, the attraction effect, is relevant to physician decision making, particularly when the physician is in the role of a consumer who must make decisions about prescribing medications when a number of alternatives are available. To investigate the attraction effect in physician decision making, 40 internal medicine residents reviewed three patient cases (con cerning depression, sinusitis, and vaginitis) and then chose the most appropriate med ication for each patient. In some versions of the cases, two medication options were available. Other versions included a third medication (the decoy) that was inferior in every way to one of the original options (the target) but not to the other (the competitor). The results showed that addition of the "decoy" medication increased the likelihood of choosing the target medication. That is, the attraction effect does occur in physicians' decisions about medications. Physicians should be aware of this bias when evaluating or suggesting several similarly attractive medications or treatment options for the same medical condition. Key words : attraction effect; decision making; physicians' decisions; consumer choice. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:315-323)

Suggested Citation

  • Janet A. Schwartz & Gretchen B. Chapman, 1999. "Are More Options Always Better?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 315-323, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:315-323
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900310
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900310?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Efe A. Ok & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2011. "Theory of Product Differentiation in the presence of the Attraction Effect," Working Papers 2011-3, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    2. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2007. "Does Concern‐Driven Risk Management Provide a Viable Alternative to QRA?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 27-43, February.
    3. Landry, Peter & Webb, Ryan, 2021. "Pairwise normalization: A neuroeconomic theory of multi-attribute choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. David M. Harrison & Kimberly F. Luchtenberg & Michael J. Seiler, 2023. "Improving Mortgage Default Collection Efforts by Employing the Decoy Effect," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 840-860, May.
    5. (Gina) Cui, Yuanyuan & (Sam) Kim, Seongseop & Kim, Jungkeun, 2021. "Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 641-652.
    6. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    7. Marco Marini & Alessandro Ansani & Fabio Paglieri, 2020. "Attraction comes from many sources: Attentional and comparative processes in decoy effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 704-726, September.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:704-726 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Efe A. Ok & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2015. "Revealed (P)Reference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 299-321, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:315-323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.