IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00670480.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy B. Heath

    (Graduate School of Business - PITT - University of Pittsburgh - Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE))

  • Subimal Chatterjee

    (School of Management - Binghamton University [SUNY] - SUNY - State University of New York)

Abstract

Prior research demonstrates that adding decoys to choice sets can increase choice shares of brands similar to decoys while reducing shares of brands dissimilar to decoys. Such effects have been dubbed attraction effects and violate the principles of independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) and regularity. We report a metaanalysis that, in addition to revealing heretofore unsupported range effects, demonstrates an effect of brand quality Decoys reduce shares of lower-quality competitors more than they reduce shares of higher-quality competitors. Moreover, whereas IIA is violated throughout, regularity is violated only when higher-quality brands are targeted. Decoys increase shares of higher-quality brands but typically do not increase shares of lower-quality brands. To assess the generalizability of the meta-analytic pattern, we tested decoy effects on two distinct populations in a large experiment The more traditional population replicated the meta-analytic pattern (standard asymmetry) while the more nontraditional population reversed it. These findings suggest that while the standard asymmetry is replicable, it may not generalize to all market segments.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy B. Heath & Subimal Chatterjee, 1995. "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence," Post-Print hal-00670480, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00670480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00670480. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.