IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iik/wpaper/356.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Repulsion Effect: When an Asymmetrically Dominated Decoy Increases the Competitor’s Choice Share

Author

Listed:
  • Pronobesh Banerjee

    (Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode)

Abstract

The attraction effect refers to a phenomenon in which the introduction of an asymmetrically dominated decoy increases the choice share of the target. In this article, the authors explore certain conditions under which the introduction of an asymmetrically dominated decoy increases the choice share of the competitor, a phenomenon called the “repulsion effect.” They show that for products with skewed attribute values (i.e., products rated as exceptional on one of two attributes and mediocre on the other), the introduction of an extreme decoy favoring the target results in the repulsion effect rather than an attraction effect. The authors offer a categorization-based explanation for the repulsion effect and provide two studies in support.

Suggested Citation

  • Pronobesh Banerjee, 2020. "Repulsion Effect: When an Asymmetrically Dominated Decoy Increases the Competitor’s Choice Share," Working papers 356, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    • Handle: RePEc:iik:wpaper:356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iimk.ac.in/websiteadmin/FacultyPublications/Working%20Papers/3144PB_WP01_For_Upload.pdf?t=15
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Cohen, Joel B & Basu, Kunal, 1987. "Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 455-472, March.
    3. K. Sivakumar, 2016. "A unified conceptualization of the attraction effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 39-58, June.
    4. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
    5. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    6. Cynthia Schuck-Paim & Lorena Pompilio & Alex Kacelnik, 2004. "State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-1, November.
    7. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Kaisa Herne, 1999. "The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-40, August.
    9. Wedell, Douglas H. & Pettibone, Jonathan C., 1996. "Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 326-344, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crosetto, Paolo & Gaudeul, Alexia, 2016. "A monetary measure of the strength and robustness of the attraction effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 38-43.
    2. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Gomez, Yolanda & Martínez-Molés, Víctor & Urbano, Amparo & Vila, Jose, 2016. "The attraction effect in mid-involvement categories: An experimental economics approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5082-5088.
    4. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    5. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    6. Gaudeul, A. & Crosetto, P., 2019. "Fast then slow: A choice process explanation for the attraction effect," Working Papers 2019-06, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    7. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Marcel Lichters & Paul Bengart & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2017. "What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 127-138, March.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:704-726 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    13. Michael Canty & Felix Josua Lang & Susanne Jana Adler & Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt, 2024. "Caffeine’s complex influence on the attraction effect: a mixed bag of outcomes," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 451-476, September.
    14. Guevara, C. Angelo & Fukushi, Mitsuyoshi, 2016. "Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 318-337.
    15. Takashi Tsuzuki & Yuji Takeda & Itsuki Chiba, 2021. "Influence of divided attention on the attraction effect in multialternative choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(3), pages 729-742, May.
    16. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    17. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul, 2011. "Do consumers prefer offers that are easy to compare? An experimental investigation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2013. "Imperfect Attention and Menu Evaluations," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-98, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    19. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole, 2011. "Customer reactions in Out-of-Stock situations: Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothsis?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-021, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    20. Doron Sonsino, 2010. "The irrelevant-menu affect on valuation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 309-333, September.
    21. Pettibone, Jonathan C. & Wedell, Douglas H., 2000. "Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 300-328, March.

    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:iik:wpaper:356. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sudheesh Kumar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iikmmin.html .

    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.