IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iik/wpaper/446.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When consumers do not compromise - An Eye Tracking Study!

Author

Listed:
  • Pronobesh Banerjee

    (Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode)

  • Tamara Masters

    (Brigham Young University)

Abstract

Compromise effect, or when one chooses the middle alternative, which has moderate values on both the attributes, is one of the most robust findings in the domain of context effect. In this paper, we show that when attributes are rated such that one of the attributes has high values, lying towards the higher end of a scale, while the other attribute has low values, lying towards the lower end of a scale, consumers will prefer an extreme alternative. We use an eye-tracking study to show the underlying process why this will happen.

Suggested Citation

  • Pronobesh Banerjee & Tamara Masters, 2021. "When consumers do not compromise - An Eye Tracking Study!," Working papers 446, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    • Handle: RePEc:iik:wpaper:446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iimk.ac.in/websiteadmin/FacultyPublications/Working%20Papers/3394IIMK_WPS_446_MM_2021_07.pdf?t=14
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1995. "A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(4), pages 627-633, March.
    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. Nicola Gennaioli & Alberto Martin & Stefano Rossi, 2014. "Sovereign Default, Domestic Banks, and Financial Institutions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(2), pages 819-866, April.
    2. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    3. Chorus, Caspar G. & Koetse, Mark J. & Hoen, Anco, 2013. "Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 901-908.
    4. Bogard, Jonathan E. & Reiff, Joseph S. & Caruso, Eugene M. & Hershfield, Hal E., 2024. "Social inferences from choice context: Dominated options can engender distrust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    5. Ronayne, David & Brown, Gordon D.A., 2016. "Multi-attribute decision by sampling: An account of the attraction, comprimise and similarity effects," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1124, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Mortimer, Gary & Weeks, Clinton S., 2019. "How unit price awareness and usage encourages grocery brand switching and expenditure," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 346-356.
    7. Ekström, Mathias, 2021. "The (un)compromise effect: How suggested alternatives can promote active choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Devetag, M Giovanna, 1999. "From Utilities to Mental Models: A Critical Survey on Decision Rules and Cognition in Consumer Choice," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 8(2), pages 289-351, June.
    10. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    11. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    12. Pinger, Pia & Ruhmer-Krell, Isabel & Schumacher, Heiner, 2016. "The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant's menu," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 14-34.
    13. Pronobesh Banerjee & Krishanu Rakshit & Sanjay Mishra & Tamara Masters, 2024. "Attribute ratings and their impact on attraction and compromise effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 439-450, September.
    14. A. Ye(scedilla)im Orhun, 2009. "Optimal Product Line Design When Consumers Exhibit Choice Set-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 868-886, 09-10.
    15. Junnan He, 2021. "Bayesian Contextual Choices under Imperfect Perception of Attributes," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03878378, HAL.
    16. Arno Apffelstaedt & Lydia Mechtenberg, 2021. "Competition for Context-Sensitive Consumers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2828-2844, May.
    17. Jihwan Moon & Steven M. Shugan, 2018. "Explaining Bundle-Framing Effects with Signaling Theory," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 668-681, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Chorus, Caspar G. & Annema, Jan Anne & Mouter, Niek & van Wee, Bert, 2011. "Modeling politicians' preferences for road pricing policies: A regret-based and utilitarian perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 856-861, November.
    20. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iik:wpaper:446. 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.