IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/econom/2011-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Theory of Product Differentiation in the presence of the Attraction Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Efe A. Ok

    (New York University)

  • Pietro Ortoleva

    (California Institute of Technology)

  • Gil Riella

    (Universidade de Brasília)

Abstract

We apply the theoretical model of endogenous reference-dependence of Ok, Ortoleva and Riella (2011) to the theory of vertical product differentiation. We analyze the standard problem of a monopolist who offers a menu of alternatives to consumers of different types, but we allow for agents to exhibit a form of endogenous reference dependence like the attraction effect. We show that the presence of such biases might allow the monopolist to overcome some of the incentive compatibility constraints of the standard problem, leading the economy back towards the efficient equilibrium in which the monopolist extracts all the surplus. We then discuss welfare implications, showing that an increase in the fraction of customers who are subject to the attraction effect might not only increase the monopolist’s profits and total welfare, but consumer’s welfare as well.

Suggested Citation

  • 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..
    • Handle: RePEc:pri:econom:2011-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pietroortoleva.com/papers/OkOrtolevaRiella_DiffWithAE.pdf
    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. Sen, Sankar, 1998. "Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(1), pages 64-77, June.
    3. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    4. Ian J. Bateman & Alistair Munro & Gregory L. Poe, 2008. "Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 115-127.
    5. Esteban, Susanna & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Shum, Matthew, 2007. "Nonlinear pricing with self-control preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 306-338, July.
    6. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M, 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 49-68, June.
    7. Ariely, Dan & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1995. "Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 223-232, September.
    8. Ratneshwar, Srinivasan & Shocker, Allan D & Stewart, David W, 1987. "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 520-533, March.
    9. Esteban, Susanna & Miyagawa, Eiichi, 2006. "Temptation, self-control, and competitive nonlinear pricing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 348-355, March.
    10. Spiegler, Ran, 2014. "Bounded Rationality and Industrial Organization," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199334261.
    11. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2001. "Temptation and Self-Control," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1403-1435, November.
    12. Highhouse, Scott, 1996. "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 68-76, January.
    13. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M., 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Research Papers 1610, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Herne, Kaisa, 1997. "Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 575-589, September.
    15. Sagi, Jacob S., 2006. "Anchored preference relations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 283-295, September.
    16. Janet A. Schwartz & Gretchen B. Chapman, 1999. "Are More Options Always Better?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 315-323, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Kaisa Herne, 1999. "The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-40, August.
    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. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:503-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. George D. Farmer & Wael El-Deredy & Andrew Howes & Paul A. Warren, 2015. "The attraction effect in motor planning decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 503-510, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Bonaccio, Silvia & Reeve, Charlie L., 2006. "Consideration of preference shifts due to relative attribute variability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 200-214, November.
    7. Sürücü, Oktay & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 102-122.
    8. Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2019. "Choosing with the worst in mind: A reference-dependent model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 631-652.
    9. Sürücü, Oktay & Brangewitz, Sonja & Mir Djawadi, Behnud, 2017. "Asymmetric dominance effect with multiple decoys for low- and high-variance lotteries," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 574, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    13. 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.
    14. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    15. 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).
    16. Özgür Kıbrıs & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2023. "A theory of reference point formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 137-166, January.
    17. Nana Adrian, 2019. "Price Discrimination and Salient Thinking," Diskussionsschriften dp1906, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    18. Heydari, Pedram, 2021. "Luce arbitrates: Stochastic resolution of inner conflicts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 33-74.
    19. Kaisa Herne, 1999. "The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-40, August.
    20. 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.
    21. (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.
    22. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Attraction Effect; Reference-Dependence; Endogeneous Reference Formation; Vertical Product Differentiation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality

    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:pri:econom:2011-3. 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: Bobray Bordelon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deprius.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.