Evolving choice sets: The effect of dynamic (vs. static) choice sets on preferences

作者: Taly Reich , Jennifer Savary , Daniella Kupor

DOI: 10.1016/J.OBHDP.2021.03.003

关键词: Decision processAffect (psychology)CompromiseContrast (statistics)Dynamic choiceVariance (accounting)EconometricsSet (psychology)PsychologyChoice set

摘要: Abstract Most decision-making research examines static choice sets, with fixed options presented all at once. In contrast, people often make decisions from dynamic in which new alternatives arise during the decision process. We show that compared to a set, set can systematically affect preferences, even when final is an identical of options. Moreover, presentation have opposite effects on preferences. To explain these patterns we propose unified theory based perceived variance attribute distribution. When increases focal attribute, preferences shift towards option best attribute. reduces non-focal Five studies examine this proposal using asymmetrically dominated and compromise sets.

参考文章(52)
Mary Frances Luce, James R. Bettman, John W. Payne, Attribute Identities Matter: Subjective Perceptions of Attribute Characteristics Marketing Letters. ,vol. 11, pp. 103- 116 ,(2000) , 10.1023/A:1008159022055
RAVI DHAR, Context and Task Effects on Choice Deferral Marketing Letters. ,vol. 8, pp. 119- 130 ,(1997) , 10.1023/A:1007997613607
Amos Tversky, Paul Slovic, Daniel Kahneman, The Causes of Preference Reversal The Construction of Preference. ,vol. 80, pp. 146- 162 ,(1990) , 10.1017/CBO9780511618031.009
Ioannis Evangelidis, Jonathan Levav, Prominence versus dominance: How relationships between alternatives drive decision strategy and choice Journal of Marketing Research. ,vol. 50, pp. 753- 766 ,(2013) , 10.1509/JMR.13.0052
Barbara A. Mellers, Alan D. J. Cooke, Trade-offs depend on attribute range. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. ,vol. 20, pp. 1055- 1067 ,(1994) , 10.1037/0096-1523.20.5.1055
Gregory W. Fischer, Scott A. Hawkins, Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. ,vol. 19, pp. 580- 597 ,(1993) , 10.1037/0096-1523.19.3.580
Ravi Dhar, Steven J. Sherman, The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice Journal of Consumer Research. ,vol. 23, pp. 193- 203 ,(1996) , 10.1086/209477
Allen Parducci, Category judgment: a range-frequency model. Psychological Review. ,vol. 72, pp. 407- 418 ,(1965) , 10.1037/H0022602