Volume 1, Number 1 (2016)
Year Launched: 2016
Journal Menu
Archive
Previous Issues
Why Us
-  Open Access
-  Peer-reviewed
-  Rapid publication
-  Lifetime hosting
-  Free indexing service
-  Free promotion service
-  More citations
-  Search engine friendly
Contact Us
Email:   service@scirea.org
Home > Journals > SCIREA Journal of Management > Archive > Paper Information

The Impacts of Domain Knowledge and Personal Traits on Decoy Effects

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2016    |    PP. 1-21    |PDF (579 K)|    Pub. Date: November 13, 2016
213 Downloads     1242 Views  

Author(s)
Yu-Wei Chang, Master, Graduate Institute of International Business, National Taipei University, No. 151, University Road, Sanhsia District, 23701, New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.
Tser-Yieth Chen, Professor and Chairman, Graduate Institute of International Business, National Taipei University, No. 151, University Road, Sanhsia District, 23745, New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.
Teng-Tsai Tu, Assistant Professor, Graduate Institute of International Business, National Taipei University, No. 151, University Road, Sanhsia District, 23745, New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.

Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate how consumers react to decoy effect. Decoy effect is a phenomenon that an option added increases the favorable perceptions of similar, but superior, items in the choice set, which indicates that the preference of people can be changed by adding a decoy option. We then want to realize the impact of those factors on decoy effects, and the intensity of effects. We employed quota-sampling method and classified the sample by districts in Taiwan and we collected 404 valid questionnaires by web and finished designed sample structure in spring 2016. Empirical results of this study show that domain knowledge and self-confidence significantly attenuates the intensity of decoy effect. We inference that experts do not need to refer the information provided by choice set, and high self-confidence people more likely to trust their own experience in nature.

Keywords
decoy effect, attraction effect, domain knowledge, personal traits, decision making

Cite this paper
Yu-Wei Chang, Tser-Yieth Chen, Teng-Tsai Tu, The Impacts of Domain Knowledge and Personal Traits on Decoy Effects, SCIREA Journal of Management. Vol. 1 , No. 1 , 2016 , pp. 1 - 21 .

References

[ 1 ] Ariely, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–105.
[ 2 ] Bateman, I. J. (2008). Decoy Effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation: Asymmetric dominance. Land Economics, 84(1), 115-127.
[ 3 ] Bearden, W. O. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research. 28(1), 121-134.
[ 4 ] Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (1): Measures of social psychological attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[ 5 ] Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, in Advances in consumer research (Volume 11), eds. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 673-675.
[ 6 ] Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social, 45(4), pp. 805-818.
[ 7 ] Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 249-263.
[ 8 ] Cohen, Stotland, & Wolfe. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291-294.
[ 9 ] De Bruin, W., Parker, A., & Fischhoff, B. (2012). Explaining adult age differences in decision-making competence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 352-360.
[ 10 ] Doyle, J. R., O’Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16(3), 225–243.
[ 11 ] Goldenberg, Jacob, & Mazursky, D. (1991). Creativity in product innovation. Measuring Consumer Innovativeness, 20(2), 190-192.
[ 12 ] Heath, T. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: Meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 268-284.
[ 13 ] Hedgcock, A. R. & Rao, H. (2009). Could Ralph Nader's entrance and exit have helped al gore? The impact of decoy dynamics on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 330-343.
[ 14 ] Helgadóttir, A. (2015). Asymmetric dominance effect in choice for others. Ph.D Thesis, School of business of Reykjavík University, Iceland.
[ 15 ] Hellén, K. (2011). Is consumer serf-confidence a stable phenomenon? The effect of mood on serf-confidence dimensions. Journal of Customer Behaviour., 10(3), 223-243.
[ 16 ] Hess, T. M., & Queen, T. L. (2013). Age and self-relevance effects on information search during decision making. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 68(5), 703-711.
[ 17 ] Huber, J. & Puto. C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31-44.
[ 18 ] Huber, J., Payne, J. W. & Puto. C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
[ 19 ] Kalyanaram, & Winer. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science, 14(3), 161-169.
[ 20 ] Kim, S., & Hasher, L. (2005). The attraction effect in decision making: Superior performance by older adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(1), 120–133.
[ 21 ] Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-257.
[ 22 ] Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 16-20.
[ 23 ] Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 268-274.
[ 24 ] Luce, & Duncan, R. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(2), 215-233.
[ 25 ] Luo, L., & Toubia, O. (2015). Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task structure on the basis of consumers' domain-specific knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 79(5), 100-114.
[ 26 ] Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 335-352.
[ 27 ] Mao, W. (2012). The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 339-351.
[ 28 ] Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem, D. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 331-349.
[ 29 ] Mitchell, A., & Dacin, P. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 331–349.
[ 30 ] Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. London: Cambridge University Press.
[ 31 ] Ratchford, B. T. (2001). The economics of consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 397-411.
[ 32 ] Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 520-533.
[ 33 ] Sen. (1998). Knowledge, information mode, and the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 64–77.
[ 34 ] Shafir, S., Waite, T. A., & Smith, B. H. (2002). Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (apis mellifera) and gray jays (perisoreus canadensis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 51(2), 180-187.
[ 35 ] Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 281-295.
[ 36 ] Simonton, D. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475-494.
[ 37 ] Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364-371.
[ 38 ] Tentoria, K., Oshersonb, D., Hasherc, L., & May, C. (2001). Wisdom and aging: Irrational preferences in college students but not older adults. cognition, 81(3), 87-96.
[ 39 ] Trueblood, J. S. (2013). Not just for consumers: Context effects are fundamental to decision-making. Psychological Science, 24(6), 901-908.
[ 40 ] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(2), 251–278.
[ 41 ] Wood, W., & Stagner. B. (1994). Why are some people easier to influence than others? In S. Shavitt & T. Brock (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives, (pp. 149-174). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Submit A Manuscript
Review Manuscripts
Join As An Editorial Member
Most Views
Article
by Syed Adil Hussain, Taha Hasan Associate Professor
2283 Downloads 17135 Views
Article
by Omprakash Sikhwal, Yashwant Vyas
2355 Downloads 14590 Views
Article
by Munmun Nath, Bijan Nath, Santanu Roy
2249 Downloads 14440 Views
Upcoming Conferences