The Impact of Phantom Decoys on Choices and Perceptions
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 12166372 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Daniele Scarpi (0000-0001-9652-9109, University of Bologna Department of Management Bologna BO Italy, autor de correspondencia), Giancarlo Pizzi (0000-0002-7531-9003, University of Bologna), Gabriele Pizzi (University of Bologna Department of Management Bologna BO Italy) |
| Año | 2012 |
| Volumen | 26 |
| Número | 5 |
| Páginas | 451-461 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2012-11-13 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0894-3257 • E-ISSN: 1099-0771 |
| Editorial | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/bdm.1778 |
| OpenAlex | W1941814584 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 7 |
| Referencias citadas | 31 |
Phantoms are dominating, attractive alternatives that are unavailable at the time of choice. They occupy different positions in the attribute space, and their unavailability can be either known or unknown to individuals. Although different theories have offered explanations for the influence that phantoms exert on individual choices, they have largely overlooked phantom knowledge. Contradictory predictions can be drawn from these theories, and none provides a good account of the pattern of effects that emerges from our data. We suggest that these contradictions appear because the different theories do not address phantom location and knowledge jointly. When considering phantom knowledge together with location, we observe a consistent overall pattern of effects that encompasses all predictions that could be made on the basis of each theory. We find that known phantoms are stronger when close, and favor the target product, whereas unknown phantoms are stronger when far, and favor the competitor. Finally, we look beyond shifts in choice shares and find that phantom decoys can also affect individuals' post‐choice evaluations and reactions in terms of perceived justice, decision satisfaction, and repatronage intention. Our results show that post‐choice evaluations are driven by phantom knowledge, not phantom location. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Affect (linguistics · Cognitive psychology · Imaging phantom · Perception · Physics · Product (mathematics · Statistics · Unavailability · Communication · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Mathematics · Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies · Neuroscience · Psychology
Framing context effects with reference points
The influence of distance between decoy and target on context effect
Contrast effects in judgmental forecasting when assessing the implications of worst and best case scenarios
The Phantom Decoy Effect in Perceptual Decision Making
The Impact of “Display‐Set” Options on Decision‐Making
The impact of tourism on residents' intention to stay. A qualitative comparative analysis
Hidden Redemption and the Duty to Play the Villain
The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice
Choice in Context
Choice in Context
Scarcity effects on value
A Theory of Procedure
Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects
Consumer Response to Stockouts
On the pursuit and misuse of useless information
Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice
Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands
Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect
Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives
The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral
Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect
Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace
| Obras citantes distintas | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,64 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2015 - 2024 (10) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 7 |