1

THE RULES OF ATTRACTION

Shane Frederick, Leonard Lee, & Ernest Baskin

Abstract
Consumer research has documented dozens of instances in which the introduction of an
irrelevant third option affects preferences between the remaining two. In nearly all such cases,
the least attractive option enhances the attractiveness of the option it most resembles a
phenomenon known as the "attraction effect." In the studies presented here, however, we
contend that this phenomenon is restricted to highly stylized product representations in which
every product dimension is represented by a number (e.g., a toaster oven that has a durability of
7.2 and ease of cleaning of 5.5). We find no such effect when consumers experience the product
(e.g., taste a drink) or when even one of the product attributes is represented perceptually (e.g.,
different priced hotel rooms whose quality is depicted with a photo). We posit that this occurs
because the comparisons underlying that contextual effect are not readily accessible in perceptual
representations.
Keywords: Attraction effect, Context effects, Attribute representation, Consumer choice

2
INTRODUCTION

The "attraction effect" or asymmetric dominance effect (Huber, Payne, and Puto 1982;
Huber and Puto 1983) refers to instances in which adding an unattractive option to a choice set
increases the choice share of the option it most closely resembles. The effect is often upheld to
illustrate the deficiency of rational choice models, and the corresponding necessity of
developing psychologically richer ones. Moreover, since managers can readily manipulate the
composition of choice sets, the effects managerial significance is manifest.
For these reasons, the attraction effect is among the most discussed and documented
phenomena in the consumer behavior literature (see Appendix A). However, its apparent
robustness is misleading, because most demonstrations involve stimuli with attributes levels
represented by numeric indices. For such stimuli, the psychological processes respondents use
may be similar, whether those numbers happen to refer to quality rating of TVs, "durability of
digital cameras," "attractiveness of romantic partners," "honesty of politicians," or "capacitance
of widgets."
Such highly stylized stimuli may be sufficient to capture essential tradeoffs consumers
routinely make (e.g., between price and quality). Moreover, many of the dimensions consumers
consider in their purchasing decisions are numeric. Nevertheless, in ordinary purchase settings,
it would be rare that every attribute would be represented solely by numeric indices, and there is
no strong reason to expect that the psychological processes evoked by stylized stimuli are similar
to those evoked by more realistic stimuli. For instance, when consumers enter an electronics
store intent on purchasing a flat screen television, they do not choose between two slips of paper
depicting the picture quality and price of two unspecified brands (e.g., [7.3, $390] vs. [8.8,

3
$610]). Instead, they typically stroll around the store examining various models and actually
experiencing the quality of images displayed (usually of brightly colored fish swimming around
a coral reef).
Recognizing that most research on the attraction effect involves stimuli unlike those
consumers typically encounter, Simonson (1989) encouraged future researchers to test whether
the attraction and compromise effects and their explanation still hold in more natural consumer
environments. However, despite this entreaty, such studies remain rare. In most demonstrations
of the attraction effect, attributes are represented solely by numeric indices (see Appendix A).
Only Sen (1998) and Simonson and Tversky (1992) report an attraction effect using perceptual
stimuli, and we have been unable to replicate those results.
This present work focuses on the existence or prevalence of attraction effects when the
relevant attributes can be directly experienced. This includes situations in which the stimuli are
actually consumed (e.g., beverages with different flavors and concentrations) or represented in
ways not involving numeric indices either because the attributes are inherently qualitative (e.g.,
a popcorns brand and flavor) or because we elected to represent attribute levels perceptually
(e.g., by depicting apartment views with actual photographs, rather than ratings). Our first study
is, effectively, a meta-analysis involving a dozen studies we conducted using such stimuli.
Studies 2 4 hold the stimuli constant and manipulate how product attributes are represented.

4
STUDY 1: TESTING FOR ATTRACTION EFFECTS WITH NON-NUMERIC STIMULI

Method
In several studies involving a total of 1,192 students from universities in the U.S. and
Asia, participants indicated their preference among various products. The stimuli are listed in
table 1.1 Our stimuli differed from those used in most prior studies, because one or more of the
product attributes could be experienced, directly perceived or somehow communicated without
the use of numbers. However, excepting this difference, our studies preserved the fundamental
structure of all studies on the attraction effect: respondents were randomly assigned to choose
either from two core options or from an expanded set that also included a decoy option that
was similar, but inferior to, one of the core options.
-------------------------------------Insert tables 1 & 2 about here.
-------------------------------------Results and Discussion
As shown in table 2, we found no evidence for an attraction effect: the decoy did not
increase the relative preference for the core option it most resembled. Indeed, averaging across
product categories, the decoy reduced the choice share of that option, sometimes significantly.
For example, in one study, respondents sampled normal strength cherry Kool-Aid, normal
strength grape Kool-Aid, and a third drink that was either dilute grape or dilute cherry (mixed to
the recommended concentration). Rather than finding an attraction effect, we found a
repulsion effect: adding dilute grape drink reduced the choice share of regular grape, and
adding dilute cherry reduced the choice share of regular cherry.

5
We will revisit repulsion effects in the general discussion, but turn first to the most notable
result from Study 1: the conspicuous absence of an attraction effect. We next explore two
possible accounts for the lack of an effect.

EXPLAINING THE ABSENCE OF AN ATTRACTION EFFECT WHEN ATTRIBUTE

VALUES ARE NON-NUMERIC

Comparing tradeoff rates requires numeric specification

As one possible account of the attraction effect, Simonson and Tversky (1992) discuss
the notion of "tradeoff contrast." To illustrate this account, consider three cars that vary in fuel
efficiency and price: A= (25 mpg; $25K), B= (35 mpg; $35K), and C= (36 mpg; $42K). Fuel
efficiency is cheaper moving from A to B ($1,000 per unit) than from B to C ($7000 per unit),
and this comparison may favor B. Of course, computing tradeoff rates requires that both
dimensions are numeric, and this might help explain why we did not observe attraction effects
with our stimuli in Study 1.

Range & Number of Levels Effects

In some cases, a decoy increases the considered range for the attribute on which the target
is inferior, shrinking the perceived significance of that difference (see Parducci 1974)2 and
thereby enhancing its attractiveness relative to the other core option. Depending on its location
in attribute space, the decoy may also more finely partition the dimension on which the target is
superior, which usually increases the weight this dimension receives (Currim, Weinberg, and
Wittink 1981). Such effects are less applicable when attribute values are not represented by

6
numbers; when the decoy is inferior to the target in a qualitative rather than quantitative sense.
For example, it is not clear how adding dilute grape Kool-aid to the choice set (regular cherry,
regular grape) either shrinks the perceived significance of grapes lack of cherry flavor or serves
to partition the distance, in n-dimensional space, between grape and cherry.
In light of the (non) results from study 1 and the aforementioned theoretical reasons, we
propose that attraction effects could be attenuated, eliminated, or possibly even reversed if
product attributes were represented as percepts that could be directly experienced rather than as
concepts (in the form of numeric indices of attribute levels). We test this conjecture in the next
three studies by manipulating how attribute levels of a particular stimulus are represented.

STUDY 2: NUMERIC VS. PERCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF PROBABILITY IN

CHOICES AMONG GAMBLES

In this study, our stimuli were gambles that vary in the probability of winning and the
winning amount. Based on prior research involving gambles (Huber, Payne, and Puto 1982;
Wedell 1991), we expected to find an attraction effect when the probability of winning is
represented numerically. However, we conjectured that if probability was presented visually (in
the form of the shaded area of a probability wheel), these effects would be attenuated.

Method
A total of 507 participants (276 picnickers in a large northeastern city and 231 participants
from an online survey site) chose between two (or three) gambles which varied in terms of
wining amount and probability of winning. The core set included a low-risk, low-reward gamble

7
(73% of chance of winning $197) and a high-risk, high reward gamble (28% chance of winning
$516). The three-option choice included a third, decoy gamble (23% chance of winning $507)
that was dominated by the high- risk, high-reward gamble. Using a 2 x 2 design, we manipulated
the presence or absence of the decoy gamble and the mode by which winning probability was
represented: either numerically (as it typically is) or perceptually (as the shaded region of a
probability wheel see upper panel of figure 1).
-------------------------------------Insert figure 1 about here.
-------------------------------------Results and Discussion
When probability was represented numerically, we found a significant attraction effect, as
the decoy increased the choice share of the risky gamble from 14% to 28% (2 (1, N = 254) =
7.59; p < .01). However, when probability was represented as the shaded region of a probability
wheel, the decoy had no effect on the choice share of the riskier target gamble (24% to 26%).
We replicated these results using a different set of gambles (see lower panel of Figure 1) in a
subsequent study involving 791 respondents recruited from a private northeastern university and
a national online panel. Once again, when probability was represented numerically, we found a
significant attraction effect, as the presence of the decoy doubled the choice share of the risky
gamble (21% to 37%; 2 (1, N = 396) = 11.78, p = .01). However, when probability was
represented as the shaded area of a probability wheel, the attraction effect was negligible (34% to
35%). See table 3 for the full results from both studies.
-------------------------------------Insert table 3 about here.
--------------------------------------

8
It is important to note that the dominance relation between the target and the decoy must
have been salient regardless of how probability was represented, since the decoy was rarely
chosen in either the numeric or visual condition. Moreover, a follow-up study revealed that
respondents could accurately estimate the fraction of the circles that were shaded.3 The visual
representation reduced the ease with which probabilities could be compared. This could help
explain why the high payoff (low probability) gambles were more popular when probability was
presented visually, since attributes receive less weight when they are harder to compare (Hsee
1996).4 The visual representations presumably also inhibited the computation of expected value
(though we suspect that few respondents attempted this computation even in the numeric
condition).

STUDY 3A: NUMERIC VERSUS VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF PICTURE QUALITY

Method
A total of 240 respondents from two large universities in the U.S. and in Asia chose
between flat-screen televisions that varied in price and picture quality. Using a 2 x 2 betweensubjects design, we manipulated whether the choice set contained a decoy option and the mode
by which image quality was represented (with a numeric rating or a photo).
When image quality was represented visually, we created a high-, a medium-, and a lowquality image by using graphics software to manipulate color, sharpness, contrast, and resolution
(see figure 2). To create a corresponding numeric condition, a separate group of eighty
respondents rated the picture quality of each of these three images on a 10-point scale ranging

9
from 1 (low quality) to 10 (high quality), and we used these ratings to create the stimuli: {($503,
8.0), ($350, 5.5), ($339, 3.5)}.
-------------------------------------Insert figure 2 about here.
-------------------------------------Results and Discussion
As shown below, when image quality was represented numerically, adding the lowquality decoy TV caused a significant attraction effect, increasing the choice share of the target
TV from 33% to 57% (2(1, N = 120) = 7.08, p = .01). However, when picture quality was
represented with an image, the decoy decreased the choice share of the target from 53% to 35%
(2(1, N = 120) = 3.79, p = .05). A logistic regression with dummy variables for decoy presence
and mode of quality representation yielded the expected significant interaction term ( = -1.71, p
< .01). There were no significant main effects.
The implications of these results are straightforward. For example, a manager at Best
Buy who had read all published results on the attraction effect (see appendix A) might conclude
that adding a blurry, low-quality TV to the product line might increase the choice share of the
medium-quality TV. However, our results suggest instead that the manager might instead
discover that this increases the choice share of the high-quality, expensive TV.

-------------------------------------Insert table 4 about here.

--------------------------------------

10
STUDY 3B: ADDING NUMERIC RATINGS TO PERCEPTUAL STIMULI
In the previous study, we used the judgments of an external group in an attempt to create
numeric stimuli that roughly matched the visual stimuli. In this study, we attempted to assure
such correspondence by having each participant rate the picture quality of each TV.

Method
364 participants from two northeastern universities were randomly assigned to one of
four conditions using a 2 x 2 between-subjects design, which manipulated whether the ratings
followed choice (as in the prior study) or preceded it (i.e., they saw images and rated their quality
before choosing).
Results and Discussion
The table below shows the quality ratings in each of the four conditions, as well as the
proportion choosing each TV. Among participants who made their TV choice before rating
image quality, the decoy reduced the choice share of the target (46% to 36%; 2(1, N = 165) =
1.74, p = .19). However, if participants first rendered a numeric rating of picture quality before
choosing, the attraction effect returned, as the decoys presence increased the choice share of the
medium TV (32% to 43%; 2(1, N = 147) = 2.69, p = .10).
Since the decoy was chosen by only three respondents, we ran a logistic regression in
which the dependent variable is choice between the medium and high quality TV, with dummy
variables for decoy presence (or absence) and whether image quality was rated before (vs. after)

11
indicating preferences. The regression results revealed a significant interaction effect ( = -.888,
p = .04) between these variables.
-------------------------------------Insert table 5 about here
-------------------------------------These results provide further evidence that numeric representations (even numbers that
respondents generate themselves) are an important, if not essential, ingredient in the emergence
of the attraction effect.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In several studies, we find that when products are displayed in ways that more closely
resemble how consumers would actually experience them, the attraction effect is not observed.
We suspect that perceptual representations eliminate the attraction effect by depriving processes
that numeric representations permit and evoke (such as tradeoff contrasts). Indeed, the only
significant effects we find with non-numeric representations are repulsion effects, in which the
decoy hurts the option it most resembles (see Appendix A and Study 3A). In contrast with the
large body of work on the attraction effect, there has been essentially no work on the repulsion
effect. We found no prior published studies and only one reference in a microeconomics
textbook (Kreps 1990, pg. 28) who proposes, as an example, that the consideration of mediocre
French food might diminish the attractiveness of excellent French food. Though Kreps example
seems plausible, it stands as a notable exception to the large body of work on the attraction
effect. This is somewhat surprising, considering: (1) that his intuition has been formalized as the
law of similarity, whereby the bad properties of one object are transferred to other objects in that

12
category (Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley 2000; Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff 1986; Rozin and
Nemeroff 2002); (2) that there is widespread evidence for both contrast and assimilation effects
within the large literature on context effects in psychology (Bless and Schwarz 1998;
Mussweiler, Rter, and Epstude 2004); and (3) that the repulsion effect is broadly consistent
with unsuccessful brand extensions, in which unattractive products such as Bic pantyhose and
Heinz pet food taint more successful products sharing the same brand name (Kotler and Keller
2005; Dimofte and Yalch 2011).
In conclusion, we reprise Simonsons (1989) call for more research on context effects
using more ecologically realistic stimuli. Our studies certainly suggest that perceptual stimuli
behave very differently from numeric stimuli. The status of the attraction effect as a stylized fact
may even need to be reconsidered, as we find that moving outside the domain of abstract
numeric stimuli, repulsion effects may be more common than attraction effects. Indeed, we hope
that the current work will not only spur further investigation on the boundaries of the attraction
effect, but also exploration into the scope and limits of the repulsion effect.

13
References
Ariely, Dan and Thomas S. Wallsten (1995), "Seeking Subjective Dominance in
Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63 (3), 223-32.
Bhargava, Mukesh, John Kim, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2000), "Explaining Context Effects
on Choice Using a Model of Comparative Judgment," Journal of Consumer Psychology,
9 (3), 167-77.
Bless, Herbert and Norbert Schwarz (1998), "Context effects in political judgement: assimilation
and contrast as a function of categorization processes," European Journal of Social
Psychology, 28 (2), 159-72.
Branstrom, R. B. (1998), "A Connectionist Model of Asymmetric Dominance," in Annual
Meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making.
Burton, Scot and George M. Zinkhan (1987), "Changes in Consumer Choice: Further
Investigation of Similarity and Attraction Effects," Psychology and Marketing, 4 (3),
255-66.
Choplin, Jessica M. and John E. Hummel (2002), "Magnitude Comparisons Distort Mental
Representations of Magnitude," Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131 (2),
270-86.
Colman, Andrew M., Briony D. Pulford, and Fergus Bolger (2007), "Asymmetric Dominance
and Phantom Decoy Effects in Games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 104 (2), 193-206.
Currim, Imran S., Charles B. Weinberg, and Dick R. Wittink (1981), "Design of Subscription
Programs for a Performing Arts Series," Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (1), 67-75.
Dhar, Ravi and Rashi Glazer (1996), "Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and
Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice," Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 280-93.
Dimofte, Claudiu V. and Richard F. Yalch (2011), "The mere association effect and brand
evaluations," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (1), 24-37.
Doyle, John R., David J. O'Connor, Gareth M. Reynolds, and Paul A. Bottomley (1999), "The
Robustness of the Asymmetrically Dominated Effect: Buying Frames, Phantom
Alternatives, and In-Store Purchases," Psychology and Marketing, 16 (3), 225-43.
Ha, Young-Won, Sehoon Park, and Hee-Kyung Ahn (2009), "The Influence of Categorical
Attributes on Choice Context Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 463-77.

14

Heath, Timothy B. and Subimal Chatterjee (1995), "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on LowerQuality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 268-84.
Heath, Timothy and Subimal Chatterjee (1991), "How Entrants Affect Multiple Brands: A Dual
Attraction Mechanism," in Advances in Consumer Research, Rebecca Holmon and
Michael Solomon, eds. Vol. 18. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Hedgcock, William, Akshay R. Rao, and Haipeng Chen (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), 330-43.
Highhouse, Scott (1996), "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job
Candidates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (1), 68-76.
Hsee, Christopher K. (1996), "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference
Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 247-57.
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982), "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated
Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of
Consumer Research, 9 (1), 90-98.
Huber, Joel and Christopher Puto (1983), "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating
Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (1), 31-44.
Kim, Sunghan and Lynn Hasher (2005), "The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior
Performance by Older Adults," Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section
A, 58 (1), 120-33.
Kotler, Philip and Kevin Lane Keller (2005), Marketing Management (12th Edition). NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kreps, David M. (1990), A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mishra, Sanjay, U. N. Umesh, and Donald E. Stem, Jr. (1993), "Antecedents of the Attraction
Effect: An Information-Processing Approach," Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (3),
331-49.
Moran, Simone and Joachim Meyer (2006), "Using Context Effects to Increase a Leader's
Advantage: What Set of Alternatives Should be Included in the Comparison Set?,"
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (2), 141-54.

15
Mussweiler, Thomas, Katja Rter, and Kai Epstude (2004), "The man who wasn't there:
Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation," Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (5), 689-96.
Olsen, Nils and R. M. Burton (2000), "Asymmetric Dominance versus Learning: Can Context
Effects Override the Learning of Choice-Set Rules?," in Annual Meeting of the
Computation and Mathematical Organization Theory Conference. Pittsburgh, PA:
Carnegie Mellon.
Pan, Yigang and Donald R. Lehmann (1993), "The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective
Brand Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 76-86.
Pan, Yigang, Sue O'Curry, and Robert Pitts (1995), "The Attraction Effect and Political Choice
in Two Elections," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (1), 85-101.
Parducci, Allen (1974), "Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequecy Analysis," in Handbook of
Perception, Edward C. Carterette and Morton P. Friedman, eds. Vol. II. New York:
Academic Press.
Pettibone, Jonathan C. and Douglas H. Wedell (2000), "Examining Models of Nondominated
Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 81 (2), 300-28.
Prelec, Drazen, Birger Wernerfelt, and Florian Zettelmeyer (1997), "The Role of Inference in
Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available," Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (1), 118-26.
Ratneshwar, Srinivasan, Allan D. Shocker, and David W. Stewart (1987), "Toward
Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus
Meaningfulness and Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 520-33.
Rozin, Paul, Jonathan Haidt, and Clark R McCauley (2000), "Disgust," in Handbook of
Emotions, Michael Lewis and Jeannette Haviland-Jones, eds. New York: Guilford Press.
Rozin, Paul, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff (1986), "Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic
Magic in Disgust and Other Domains," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50
(4), 703-12.
Rozin, Paul and Carol Nemeroff (2002), "Sympathetic Magical Thinking: The Contagion and
Similarity 'Heuristics'," in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment,
Thomas Gilovich and Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman, eds. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Scarpi, Daniele (2008), "The Impact of Decoys and Background Information on Consumers'
Preferences and Decision Making," International Review of Retail, Distribution &
Consumer Research, 18 (1), 1-15.

16

Schwartz, Janet A. and Gretchen B. Chapman (1999), "Are More Options Always Better?,"
Medical Decision Making, 19 (3), 315-23.
Sedikides, Constantine, Dan Ariely, and Nils Olsen (1999), "Contextual and procedural
determinants of partner selection: Of asymmetric dominance and prominence," Social
Cognition, 17, 118-39.
Sen, Sankar (1998), "Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect," Journal of
Consumer Research, 25 (1), 64-77.
Simonson, Itamar (1989), "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise
Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158-74.
Simonson, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1992), "Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and
Extremeness Aversion," Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3), 281-95.
Tentori, Katya, Daniel Osherson, Lynn Hasher, and Cynthia May (2001), "Wisdom and Aging:
Irrational Preferences in College Students But Not Older Adults," Cognition, 81 (3), B87B96.
Wedell, Douglas (1991), "Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference
reversals," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17
(4), 767-78.
Wedell, Douglas H. and Jonathan C. Pettibone (1996), "Using Judgments to Understand Decoy
Effects in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3),
326-44.
Zhou, Lianxi, Chankon Kim, and Michael Laroche (1996), "Decision Processes of the Attraction
Effect: A Theoretical Analysis and Some Preliminary Evidence," Advances in Consumer
Research, 23, 218-24.

17

As revealed by the discrepancy between the listed sample sizes and the total number of participants in the study
(1,192), respondents typically evaluated only a subset of all the stimuli tested.
2

For a perceptual example, someone who estimates the temperatures of a tepid and a warm bucket of water will
regard them as differing more than someone who first experiences a hot bucket of water before estimating the
respective temperatures of the two cooler buckets (i.e., the hot bucket will make the two cooler buckets seem more
similar).
3

In a separate study, 187 participants simply estimated the shaded area of the probability wheels for the two core
gambles. The mean judgments were fairly accurate: the wheel with a 73% shaded area was estimated to be 69%
shaded, while the one with a 28% shared area was estimated to be 30% shaded.
4

In the core set, the risky gamble was chosen more often when probability was displayed pictorially than
numerically. The effects were significant in both the first Study 2 (24% vs. 14%; 2(1, N = 260) = 4.01; p = .05) and
the follow up replication study (34% vs. 21%; 2(1, N = 388) = 8.20; p < .01)

18
Table 1: List of Stimuli and Attributes Used in Study 1
Product Class
Apartments

Fruit

Hotel Rooms

Jellybeans

Kool-Aid
Mints

Movie Actors

Movie Sequels

Attributes
View (with picture of
window view),
Floor space
Type,
Freshness (implied in
picture)
Dcor (with picture of
hotel room interior),
Rental rate
Flavor and color
Flavor and
concentration of KoolAid mixture
Brand, Flavor
Actor, Movie Title
(with verbal
description of movie)
Movie Title (with
verbal description of
movie)

Popcorn

Brand, Flavor

Bottled Water

Brand, Type
(with picture of bottle)

Attribute Levels of
Competitor

Target

Sea view,
530 sq. feet

Residential
Apartment view,
910 sq. feet

Apple

Orange

Orange

Apple

Average dcor with

no adjacent bath,
$120/night
Cherry (Red)
Apricot (Orange)
Banana (Yellow)
Blueberry (Blue)

Very nice dcor with

adjacent heart-shaped
bath, $180/night
Plum (Grey)
Chocolate (Brown)
Apple (Green)
Marshmallow (Beige)

Decoy
Residential
Apartment view (with
cloudy sky),
905 sq. feet
Orange (with black
spots on skin)
Apple (with dented
skin)
Nice dcor with
adjacent polygon
bath, $180/night
Pepper (Grey)
Dirt (Brown)
Grass (Green)
Ear Wax (Beige)

Grape

Cherry

Dilute Cherry

Cherry
Certs, Spearmint

Grape
Altoids, Spearmint

Stallone,
Rocky

Schwarzenegger,
The Terminator

Schwarzenegger,
The Terminator

Stallone,
Rocky

Speed

Grease

Dilute Grape
Altoids, Ginger
Schwarzenegger,
Hercules in New
York
Stallone,
Stop! Or My Mom
Will Shoot
Grease 2

Grease

Speed

Speed 2

Popz, Butter
Act-II, Butter
Penta
Water

Act-II, Butter
Popz, Butter
Volvic
Spring Water

Act-II, Jalapeno
Popz, Jalapeno
Duck Fart
Spring Water

19
Table 2: Results of Study 1

Product
Category
Apartments a
(n=134/122)

Decoy

% Change
in targets
share due to
decoy

Decoy present

Target

Target

43%

48%

2%

+5%

62%

63%

0%

+1%

38%

38%

1%

0%

70%

67%

13%

-3%

52%

46%

6%

-6%

35%

32%

2%

-3%

64%

56%

10%

-8%

55%

52%

4%

-3%

Kool-Aid bc
(Cherry target)
(n= 37)

58%

35%

5%

-23% d

Kool-Aid bc
(Grape target)
(n=43)

59%

40%

5%

-19% d

Mints
(n=123/128)

55%

49%

6%

-6%

Movie Actors
(n=85/85)
(n=85/80)

55%

55%

10%

0%

45%

40%

7%

-5%

Movie Sequels
(n=77/89)
(n=77/84)

44%

36%

6%

-8%

56%

48%

10%

-8%

Popcorn
(n=38/36)
(n=38/30)

39%

31%

5%

-8%

61%

33%

7%

-28% e

Bottled Water
(n=120/121)

70%

52%

2%

-18%d

Aggregated

53%

46%

5%

-7%

Fruit
(n=94/93)
(n=94/90)
Hotel Rooms
(n=69/60)
Jellybeans b
(n=162/165)
(n=174/174)
(n=200/204)
(n=152/153)

No decoy

The first number was the sample size when the decoy was not added to the choice set, and the second number was
the sample size when the decoy was added to the choice set.
b
This experiment involved the real tasting of food or beverage options.
c
This experiment was done by comparing a trinary set to another trinary set with each having a different decoy.
d
p < .05 using 2-test.
e
p < .01 using 2-test.

20
Table 3: Results of Study 2
Original Study
Probability
representation
Numeric
Visual

23% chance
to win $507

28% chance
to win $516

73% chance
to win $197

----2% 2

14% 18
28% 35

86% 111
71% 90

----0% 0

24% 31
26% 31

76% 100
74% 89

28% chance
to win $30

28% chance
to win $33

73% chance
to win $12

----0% 1

21% 42
37% 73

79% 156
63% 125

----0% 1

34% 65
35% 71

66% 125
65% 132

Replication
Probability
representation
Numeric
Visual

Note:--The numbers in subscript indicate the actual participant count

corresponding to the respective proportions.

21
Table 4: Results of Study 3A

Representation
of picture quality
Numeric
Visual

Low
quality
$339

Medium
quality
$350

High
quality
$503

----2% 1

33% 20
57% 34

67% 40
42% 25

----2% 1

53% 32
35% 21

47% 28
64% 38

Note:--The numbers in subscript indicate the actual participant count

corresponding to the respective proportions.

22
Table 5: Results of Study 3B
Quality Ratings

Choices precede
ratings

Low
quality
$339
(decoy)
----3.0

Medium
quality
$350
(target)
5.4
6.0

High
quality
$503
(competitor)
7.8
8.8

Ratings precede
choices

----3.8

5.3
6.2

7.3
7.7

Choices precede
ratings

----1% 1

46% 37
36% 36

54% 44
63% 64

Ratings precede
choices

----2% 2

32% 28
43% 41

68% 59
67% 52

Conditions

Percentage Choosing

Note:--The numbers in subscript indicate the actual participant count

corresponding to the respective proportions.

23
Figure 1: Gambling Study Visual Stimuli (Study 2)

Suppose that for the gambles below, you get to spin the pointer, and if it
lands anywhere in the black area, you win the amount shown. Which of
the gambles below would you choose?

$197

$516

$507

Suppose that for the gambles below, you get to spin the pointer, and if it
lands anywhere in the shaded area, you win the amount shown. Which
of the gambles below would you choose?

$12

$33

$30

24
Figure 2: TV Study Pictorial Stimuli (Studies 3A and 3B)

Suppose you are buying a second television. Assuming that all the ones below
have the same screen size, which would you choose? (Please select one.)

A
(Price: $503)

B
(Price: $350)

C
(Price: $339)

25
Appendix A: List of Stimuli and Attributes Used in Articles on the Attraction Effect
Paper

Stimuli

Attributes

Attribute
Type

Ariely and Wallsten 1995

Microwaves
Running shoes
Computers
TVs
Bicycles
Cars
Flights
Apartments
Beer
Restaurants
Airplane ticket
Studio apartment
Game strategies

Price, capacity (ft.), wattage (W)

Comfort, durability, price
Speed (Hz), memory (MB), price
Screen size (in), price, wattage (W)
Price, weight (LB), wheel base (in)
Quality of ride, fuel
Price, penalty
Monthly rent, distance from campus (min)
Price, taste quality
Food quality, driving time
Cost, layover (min)
Rent, commute (min)
Payout

Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric

Automobile
Stereo
Apartment
Manager
MBA
Beer
Battery
Restaurant
VCR
Audiocassette tapes
Batteries
Orange juice
Vacation tour
packages
Laptop computers
Camera phone
Beer
Cars
Beer
Health plans
Cruises
Housing
Automobiles
Presidential candidates
Job candidates
Beer
Cars
Restaurants
Lotteries
Film
TV sets
Calculator batteries
Grocery discounts
Extra credit
Beer
Cars
TV sets
Vacation deals

Comfort rating, gas mileage

Sound rating, reliability
Distance (miles), condition rating
Technical rating, human skill rating
GMAT, GPA
Quality, price/6-pack
Life (# hours), price/pair
Food quality, driving time (min)
Picture rating, reliability rating
Price, quality
Price, quality
Price, quality
Vacation site, Hotel Service Quality, Hotel Location

Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric

Brand, Weight, Memory Capacity

Phone Type, Screen Size, Resolution
Price, quality rating
Car mileage, ride quality
Price, quality
Max coverage, copay, % donor participation
Price, incidence of disease
Crime rate, number of bedrooms
Safety, lease terms
Economic policy, international policy
Interview rating, promotability rating
Price/six pack, quality
Ride quality, gas mileage (mpg)
Driving time (min), food quality
Chance of winning, amount of win
Developing time (min), color fidelity
Percent distortion, reliability
Estimated life (# hours), price/pair
Discount offered (%), minimum purchase required ($)
Extra credit offered (points), min amount of time required (min)
Price/six pack, quality
Ride quality, gas mileage
Percent distortion, reliability
Price, hotel quality
Duration, hotel quality
Gas mileage, reliability rating
Resolution (lines), durability (months)
Size (sq. feet), closeness to campus (secs to walk)
Expected life (hours), price
Fuel efficiency (mpg), acceleration
Expected life (hours), light output (output)
Education, crime control, tax policy

Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric

Bargava, Kim and Srivastava

2000
Branstrom 1998
Burton and Zinkhan 1987
Choplin and Hummel 2002
Colman, Pulford, and Bolger
2007
Dhar and Glazer 1996

Doyle et. al. 1999

Ha, Park and Ahn 2009

Heath and Chatterjee 1991, 1995

Hedgcock, Rao, and Chen 2009

Highhouse 1996
Huber, Payne, and Puto 1982;
Huber and Puto 1983

Kim and Hasher 2005

Mishra, Umesh and Stem 1993
Moran and Meyer 2006
Olsen and Burton 2000
Pan and Lehmann 1993

Pan, OCurry and Pitts 1995

Cars
TV sets
Apartments
Batteries
Compact sedan
Light bulb
Political candidates

26
Prelec, Wernerfelt and
Zettelmeyer 1997

Ratneshwar, Shocker and

Stewart 1987

Scarpi 2008
Schwartz and Chapman 1999
Sedikides, Ariely and Olsen
1999
Sen 1998
Simonson 1989

Simonson and Tversky 1992

Tentori, et. al. 2001

Wedell 1991

Wedell and Pettibone 1996;

Pettibone and Wedell 2000

Zhou, Kim and Laroche 1996

Air conditioners
Binoculars
Auto-focus cameras
Coffeemakers
Rain boots
Running shoes
Vacuum cleaners
VCRs
TV sets
Orange juice
Beer
Cars
Light bulbs
Gas barbeque grills
MP3 players
Medication
Partner attributes
Restaurants
Beer
Cars
Color TV
Apartment
Calculator
Mouthwash
Calculator battery
Microwave ovens
Paper towels vs. facial
tissues
Cash vs. pens
Gasoline
Personal Computers
Supermarket discounts
Gambles
Automobiles
Restaurants
TV sets
Computers
Restaurants
Plane tickets
Mechanics
CD players
Apartments
Cars
Boats
Job offers
Houses
Electric keyboards
Mini-LCD TVs
Preschools
Microwaves
Parking spaces
Video cameras
Beer (24 packs)
Cars
Restaurants
TV sets
Cars
Orange juice
Calculators

Operating noise rating, price

Magnifying power, price
Number of features, price
Quality rating, price
Durability rating, price
Cushioning ability rating, price
Suction power rating, price
Durability rating, price
Percent distortion, reliability (years)
Price/64oz, quality rating
Price/six pack, quality rating
City mileage (mpg), ride quality
Light output (lumens), expected life hours
Cooking area (sq. ins) fuel tank capacity (hours)
Price, data capacity
Treatment effectiveness, probability of side effects
Attractiveness, honesty, sense of humor, dependability,
intelligence
Food, atmosphere
Price of a six-pack, quality
Ride quality/gas mileage
Price, picture quality
Distance, general condition
No of functions, Probability of repair in first 2 years
Fresh breath effectiveness, germ killing effectiveness
Expected life (hours), probability of corrosion
Capacity, price, discount
Quality (of paper towels vs. facial tissues)
Quality (of pens)
Quality (amount of octane), price/gallon
Memory (K), price
Discount offered (%), minimum purchase required ($)
Probability to win, amount to win
Ride quality, gas mileage (mpg)
Quality rating, driving time (min)
Percent distortion, reliability
Processing speed (MH), size of hard drive (MB)
Price of meal for two, wait to be served (minutes)
Cost of ticket ($), Length of layover (minutes)
Warranty length (days), experience (years)
Price, number of disks
Rent, distance (minutes)
Miles per gallon, number of safety features
Number of passengers, speed (knots per hour)
Number of days of sick leave, number of paid holidays
Price (thousands of $), square footage
Tone quality (1-100), number of features
Price, percent distortion
Children per classroom, teachers experience (years)
Warranty (months), cooking power (watts)
Price per month, distance from work (blocks)
Weight (pounds), number of features
Price, Quality (1-100)
Ride quality (1-100), miles per gallon
Distance from home (minutes), quality (1-5 stars)
Percent distortion, average life span (years)
City mileage (mpg), ride quality rating
Price, quality rating
Number of functions, probability of need for repair in first 2
years

* The qualitative ratings were supplemented with elaborate verbal descriptions of their meanings.

Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric*
Numeric*
Numeric*
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric &
Qualitative
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Perceptual
Perceptual
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric