PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Czasopismo
2019 | nr 31 | 91--113
Tytuł artykułu

Nieistotne alternatywy wyboru mają znaczenie : przegląd wiedzy o efekcie asymetrycznej dominacji

Warianty tytułu
Irrelevant Alternatives Matter! : Review of Literature on the Asymmetric Dominance Effect
Języki publikacji
PL
Abstrakty
W niniejszym artykule podejmujemy próbę przeglądu badań nad efektem asymetrycznej dominacji. Zjawisko to wyraża się we wzroście popularności jednej z opcji wyboru w sytuacji, kiedy towarzyszy jej alternatywa podobna - ale zauważalnie gorsza (zdominowana). Liczne badania oraz obserwacje pokazują, że efekt ten występuje w tak różnych dziedzinach jak ekonomia, polityka, sądownictwo czy medycyna. W literaturze naukowej wiąże się z nim wiele niejasności oraz sprzecznych teorii, dotyczących np. jego uwarunkowań w świetle teorii dwóch systemów. Nie jest do końca jasne, czy zjawisko asymetrycznej dominacji jest efektem refleksyjnego, deliberatywnego sposobu przetwarzania informacji, czy też myślenia szybkiego i intuicyjnego. Niejednoznaczna jest też odpowiedź na pytanie o to, czy efekt ten jest przejawem ludzkiej nieracjonalności, czy też stanowi adaptacyjną i efektywną strategię podejmowania decyzji w warunkach niepewności oraz szumu informacyjnego. Niniejszy artykuł zawiera przegląd badań nad efektem asymetrycznej dominacji wśród ludzi i w świecie zwierząt. Omówiono w nim teksty poświęcone zmianom w uległości wobec efektu asymetrycznej dominacji na kolejnych etapach życia. Wreszcie, dyskusji poddano wykorzystanie tego mechanizmu do osiągania celów społecznie pożądanych w ramach tzw. libertariańskiego paternalizmu. (abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
In this article we attempt to summarize the findings from a number of studies on the asymmetric dominance effect (attraction effect, decoy effect). This is a phenomenon where popularity of one of the decision alternatives increases when accompanied by a similar but inferior (dominated) option. Scientific research and numerous observational studies show that the attraction effect occurs in various fields, incl. the economy, politics, law or medicine. In the literature there are many ambiguities and contradictory theories about, for example, its determinants in the light of the dual-systems theory. It is not entirely clear whether the phenomenon of asymmetric domination is the result of a reflective, deliberative way of information processing or of quick and intuitive thinking. There is also no unequivocal answer to the question whether this effect is a manifestation of human irrationality or whether it is an adaptive and effective decision-making strategy in conditions of uncertainty and information noise. The article contains a broad overview of research on the effect of asymmetric dominance among people and animals. The changes in the susceptibility to this effect across the lifespan are analysed. Finally, the paper discusses using the asymmetric dominance effect to achieve socially desirable goals as described in the theory of libertarian paternalism. (original abstract)
Czasopismo
Rocznik
Numer
Strony
91--113
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
  • SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny
  • Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego w Warszawie
Bibliografia
  • Ariely, D. (2009). Potęga irracjonalności: Ukryte siły, które wpływają na nasze decyzje. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Dolnośląskie.
  • Arrow, K.J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. Nowy Jork: Wiley.
  • Baltes, P.B., Baltes, M.M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences, 1, 1-34.
  • B ateson, M., Healy, S.D., Hurly, T.A. (2003). Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 270, 1271-1276. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2365.
  • Besedeš, T., Deck, C., Sarangi, S., Shor, M. (2012). Age effects and heuristics in decision making. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, 580-595. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00174.
  • Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A.M., Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decisionmaking competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938-956. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938.
  • Bruine de Bruin, W., Strough, J., Parker, A.M. (2014). Getting older isn't all that bad: Better decisions and coping when facing "sunk costs". Psychology and Aging, 29, 642-647. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036308.
  • Burton, S., Zinkhan, G.M. (1987). Changes in consumer choice: Further investigation of similarity and attraction effects. Psychology and Marketing, 4, 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220040308.
  • Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T. (1993). Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.
  • Calvert, S.L. (2008). Children as Consumers: Advertising and Marketing. The Future of Children, 18, 205-234.
  • Chung, H.-K., Sjöström, T., Lee, H.-J., Lu, Y.-T., Tsuo, F.-Y., Chen, T.-S.i in.Huang, C.-Y. (2017). Why Do Irrelevant Alternatives Matter? An fMRI-TMS Study of Context- Dependent Preferences. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(48), 11647-11661. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2307-16.2017.
  • Cohen, P.M., Santos, L. R. (2017). Capuchins (Cebus apella) fail to show an asymmetric dominance effect. Animal Cognition, 20, 331-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1055-5.
  • Crosetto, P., Gaudeul, A. (2012). Do Consumers Prefer Offers that are Easy to Compare? An Experimental Investigation. Jena Economic Research Papers. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2149615.
  • Dhar, R., Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 528-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.002.
  • Edwards, S.C., Pratt, S.C. (2009). Rationality in collective decision-making by ant colonies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 3655-3661. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0981.
  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
  • Frederick, S., Lee, L., Baskin, E. (2014). The Limits of Attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 487-507. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0061.
  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., The ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gomez, Y., Martínez-Molés, V., Urbano, A., Vila, J. (2016). The attraction effect in mid-involvement categories: An experimental economics approach. Journal of Business Research, 69, 5082-5088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.084.
  • Heath, T.B., Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1086/209449.
  • Hedgcock, W., Rao, A.R. (2009). Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.1.
  • Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 575-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(97)00020-7.
  • Howes, A., Warren, P.A., Farmer, G., El-Deredy, W., Lewis, R.L. (2016). Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value. Psychological Review, 123(4), 368-391. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039996.
  • Hsee, C.K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67, 247-257.
  • Hu, J., Yu, R. (2014). The neural correlates of the decoy effect in decisions. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00271.
  • Huber, J., Payne, J.W., Puto, C. (1982). Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899.
  • Huber, J., Payne, J. W., Puto, C. P. (2014). Let's Be Honest About the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 520-525. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0208.
  • Kahneman, D., Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 49-81.
  • Kelman, M., Rottenstreich, Y., Tversky, A. (1996). Context-dependence in legal decision making. The Journal of Legal Studies, 25, 287-318.
  • Kim, J., Park, J., Ryu, G. (2006). Decoy effects and brands. ACR North American Advances.
  • Kim, S., Hasher, L. (2005). The attraction effect in decision making: superior performance by older adults. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A, 58, 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000160.
  • Koscielniak, M., Rydzewska, K., Sedek, G. (2018). Commentary: The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older Adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02321.
  • Li, Y., Baldassi, M., Johnson, E.J., Weber, E.U. (2013). Complementary cognitive capabilities, economic decision making, and aging. Psychology and Aging, 28, 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034172.
  • Li, M., Sun, Y., Chen, H. (2018). The Decoy Effect as a Nudge: Boosting Hand Hygiene With a Worse Option. Psychological Science, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618761374.
  • Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Dover Publications, 191-243.
  • Luce, M.F., Bettman, J.R., Payne, J.W. (2001). Emotional decisions: Tradeoff diffi culty and coping in consumer choice. Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1-209.
  • Malaviya, P., Sivakumar, K. (2015). The Influence of Choice Justification and Stimulus Meaningfulness on the Attraction Effect. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 20-29.
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501923 Mao, W., Oppewal, H. (2012). The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning. Marketing Letters, 23, 339-351.
  • Masicampo, E.J., Baumeister, R.F. (2008). Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psychological Science, 19, 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x.
  • Mata, R., Helversen, B. von, Rieskamp, J. (2010). Learning to choose: Cognitive aging and strategy selection learning in decision making. Psychology and Aging, 25, 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018923.
  • Milberg, S.J., Silva, M., Celedon, P., Sinn, F. (2014). Synthesis of attraction effect research: Practical market implications? European Journal of Marketing, 48, 1413-1430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2012-0391.
  • McArdle, J.J., Ferrer-Caja, E., Hamagami, F., Woodcock, R.W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span. Developmental Psychology, 38, 115-142. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115.
  • Pan, Y., O'Curry, S., Pitts, R. (1995). The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_04.
  • Parrish, A.E., Afrifa, E., Beran, M.J. (2018). Exploring decoy effects on computerized task preferences in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5(2), 235-253. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.05.02.06.2018.
  • Parrish, A.E., Evans, T.A., Beran, M.J. (2015). Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) exhibit the decoy effect in a perceptual discrimination task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(5), 1715-1725. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0885-6.
  • Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pettibone, J.C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 513-523.
  • 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, 520-533. https://doi.org/10.1086/209085.
  • Roe, R.M., Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108(2), 370-392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370.
  • Roy, P. (2018). A strategic view of refurbished goods: A strategic view of refurbished goods. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad.
  • Salthouse, T.A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103(3), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.403.
  • Schwartz, J.A., Chapman, G.B. (1999). Are More Options Always Better? The Attraction Effect in Physicians' Decisions about Medications. Medical Decision Making, 19(3), 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9901900310.
  • Sedikides, C., Ariely, D., Olsen, N. (1999). Contextual and Procedural Determinants of Partner Selection: Of Asymmetric Dominance and Prominence. Social Cognition, 17, 118-139. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.118.
  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205.
  • Shafi r, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1-2), 11-36.
  • Simonson, I. (2008). Will I like a "medium" pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 155-169.
  • Simonson, I., Rosen, E. (2014). Absolute value: What really influences customers in the age of (nearly) perfect information (First edition). New York, NY: Harper Business.
  • Slaughter, J.E., Kausel, E.E., Quiñones, M.A. (2011). The decoy effect as a covert influence tactic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(3), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.687.
  • Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3.
  • Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
  • Tentori, K., Osherson, D., Hasher, L., May, C. (2001). Wisdom and aging: Irrational preferences in college students but not older adults. Cognition, 81(3), B87-B96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00137-8.
  • Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C.R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 175-179.
  • Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
  • Tyszka, T. (1983). Contextual multi-attribute decision rules. W: Sjöberg, L., Tyszka, T., Wise, J.A. (red.), Human Decision Making. Clifton: Doxa Books.
  • von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Yang, S.S. (2013). The attraction effect: An overview, its fragility, and a meta-analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University.
  • Zhen, S., Yu, R. (2016). The development of the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect in young children. Scientifi c Reports, 6.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171571286

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.