The Phantom Decoy Effect in Perceptual Decision Making

被引:51
作者
Trueblood, Jennifer S. [1 ,2 ]
Pettibone, Jonathan C. [3 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Psychol, 221 Kirkland Hall, Nashville, TN 37235 USA
[2] Univ Calif Irvine, Irvine, CA USA
[3] Southern Illinois Univ Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
phantom decoy; context effects; multi-alternative choice; perceptual decision making; LOSS-AVERSION; MODEL; ALTERNATIVES; PREFERENCE; COMPROMISE; ATTRACTION; JUDGMENT; FEATURES;
D O I
10.1002/bdm.1930
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
A phantom decoy is an alternative that is superior to another "target" option but is unavailable at the time of choice. In value-based decisions involving phantom decoys (e.g., consumer choices), individuals often show increased preference for the similar, inferior target option over a non-dominated competitor alternative. Unlike value-based decisions that are driven by subjective goals, perceptual decisions typically have an outside criterion that defines the goal of the task (e.g., target is present or absent). Despite their obvious differences, past research has documented a number of commonalities between both types of decisions. In a set of three experiments, we examine the influence of phantom options on simple perceptual decisions and point out a critical difference between perceptual and value-based decisions. Our results show that in perceptual choice, participants prefer competitor options to target options, the opposite of the pattern typically found in consumer choice. We use the results of the experiments to examine the predictions of four different models of context effects including loss aversion and dynamic, preference accumulation models. We find that accumulation models provide the best explanation for our results as well as being able to generalize to other context effects. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:157 / 167
页数:11
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   TEST OF A MULTIPLYING MODEL FOR ESTIMATED AREA OF RECTANGLES [J].
ANDERSON, NH ;
WEISS, DJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1971, 84 (04) :543-&
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, BAYESIAN COGNITIVE M, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139087759
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Better than Conscious?
[4]   Rigorously Testing Multialternative Decision Field Theory Against Random Utility Models [J].
Berkowitsch, Nicolas A. J. ;
Scheibehenne, Benjamin ;
Rieskamp, Joerg .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2014, 143 (03) :1331-1348
[5]   Associations and the Accumulation of Preference [J].
Bhatia, Sudeep .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2013, 120 (03) :522-543
[6]   The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation [J].
Brown, Scott D. ;
Heathcote, Andrew .
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 57 (03) :153-178
[7]   Building bridges between neural models and complex decision making behaviour [J].
Busemeyer, Jerome R. ;
Jessup, Ryan K. ;
Johnson, Joseph G. ;
Townsend, James T. .
NEURAL NETWORKS, 2006, 19 (08) :1047-1058
[8]   Comparison-induced decoy effects [J].
Choplin, JM ;
Hummel, JE .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2005, 33 (02) :332-343
[9]   Magnitude comparisons distort mental representations of magnitude [J].
Choplin, JM ;
Hummel, JE .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2002, 131 (02) :270-286
[10]   EFFECTS OF NOISE LETTERS UPON IDENTIFICATION OF A TARGET LETTER IN A NONSEARCH TASK [J].
ERIKSEN, BA ;
ERIKSEN, CW .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 1974, 16 (01) :143-149