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

Maciej Kościelniak, Tadeusz Tyszka

Abstrakt


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.

Słowa kluczowe


efekt asymetrycznej dominacji, efekt wabika, nieracjonalność, ekonomia behawioralna

Pełny tekst / Download full text:

PDF

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.

Bateson, 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 fi eld 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

Co hen, 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

E pstein, 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.

Fomez, 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

Feath, 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-

(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

Lu ce, 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 Infl uence of Choice Justifi cation 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,

–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 fi eld 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 infl uences 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 infl uence 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/S00100277(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. vo n 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.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.123

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.