Abstract
Research on context effects shows that the composition of choice sets and choice framing strongly influences consumer decision-making. Researchers have identified various context effect types and provide insight into their antecedents, consequences, and mechanisms of action. However, the research on context effects is spread across several fields, making it difficult to grasp the entire scope. Reviews focusing on specific effect types can facilitate rigorous research and publication practices, but they focus primarily on prominent context effects, neglecting others. Furthermore, those reviews do not provide insight into the structure of scholarly networks that result from research collaborations and shape, generate, distribute, and preserve the intellectual knowledge of the context effect domain. Addressing these issues, we present a large-scale bibliometric analysis of the field, that helps navigate the context effect landscape, highlights its themes, and identifies knowledge gaps. An interactive web application also allows for our analyses to be customized and extended.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Consumer and marketing researchers have long demonstrated that the choice context significantly affects purchase decisions (e.g., Bettman et al., 1998; Bettman & Zins, 1977). While contextual influence is a broad term (e.g., Thomadsen et al. 2018), an important research area deals with context effects, showing that the choice set composition and the framing of choice problems strongly influence consumers’ decision-making when choosing products (Tversky and Simonson 1993). Since the introduction of context effects to consumer research over 40 years ago (Huber et al. 1982), marketers and policymakers have systematically applied them in various domains, for example, to foster socially desired behavior by nudging consumers to make healthier food choices (e.g., Missbach and König 2016; Sharpe et al. 2008), to opt for environmentally and animal-friendly products or services (e.g., Clark et al. 2003; Jonge et al. 2015), or to engage more in charitable giving (e.g., Pittarello et al. 2020). The relevance of research on these effects extends to other fields beyond consumer marketing, such as politics (e.g., in the context of general elections, Hedgcock et al. 2009; Pan et al. 1995), legal decision-making (e.g., Kelman et al. 1996), neuroscience (e.g., the neural correlates of such phenomena, Hedgcock and Rao 2009), and medicine (e.g., physicians’ decisions about medications, Schwartz and Chapman 1999). Over the past decades, researchers have identified a variety of different context effect types. The most prominent examples include the attraction and compromise effects (Huber et al. 1982; Simonson 1989). Moreover, researchers have identified a growing number of other context effects, such as the phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993), the background contrast effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), and, more recently, the abrupt disparity effect (Dogerlioglu-Demir et al. 2022) as well as the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al. 2022).
In light of the field’s increasing maturity, several authors have presented reviews and meta-analyses of context effect research (e.g., Dowling et al. 2020; Heath and Chatterjee 1995; Lichters et al. 2015; Milberg et al. 2014; Neumann et al. 2016; Thomadsen et al. 2018) and provided important insights into their antecedents, consequences, and mechanisms of action. Moreover, a prominent research debate on the attraction effect’s robustness has already engaged the scientific community (e.g., Frederick et al. 2014; Huber et al. 2014; Lichters et al. 2015; Simonson 2014; Yang and Lynn 2014), which further demonstrates the interest in and the managerial importance of context effects. However, those literature reviews and debates do not offer much clarity on the structure of scholarly networks that researchers have formed through their co-authored works, nor do they reveal an overarching structure of research topics. Understanding the structures of these networks is important, as they set the rules for the network’s power game in which authors, editors, and topics joust for authority and influence. These network structures therefore influence the content, output, and performance of those involved in its boundaries (Fortunato et al. 2018). In addition, existing literature reviews focus primarily on the attraction and compromise effects but neglect other context effect types that are necessary to grasp the full scope of corresponding behavioral interventions.
To address these issues, we present the results of a large-scale bibliometric analysis of context effect research. Since bibliometric analyses describe overarching structures in a research field, they help identify knowledge gaps, spark innovative research ideas, and assist with a manuscript’s positioning in a research field (Donthu et al. 2021). Bibliometric reviews have gained relevance in various areas of consumer research, including brand management (e.g., Rojas-Lamorena et al. 2022), sensory marketing (e.g., Wörfel et al. 2022), and consumer psychology (e.g., Adler and Sarstedt 2021).
We set the stage for our bibliometric analysis by providing a concise overview of context effects relevant to product choice (see overview of context effects at the open science framework (OSF): https://osf.io/ghv4e). Next, we unveil the field’s structure by identifying prominent scholars, research themes, and articles that bridge the different streams in context effect research. By utilizing our analyses, we propose future research avenues and pave the way for the future extension of our analyses. We achieve this by providing all data and analysis scripts on the OSF, as well as an interactive R Shiny web application that includes additional materials and allows for custom analyses (https://mktg.shinyapps.io/CEbiblio_ShinyApp/).
2 Theoretical background
In marketing and consumer research, the term context effects summarizes phenomena describing changes in consumer preferences that result from subtle changes in the choice situation. These changes can come from variations in the choice set composition, which entail “preference changes that depend on the availability of other options” (Trueblood et al. 2013, p. 901). Furthermore, context effects can emerge from variations in choice framing such that “seemingly inconsequential changes in the formulation of choice problems [cause] significant shifts of preference” (Tversky and Kahneman 1981, p. 457).
Over the past 40 years, researchers have identified a multitude of different context effects resulting in seemingly irrational decision outcomes in product choice. These context effects can broadly be classified into four groups, depending on the nature of their influence on consumers’ preference formation.
2.1 Deciding for or against a single product
Context effects in the first group are relevant in instances where the consumer is faced with the decision to buy a single product or not. Specifically, the display set effect (Karmarkar 2017), the single option aversion (Mochon 2013), and the lone alternative effect (Glazer et al. 1991; Kahn et al. 1987) highlight that consumers avoid products that are offered in isolation. The display set effect (Karmarkar 2017) describes a situation where the mere (viewable) presence of additional, ineligible products in the display set increases the consumer’s purchase intention for a single available product from the same category as the display set. Presenting a matched display set satisfies consumers’ needs to search for alternative options and resolves otherwise salient considerations of opportunity cost (Karmarkar 2017). Following this notion, consumers are more likely to buy a product when, during decision-making, other products from the same category are displayed as well.
According to the single option aversion (Mochon 2013), consumers are less likely to choose a product if it is presented in isolation versus jointly with competing products. This is because presenting a single option triggers consumers’ need to search for alternative products. However, in contrast to the display set effect, consumers in the single option aversion paradigms can opt for the other alternatives presented too. In the same vein, the lone alternative effect (Glazer et al. 1991; Kahn et al. 1987) arises when consumers face an externally imposed constraint in a choice, for example, when choosing between stores with different assortments before deciding on a product. Since consumers prefer larger over smaller assortments, they are more likely to choose a specific product in a store with a large assortment than in a small assortment store (Glazer et al. 1991; Kahn et al. 1987).
2.2 Making decisions when a decoy option is added to a choice set
The second group of context effects arises when consumers decide between non-dominating alternatives, where a particular option is the target (the option marketers are interested in selling), whereas another option is the competitor. Adding a decoy product to this choice set can shift consumer preferences toward one of these options. Context effects in this group include the attraction effect (Huber et al. 1982), the repulsion effect (Frederick and Lee 2008; Simonson 2014), the compromise effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), the polarization effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), the phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993), as well as the more recently proposed abrupt disparity effect (Dogerlioglu-Demir et al. 2022) and the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al. 2022). To illustrate this group of context effects, suppose a consumer has to choose between two products. The alternatives are described in terms of two attributes—quality and price—where Product 1 (the target of manipulation) is better on the quality dimension, but Product 2 (the competitor) is better on the price dimension. Figure 1 portrays such a situation, which we will use to introduce the attraction effect (Huber et al. 1982), the compromise effect (Simonson 1989), the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al. 2022), and the phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993).
The attraction effect emerges when adding a new product alternative (a decoy Product D) to the choice set. Product D is inferior to Product 1 in terms of one or both attribute(s) quality and price. Importantly, Product 2 does not dominate this added decoy alternative (asymmetric dominance). Researchers therefore also use the term asymmetric dominance effect (Ariely and Wallsten 1995; Müller et al. 2014). While consumers should not choose the inferior Product D, adding this decoy increases the choice probability for Product 1 (the target option) over Product 2 (the competitor option, Huber et al. 1982). Huber et al. (1982) and Huber and Puto (1983) introduced multiple decoy types that describe the exact nature of the dominating relationship. Specifically, the authors distinguish the relative inferior decoy (DI), the range decoy (DR), the frequency decoy (DF), and the range-frequency decoy (DRF). A related context effect is the repulsion effect (Frederick and Lee 2008; Simonson 2014) in which the decoy increases the choice probability for the competitor over the target alternative. The repulsion effect—which is also referred to as a negative attraction effect (Aaker 1991)—is therefore contrary to the attraction effect. While the repulsion effect is well established in perceptual choice tasks and risky choice involving lotteries (Brendl et al. 2023; Evans et al. 2021; Spektor et al. 2018, 2022), significant evidence for repulsion in preferential product choice tasks is scarce (e.g., Banerjee et al. 2022; Liao et al. 2021).
Recently, prominent context effect researchers emphasized that asymmetric dominance is not necessary for the relationship between the target alternative and the decoy product. Specifically, to evoke the so-called upscaling effect, Evangelidis et al. (2022) added a symmetrically dominated decoy (see option U in Fig. 1) to the choice set and observed increased choice shares of the highly desirable Product 1 as a result. The authors argue that consumers favor desirability (e.g., high quality) over feasibility (e.g., low price), and try to accumulate evidence to justify the selection of Product 1 over Product 2.
The compromise effect emerges when a new product option (Product C) is added to the binary choice set, with Product C having extreme attribute values (e.g., very high quality and very high price). As a result, Product 1 is now in a compromise position between the two more extreme options (Product 2 and Product C). As consumers generally seek to avoid choosing options with extreme attribute levels (Simonson and Tversky 1992), the choice probability of Product 1 increases (Simonson 1989). Extremeness aversion also elicits the polarization effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992) in which the choice probability of an extreme (e.g., high quality) alternative increases if the advantage induced by a particular attribute (e.g., high quality) is larger than the disadvantage of the other attribute (e.g., high price).
The phantom decoy effect (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993) emerges when adding an option to the choice set “that looks real but for some reason is unavailable at the time a decision is made” (Farquhar and Pratkanis 1993, p. 1214). Such phantom decoys can be framed in terms of, for example, out-of-stock or preannounced products. Depending on the decoy’s position, the choice framing (a free choice including the option not to buy any product vs. forced choice), and knowledge of the phantom (a priori known unavailability vs. unavailability that is only unveiled if one tries to select the phantom), adding a phantom decoy can increase the target option’s as well as the competitor’s choice shares (e.g., Ge et al. 2009; Hedgcock et al. 2016; Simonson 1989).
A further context effect, the abrupt disparity effect (Dogerlioglu-Demir et al. 2022), assumes consumers to be faced with decisions involving larger assortments than those in Fig. 1. According to the abrupt disparity effect, manipulating product presentation order may increase the choice shares for a premium target alternative (i.e., the option with the highest quality and the highest price). Specifically, consumers are more likely to choose a premium product in a choice set that is arranged in ascending order from low-quality / low-price products to high-quality / high-price products if an extremely inferior low-quality / low-price decoy product is placed next to the premium product, which disrupts the ascending order.
2.3 Making decisions when attributes or attribute levels change
The third group of context effects also engages binary choice sets. However, unlike decoy manipulations, no additional product is added to the choice set, but information on the two core set alternatives is systematically changed to shift consumer preferences in favor of the target option. This includes the additional information on shared attribute values among the two core products (common attribute effect, Evangelidis and van Osselaer 2018; and common feature effect, Chernev 1997), setting an attribute value to zero for the target option (zero-comparison effect, Palmeira 2011), or using attribute values in product descriptions that are rather extreme or intermediate within alternatives (the influence of impoverished options compared to the influence of enriched options, Shafir 1993).
The zero-comparison effect (Palmeira 2011) occurs when an attribute of a particular product is set to zero (vs. the attribute having a greater value). This attribute level entails a considerable change in reference point perception (see also Shampanier et al. 2007). As a consequence, although consumers usually appreciate higher values on that attribute (e.g., the number of pods included with a coffeemaker), setting its value to zero increases the choice probability for the corresponding option over its competitor.
Information on common product attributes also influences consumer choices between two products. The common attribute effect (Evangelidis and van Osselaer 2018) emerges when information on the shared common characteristics of the two products in a choice set is provided (vs. not provided). Specifically, the choice likelihood of a product alternative with a low quality and a low price increases when common characteristics with the higher quality but more expensive alternative are made salient (vs. not made salient). This shared characteristic improves the low-quality option’s assessment since it performs better than expected on the common attribute. Albeit related, the common feature effect (Chernev 1997) is conceptually different from the common attribute effect, in that the common feature effect only applies to choices involving non-priced (or equally priced) alternatives and focuses on the role of attribute importance. Specifically, if attribute importance is unbalanced, adding a common feature increases the choice likelihood for the alternative with higher values on the most important attribute. Under conditions of equal attribute importance, in contrast, adding a common feature, for example, increases the choice likelihood for the option with the best attribute values on the attribute with the highest variance among the two core alternatives. This is because consumers are assumed to overweight differences between the choice alternatives due to the increased choice difficulty.
Similarly, enriched vs. impoverished options (Shafir 1993) in a binary choice set also alter individual preferences. Consumers choose an enriched product alternative (i.e., an option with many extremely positive and negative attribute levels) relatively more often than they would choose an impoverished alternative (i.e., an option with less pronounced positive / negative attribute levels). This effect arises, because consumers making their choices weight positive attributes more strongly. Likewise, if consumers are asked to reject one of the options, they reject the enriched option relatively more often than the impoverished option. This is because consumers rejecting an option weight negative attributes more strongly. This effect of preference for enriched over impoverished choice alternatives also unfolds in choice problems with more than two alternatives (Colombo et al. 2002).
2.4 Influencing decisions by past choice sets
Finally, the last group of context effects proposes that product preferences formed in the recent past (i.e., former choice instances) influence subsequent decisions which apply to the background contrast effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992) and the jilting effect (Garvey et al. 2017). According to the background contrast effect (Simonson and Tversky 1992), the trade-off from an initial choice set (e.g., price-quality trade-off) affects consumer choice behavior in a subsequent choice set. For example, an initial choice may introduce a default for a price-quality trade-off. In the subsequent choice, consumers will favor the option that exceeds this trade-off criterion (e.g., price per quality unit), while neglecting actual absolute attribute levels (actual price and actual quality).
Relatedly, according to the jilting effect (Garvey et al. 2017), preannounced (i.e., not yet available) product alternatives impact consumer choice, even if these alternatives are subsequently never introduced to the choice set. Specifically, when anticipating a desirable option, consumers devalue incumbent options and retain this negative evaluation, even if the desirable option vanishes. This subsequently decreases the incumbent option’s choice share (Garvey et al. 2017).
In summary, this short overview of context effects in product choice highlights how the field covers a wide range of phenomena, from the most primal effects (e.g., the attraction effect, Huber et al. 1982) to more complex choice phenomena (e.g., the jilting effect; Garvey et al. 2017).
3 Methodology
To set the stage for our bibliometric analysis, we conducted extensive desk research to identify not only relevant context effects, but also the most recent developments in context effect research.Footnote 1 Our bibliometric analysis follows Donthu et al.’s (2021) guidelines and combines the latter with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement approach (Page et al. 2021) to foster transparency (Fig. 2). We collected data from the Web of Science and Scopus databases by searching for specific context effect-related keywords within articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords.Footnote 2 In addition to the identified records, we included Scopus’s secondary documents and manually added two seminal publications (Huber et al. 1982; Tversky and Simonson 1993) that were not listed.
Subsequent steps excluded duplicates and articles that did not meet predefined inclusion criteria relating to language (English), document type (journal article), and journal (i.e., SCImago subject areas: “Business, Management and Accounting,” “Decision Sciences,” “Economics, Econometrics and Finance,” “Multidisciplinary,” or “Psychology”; SCImago, n.d.). The total sample includes 2,929 articles from the Web of Science and Scopus, as well as 69 articles from Scopus’s secondary documents. We applied an additional manual content review to ensure that our dataset only contained articles dealing with context effects (e.g., testing individual effects, describing underlying choice models, or reviewing prior research). This step resulted in 385 articles as the basis for the bibliometric analysis.Footnote 3
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics and publication years
The 385 articles were published between 1982 and 2022 (see Fig. 3). They cover 130 journals and 704 authors from 38 countries and 360 universities. We found an increase in context effect research after 2010, with peaks in 2020 and 2022 (both n = 35). Specifically, 9 articles were published from 1982 to 1992, 43 from 1993 to 2002, 86 from 2003 to 2012, and 247 from 2013 to 2022.
4.2 Article analysis
In total, 13 articles received more than 200 citations (left column in Table 1), while another 20 articles received at least 100 citations. With more than 900 citations each, the three most-cited papers are Huber et al.’s (1982) seminal publication on the attraction effect, Simonson’s (1989) foundational work on the attraction and the compromise effect, and Simonson and Tversky’s (1992) pioneering paper on the compromise effect, the background contrast effect, and the polarization effect.
Regarding the number of annual citations, we found 24 articles with more than 10 citations per year (right column in Table 1). While the total citation analysis favors early articles, which have a greater chance of being cited, the citations per year indicate more recent yet influential articles, such as the work by Bordalo et al. (2013) on attribute saliency’s effect on consumer choice and Trueblood et al.’s (2013) generalization of the context effect logic with regard to perceptual decision-making tasks.
4.3 Author analysis
Among the field’s contributors, we identify Itamar Simonson, Amos Tversky, Joel Huber, Christopher Puto, Ravi Dhar, and John W. Payne as the most impactful scholars, with more than 1,000 total citations each in our dataset (Table 2). Given their early conceptual work in the field, especially in describing the most prominent context effects, these authors can be considered the field’s founding fathers.
An author collaboration analysis (Fig. 4) finds a considerable connectedness between context effect researchers but also reveals a relatively sparse network of 704 authors with 977 collaboration ties, indicating that only 0.39% of all possible network ties were formed. We identify five large but unconnected research groups with 20 authors or more that form their own fields of expertise.
First, the largest component with 67 authors includes several prominent authors in the field of choice modeling, such as Jörg Rieskamp, Adele Diederich, Jennifer S. Trueblood, Jerome R. Busemeyer, Brandon Turner, and Konstantinos Tsetsos. A more detailed assessment of this component highlights some heterogeneity between the authors’ main research foci—for example, the specific choice models—they propose, examine, and debate. For example, we find links to the decision field theory (Roe et al. 2001), the multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model (Trueblood et al. 2014), and the accentuation-of-differences model (Spektor et al. 2019). Since authors also engage in rigorous discussions on the origins of context effects (e.g., Busemeyer et al. 2019; Tsetsos et al. 2015), this large component indicates a valuable exchange of ideas between authors—which ultimately advances the field in its quest to shed light on context effects’ background processes. The second component (n = 35) includes seminal researchers in consumer research on context effects, such as Itamar Simonson, Ravi Dhar, On Amir, and Amos Tversky. Moreover, this component includes researchers who examine psychological moderators to context effects, such as Stephen M. Nowlis and Roy Baumeister. Two further components (n = 27) comprise researchers like Jungkeun Kim, Seongseop Kim, Roger Marshall, and Mark T. Spence, and, respectively, Shih-Chieh Chuang, Yin-Hui Cheng, and Chung-Chau Chang, who conduct context effect-related research into consumer behavior and marketing and examine the influences of different choice situations, for example, choosing for others (C.-C. Chang et al. 2012) or choosing under time pressure (Cui et al. 2021). Another large component (n = 20) includes researchers like Bodo Vogt, Holger Müller, Marcel Lichters, and Marko Sarstedt, who focus on methodological and physiological moderators (e.g., serotonin brain levels; Lichters et al. 2016a; Lichters et al. 2016b) to context effects. In addition, the pioneering authors (Joel Huber, Christopher Puto, and John W. Payne) in attraction effect research comprise their own smaller component (n = 7).
A country-specific author analysis highlights that the U.S.A. is the epicenter of context effects research. Authors from U.S. universities (co)authored 198 (51.4%) articles, followed by their German (45 articles, 11.7%), UK (40 articles, 10.4%), and Chinese colleagues (40 articles, 10.4%). We further analyze affiliation networks (Fig. 5) for the number of publications and identify the top 3 most productive affiliations as Stanford University, U.S.A. (19 articles), the University of Warwick, UK (14 articles), and the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Germany (11 articles).
4.4 Journal analysis
Context effect research features prominently in top-tier marketing research outlets. With 30 articles and 4,601 citations (153.37 citations per article), the Journal of Consumer Research is the most prominent publication outlet, followed by the Journal of Marketing Research with 27 and 3,262 citations (120.81 citations per article; Table 3). The journal analysis further emphasizes the diverse nature of the context effect research field that spans consumer and marketing research (e.g., Marketing Letters, Journal of Consumer Psychology, and Journal of Business Research), as well as more general research in psychology (e.g., Psychological Review and Memory and Cognition), and also in management and economics (e.g., Management Science, Journal of Political Economy, and American Economic Review).
4.5 Analysis at the level of context effects
We manually coded each article to identify the type of context effect being investigated. Based on the type of context effect, we examined the prevalence and interconnectedness of context effect research (Table 4) and the number of articles investigating multiple context effects. This allowed us to derive a context effect co-occurrence network (Fig. 6). The co-occurrence network shows the effects as nodes, with node sizes indicating the number of articles covering each effect. Edges between nodes represent the number of common articles. The co-occurrence network reveals a single component dominating the network. This component includes the attraction and the compromise effect in central network positions. The network further includes several isolated effects, such as the zero-comparison effect and the common attribute effect, or the more recently proposed upscaling effect.
The number of articles is highest for the attraction effect (n = 256) and the compromise effect (n = 180). Although less prominent, research also frequently relates to phantom decoys (n = 27), the repulsion effect (n = 10), the background contrast effect (n = 10), and enriched vs. impoverished options (n = 10). Furthermore, we consider each effect’s network centrality, indicating its importance for maintaining network structure. Specifically, degree centrality is the number of edges shared with other nodes, representing its absolute connectedness within the network (Newman 2010). Betweenness centrality corresponds to the number of shortest paths between two other nodes that go through the target node (Newman 2010). This measure denotes a node’s power as an intermediary that connects research on different context effects. Both network centrality measures identify the attraction effect and the compromise effect as central to the network.
4.6 Keyword and topic analysis
The final step of analysis evaluates each article’s keywords. To obtain a meaningful list of keywords, we first merged the keywords assigned by the authors with those automatically assigned by the databases. Second, we determined synonymous keywords (e.g., eye tracking, eye fixation analysis) and aggregated them into one term (e.g., eye tracking). Finally, we excluded keywords that only occurred once (Maier et al. 2018), thereby reducing the number of keywords from 1,404 to 485.
Topic modeling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA, as proposed by Blei 2012; Blei et al. 2003) on the dataFootnote 4 helped us identify overarching themes in context effect research. Following Mantyla et al. (2018), we ran the LDA 100 times and clustered the results with k-medoids. We reviewed LDA results with 10 to 18 topic clusters (TCs) and chose a solution with 13 TCs, which provided the best trade-off between detail and parsimony. Table 5 shows the top 10 keywords per TC, that describe the topics and a linear trend displaying a topic’s growth, or its decline, between 1982 and 2022. To describe the TCs, we further evaluate articles that are highly associated with each topic (see supplementary material on the OSF for a full list).
4.6.1 Topic cluster descriptions
We identify TCs that contain articles focusing on context effect conceptualizations and background processes, TCs focusing on specific applications, as well as TCs on choice modeling.
Several TCs focus on psychological research, evaluating the foundations of context effects and their initial description. Specifically, TC #1 covers (socio-)demographic moderators to context effects (e.g., age and gender; Sablotny-Wackershauser et al. 2020; Wu and Yu 2019), and also covers how other stable conditions (e.g., autism; Farmer et al. 2017) affect context effects. TC #5 covers more situation-specific moderators of context effects. Specifically, prominent research on this topic covers country-of-origin effects (e.g., Chuang and Yen 2007), moderators to the compromise effect, (e.g., serotonin deficiency, Lichters et al. 2016a; consequential choices, Lichters et al. 2016b), and assess specific decoy positions in the attribute space (Padamwar et al. 2018). TC #4 covers the background processes of economic judgment and decision-making. Among others, TC #4 includes articles outlining background processes for multiple context effects, such as the value shift framework and value-added framework (Pechtl 2009; Pettibone and Wedell 2000). Furthermore, prominent psychological models, such as tradeoff contrast (Simonson and Tversky 1992) and reference dependency (Hedgcock et al. 2016), belong to this TC. Providing a more specific focus, TC #7 describes limited resources, self-control, and ego depletion in context effect research and relates to dual-process theories (e.g., Masicampo and Baumeister 2008; Pocheptsova et al. 2009). Moreover, covering another important aspect of decision-making, TC #8 focuses on context effect-related research on risky decision-making (e.g., Kreilkamp et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2020) as well as self-other decision-making (e.g., C.-C. Chang et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2017) with links to regulatory focus theory (e.g., Ryu et al. 2014). We further identify two TCs that relate to specific context effects. TC #6 covers the effects of common features on consumer choice (e.g., Chernev 2001; Su et al. 2012), TC #13 includes research on phantom decoys (e.g., Adam et al. 2019; Wessel et al. 2019) as well as the article on the jilting effect (Garvey et al. 2017). Except for TC #1, all of the above-mentioned TCs either exhibit a declining or stagnating relative research trend indicating that recent research moves toward applied research and choice modeling.
Several other topics refer to specific applications of context effect research. TC #3 covers research on consumers’ purchase behavior and—in its most prominent articles—shows a special focus on food. Research in this cluster, for example, utilizes the compromise effect and extremeness aversion to counter obesity (e.g., Gill et al. 2022; Sharpe et al. 2008), explores restaurant choice and ratings (Otto et al. 2022), or studies the zero-comparison effect in front-of-package labels (Graham and Mohr 2014). We find further applications in TC #9 and TC #10—both of which exhibit a positive trend. TC #9 relates to specific contexts, such as travel choices (Kim et al. 2019), human resource management (Cantarelli et al. 2020), and debt repayment plans (Harrison et al. 2021). Prominent research in TC #10 examines the attraction effect in gambles and lotteries (Castillo 2020; Colman et al. 2007 Sürücü et al., 2019) and relates compromise and attraction effects in bargaining situations (Galeotti et al. 2021).
Further, we identify two TCs on choice modeling. Showing a stable research trend, TC #2 comprises formal choice models that, for example, focus on loss aversion (leaky competing accumulator; Usher and McClelland 2004) and includes discussions of these models (e.g., Tsetsos et al. 2010). Corresponding to more recent research in choice modeling, TC #11 focuses on attention and perceptual processing (e.g., using eye-tracking data; Marini et al. 2020; Marini et al. 2023) and argues that attention is crucial for context effects (Trueblood 2022). This TC further includes the most recent discussions and advances in choice modeling (e.g., Bergner et al. 2019; Busemeyer et al. 2019; Wollschlaeger and Diederich 2020). Finally, TC #12 includes research on choice axioms that, for example, utilize partial dominance to explain the attraction effect (Gerasimou 2016b), model the attraction effect as avoidant behaviors similar to a status quo bias and choice deferral (Gerasimou 2016a), or provide insights on anticipated stochastic choice (Koida 2018). Of the above-mentioned TCs, TC #11 and TC #12 exhibit a positive trend, which indicates a growing research interest.
4.6.2 Cross-topic analyses
We provide a cross-topic analysis identifying articles that bridge topics in the interactive R Shiny web application. This analysis allows for identifying articles that fit into two TCs. For example, analyzing the intersection between self-control and dual-process theories (TC #7) to consumers’ purchase behavior (TC #3) generates the graphs in Fig. 7.Footnote 5 The figure’s upper part shows each TC’s weight distribution. As evidenced by the high density for lower weights, most papers show only a small relationship to each TC, while the distribution is much flatter if the weights are above 0.1. The lower part of the figure identifies intersecting articles by showing the weights of bridging articles for both topics. This helps identify whether an article is relevant to both TCs, or whether an article is particularly relevant to one (vs. the other TC; i.e., differences between weights).
A detailed analysis of Fig. 7. shows, for example, the article with the highest weight average (van den Enden and Geyskens 2021), which assesses attraction effects in a self-control-relevant situation (choosing healthy vs. unhealthy food) and finds that the attraction effect does not emerge in healthy food choice sets. Focusing on eco-friendliness, Guath et al. (2022) show that adding an asymmetrically dominated decoy option can nudge consumers more effectively toward eco-friendly choices than adding a default option. In another study involving default options, Kim et al. (2022) explored how time pressure affects consumers’ choices for an asymmetrically dominating option that is either in line with or opposed to an external recommendation issued by a salesperson.
The results from this cross-topic analysis therefore go beyond the individual TCs and can help spur or develop research by providing a holistic assessment of TC intersections, that is not limited to a specific keyword or search string. In addition, the analysis can draw attention to articles that have thus far received only limited attention in a specialist area of context effect research and may serve as a starting point for new research streams.
5 Discussion
5.1 Theoretical and managerial implications
To date, research on context effects has produced hundreds of empirical articles and several reviews that compile the state of research in the field. However, the literature lacks an overarching, data-driven description of the field with its scholarly networks, content structure, and themes. To address this research gap, we present the results of a bibliometric analysis that includes a performance analysis on top-tier authors, articles, and journals, as well as a collaboration analysis for authors and their affiliations. Furthermore, we examine the research field’s content structure based on an article-specific effect coding and analyze each effect’s prevalence as well as effect networks. We use a topic modeling approach based on article keywords to dive deeper into researched themes.
Our author network analysis on collaboration patterns reveals a fragmented collaboration network with large components that map onto different streams of research. These streams relate to the areas of choice modeling (e.g., Jörg Rieskamp, Jerome R. Busemeyer), the conceptual foundation of primarily the compromise and attraction effect (e.g., Itamar Simonson, Amos Tversky), applications in consumer research (e.g., Shih-Chieh Chuang, Yin-Hui Cheng), as well as moderators in context effect research (e.g., Bodo Vogt, Marcel Lichters).
An affiliation-based collaboration analysis shows that most context effect researchers are based in North America, followed by Europe and Asia, with only a few in South America and Oceania and none in Africa and Antarctica. International collaborations between North America and Europe are especially prevalent, with far less scientific “traffic” between the remaining continents. Our affiliation network showed that most context effect research originates in countries with Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD; Hendriks et al. 2019; Henrich et al. 2010) societies. Accordingly, if we assume that most study samples originate in these societies, their results’ generalizability to other cultures may be questionable (Henrich et al. 2010). We suggest extending the empirical footing of research on context effects, for example, by conducting cross-cultural studies (Henrich et al. 2010). Since context effects are susceptible to thinking styles and processing tendencies (Khan et al. 2011; Padamwar et al. 2023) that are known to differ between cultures (Nisbett and Miyamoto 2005), such research may help uncover further important moderators. Moreover, when building new collaboration networks in context effect research, we support Wojcik’s (2022) call to further increase the equity of collaborations by enhancing the visibility of minoritized groups in academia.
We also find that most research focuses on the attraction effect (Huber et al. 1982) and the compromise effect (Simonson 1989), which have central positions in the co-occurrence networks. Current synthesizing research focuses on these effects but has overlooked less prominent context effects, which is why it is important to extend the scope of available literature reviews. Furthermore, researchers frequently investigate multiple context effects per article, for example, to outline conceptual similarities and disparities (e.g., Simonson and Tversky 1992) or to test common antecedents (e.g., Khan et al. 2011). This practice also extends to context effects with lower prevalence in research (e.g., the background contrast effect and the phantom decoy effect). However, we highlight that several effects (e.g., the jilting effect and the single option aversion) are investigated in isolation. These effects’ interconnectedness opens up several research avenues.
First, consumers’ simultaneous susceptibility to context effect phenomena may differ between the most established effects (i.e., compromise and attraction effect) and other context effects. For example, research shows that the compromise effect relies on effortful cognitive processes that compare different product attribute levels and aim to increase decision justifiability (Lichters et al. 2016a). Other context effects might result from intuitive decision-making rather than from deliberate and demanding thought processes; for example, jilting effect-induced choice switches have not been linked to a conscious and effortful comparison between all options (available or forgone). Furthermore, research on the repulsion effect suggests that the effect is driven by perceptual processes rather than preferential processes (Spektor et al. 2018). This may explain why the effect has produced mixed results in product choice tasks, which sparked a discussion on its existence (Frederick et al. 2014; Huber et al. 2014; Liao et al. 2021; Simonson 2014).
Second, since research is scarce for several context effects and unifying empirical examinations are also largely absent, carry-over effects and interactions between context effects remain largely unexplored (see, e.g., Shen and Liu (2016) for carry-over effects between attraction and compromise effects). Closing this gap is especially pressing to establish conceptual clarity and discrimination between effects, such as the common attribute effect (Evangelidis and van Osselaer 2018) and the common feature effect (Chernev 1997), which require a seemingly similar experimental approach (adding common attribute levels) but are expected to elicit different choice processes (assessing an alternative’s expected relative performance vs. individual attribute importance), which also results in contradicting predictions. Specifically, if the price is the most important attribute for decision makers, the common feature effect would predict a similar finding as the common attribute effect. In contrast, a negative common attribute effect (i.e., a higher choice likelihood for the more expensive alternative) may arise if a non-price attribute is more important than the price attribute. Here, adding a common attribute would increase the expensive alternative’s attractiveness.
Third, utilizing the well-established justification account in context effect research to explain common features’ influence on consumers’ choice processes, Chernev (2001) proposed that attractive common features stabilize a consumer’s already existing preferences (and vice versa). This confirmatory reasoning also applies to the upscaling effect (Evangelidis et al. 2022), which proposes that adding a symmetrical dominated decoy alternative encourages choosing an alternative that consumers tend to prefer but are hesitant to select. Further research may also test phantom alternatives in the upscaling effect paradigm, or further elaborate effects arising from different decoy positions. For example, recent research (Padamwar et al. 2018, 2021) highlights range effects in attraction and compromise effect paradigms that could, for example, be extended to phantom decoys.
Fourth, researchers should also acknowledge moderators that have proved to impact specific context effects (Schliwa and Ciornea 2020) when researching other effects. For example, in the context of the compromise effect, these include time pressure (Dhar et al. 2000) or regulatory focus (Ryu et al. 2014), which might generalize to other effects such as the common attribute effect. Furthermore, even established context effects, such as the attraction effect, have been subject to debate (e.g., Frederick et al. 2014; Huber et al. 2014; Simonson 2014). Given the contemporary efforts to foster replicability in consumer research (Bradlow et al. 2020; Inman et al. 2018), we encourage researchers to put the examination and replication of further context effects on their agenda. Such research projects should consider the difference between theory and effect application (Calder et al. 1981) and implement corresponding procedures to safeguard the results’ generalizability (Lichters et al. 2015).
Finally, to explore the context effect research further, we conducted a keyword-focused topic analysis that resulted in 13 TCs. We found that research on context effects can be assigned to three main themes: psychological research on the foundations of context effects and their initial description and background processes, applied behavioral and experimental research, and research describing formal choice models. The nature of these three themes and the author networks suggests a rather fragmented research field with some secluded areas of expertise. Researchers from different areas of expertise should therefore join forces to tackle the overarching research questions by considering, for example, important moderators and the field’s latest methodological discussions (e.g., implementing experimental designs that foster external validity). Likewise, researchers in the field of psychology may test their theories by applying the rigorous incentive-aligned experimental procedures and product choices that researchers from behavioral and experimental economics typically rely on. In addition, context effect researchers working in corresponding fields should develop a platform for communication across borders.
5.2 Limitations
Our results are subject to several limitations due to the nature of bibliometric analyses. While we have included two major scientific databases (Web of Science and Scopus), searched additional references (Scopus’s secondary documents), and manually included two articles, our results are still limited to the sources indexed in these databases, which are especially scarce for early context effect research. At the same time, articles that were published online, but not yet assigned to a journal issue in 2022, may induce minor changes in publication dates. We limited our bibliometric analysis to pre-defined journal subject areas, and therefore it would be interesting to explore the presence of context effect research in other, less related research areas, such as medicine, animal behavior, or arts and humanities. Our topic modeling specifically allows a description of the field’s latent research themes but—as with any segmentation—assigning context effect research into 13 TCs also allows for a certain heterogeneity within each TC, which entails a tolerable loss of details. For example, while we find multiple TCs on choice modeling (TC #2 and #11), they do not distinguish between specific models (e.g., decision field theory, Roe et al. 2001; or the multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model, Trueblood et al. 2014). We further identify only a small number of articles for specific context effects, which limits our results’ generalizability to those effects. While this does not disturb our overarching analyses of the research field, effect-specific results that can be obtained from the web application must be interpreted carefully.
Finally, every bibliometric analysis entails analytic decisions, such as which inclusion criteria to apply or which algorithm settings to favor. However, to safeguard our results’ validity and foster transparency, we have followed best practices in the field (Donthu et al. 2021) and made our data and analysis script available online (OSF: https://osf.io/ghv4e, interactive Shiny app: https://mktg.shinyapps.io/CEbiblio_ShinyApp/) to facilitate future research that might make use of our analyses.
6 Conclusion
Several articles on context effects have had a considerable theoretical and practical impact by outlining and describing human decision-making in specific choice situations (e.g., Huber et al. 1982; Simonson 1989). Our bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the research field, including its author and journal structures. The analysis also highlights latent themes that are not evident at first glance and assists researchers in navigating the context effect landscape. Our paper helps researchers identify points of connection to their own fields and facilitates the identification of promising research themes, cross-topic connections, and collaborators for future research projects. Our author and collaboration analyses will also help researchers identify collaboration opportunities and may be useful for suggesting scientific reviewers.
Data Availability
We provide all data and analysis scripts on the OSF (https://osf.io/ghv4e).
Notes
Specifically, we took into account reviews and debates on context effects (Dhar & Gorlin, 2013; Frederick et al., 2014; Lichters et al., 2015; Lichters et al., 2017; Shafir et al., 1993; Simonson, 2014; Simonson (2015); Simonson & Tversky, 1992; Won, 2007) and more recently proposed effects (Dogerlioglu-Demir et al., 2022; Evangelidis et al., 2022; Evangelidis & van Osselaer, 2018; Garvey et al., 2017; Karmarkar, 2017). We further would like to thank an anonymous reviewer who suggested including the common feature effect (Chernev, 1997).
Specifically, we used the following search terms: “attraction effect*”; “asymmetric* domina* effect*”; “asymmetric* domina* choice*”; “asymmetric* domina* option*”; “range decoy*”; “frequency decoy*”; “range frequency decoy*”; “inferior decoy*”; “decoy choic*”; “decoy option*”; “compromise choice*”; “compromise option*”; “display set effect*”; “display set option*”; “background-contrast effect*”; “zero comparison effect*”; “single option aversion*”; “repulsion effect*”; “polariz* effect*”; “lone alternative*”; “jilt* effect*”; “impoverish* option*”; “enrich* option*”; “phantom alternative*”; “phantom decoy*”; “phantom effect*”; “decoy effect*”; “compromise effect*”; “extremeness avers*”; “common attribute*”; “context effect*”; “common feature*” AND preference*; “abrupt disparit* effect*”; “upscaling* effect*”.
For our analysis, we used the R packages bibliometrix (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017), igraph (Csardi & Nepusz, 2006), sna (Butts, 2022), quanteda (Benoit et al., 2018), and topicmodels (Grün & Hornik, 2011). For results visualization, we used the packages ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016) and visnetwork (Almende et al., 2019). For the app, we further used shiny (W. Chang et al., 2022) and quarto (Allaire, 2022).
For the LDA, each article must provide at least one keyword, which leads to exclusion of n = 17 articles without any keywords.
The analysis identifies prominent articles per TC and returns overlapping articles (i.e., articles that are prominent in both TCs). In this example, we assess the top 50 articles per TC.
References
Aaker J (1991) The negative attraction effect? A study of the attraction effect under judgment and choice. ACR North American Advances, NA-18. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7202/volumes/v18/NA-18
Adam M, Wessel M, Benlian A (2019) Of early birds and phantoms: how sold-out discounts impact entrepreneurial success in reward-based crowdfunding. RMS 13(3):545–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0311-2
Adler S, Sarstedt M (2021) Mapping the jungle: a bibliometric analysis of research into construal level theory. Psychol Mark 38(9):1367–1383. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21537
Allaire JJ (2022) quarto: R interface to ’quarto’ markdown publishing system. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=quarto
Almende BV, Thieurmel B, Robert T (2019) visNetwork: network visualization using ’vis.js’ library. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=visNetwork
Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetrics 11(4):959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Ariely D, Wallsten TS (1995) Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: an explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 63(3):223–232. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1075
Banerjee P, Chatterjee P, Masters T (2022) Repulsion effect: an eye-tracking study. In Rajagopal & R. Behl (Eds.), Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth. Managing disruptions in business: Causes, conflicts, and control (pp. 223–237). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79709-6_12
Benoit K, Watanabe K, Wang H, Nulty P, Obeng A, Müller S, Matsuo A (2018) quanteda: an R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. J Open Source Softw 3(30):774. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00774
Bergner AS, Oppenheimer DM, Detre G (2019) VAMP (Voting Agent Model of Preferences): a computational model of individual multi-attribute choice. Cognition 192:103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.008
Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J Consum Res 25:187–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535
Bettman JR, Zins MA (1977) Constructive processes in consumer choice. J Consum Res 4:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1086/208682
Blei DM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Commun ACM 55(4):77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133826
Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022
Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2013) Salience and consumer choice. J Polit Econ 121(5):803–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/673885
Bradlow ET, Golder PN, Huber JC, Jap S, Labroo AA, Lehmann DR, Lynch J, Mizik N, Winer RS (2020) Editorial: relaunching marketing letters. Mark Lett 31(4):311–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09551-7
Brendl CM, Atasoy Ö, Samson C (2023) Preferential attraction effects with visual stimuli: the role of quantitative versus qualitative visual attributes. Psychol Sci 34(2):265–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221134476
Briley DA, Morris MW, Simonson I (2000) Reasons as carriers of culture: dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making. J Consum Res 27(2):157–178. https://doi.org/10.1086/314318
Busemeyer JR, Gluth S, Rieskamp J, Turner BM (2019) Cognitive and neural bases of multi-attribute, multi-alternative, value-based decisions. Trends Cogn Sci 23(3):251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.003
Butts CT (2022) sna: tools for social network analysis. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sna
Calder BJ, Phillips LW, Tybout AM (1981) Designing research for application. J Consum Res 8(2):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/208856
Cantarelli P, Belle N, Belardinelli P (2020) Behavioral public HR: experimental evidence on cognitive biases and debiasing interventions. Rev Public Personnel Adm 40(1):56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18778090
Castillo G (2020) The attraction effect and its explanations. Games Econ Behav 119:123–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2019.10.012
Chang C–C, Chuang S–C, Cheng Y–H, Huang T–Y (2012) The compromise effect in choosing for others. J Behav Decis Mak 25(2):109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.720
Chang W, Cheng J, Allaire JJ, Sievert C, Schloerke B, Xie Y, Allen J, McPherson J, Dipert A, Borges B (2022) shiny: web application framework for R. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny
Chernev A (1997) The effect of common features on brand choice: moderating role of attribute importance. J Consum Res 23(4):304. https://doi.org/10.1086/209485
Chernev A (2001) The impact of common features on consumer preferences: a case of confirmatory reasoning. J Consum Res 27(4):475–488. https://doi.org/10.1086/319622
Chuang S–C, Yen HR (2007) The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Mark Lett 18(4):279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-007-9017-y
Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol 23(3):237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00105-6
Colman AM, Pulford BD, Bolger F (2007) Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 104(2):193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.03.001
Colombo L, Nicotra E, Marino B (2002) Preference reversal in decision making: the attraction effect in choice and rejection. Swiss J Psychol 61(1):21–33. https://search-ebscohost-com.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/login.aspx?direct=true &db=pdh&AN=2002-01913-004&site=ehost-live
Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems 1695(5):1–9. http://igraph.org
Cui Y, Kim S, Kim J (2021) Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects. J Bus Res 132:641–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.017
de Jonge J, van der Lans IA, van Trijp HC (2015) Different shades of grey: compromise products to encourage animal friendly consumption. Food Qual Prefer 45:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.001
Dhar R, Gorlin M (2013) A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. J Consumer Psychol 23(4):528–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.002
Dhar R, Simonson I (2003) The effect of forced choice on choice. J Mark Res 40(2):146–160. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.2.146.19229
Dhar R, Nowlis SM, Sherman SJ (2000) Trying hard or hardly trying: an analysis of context effects in choice. J Consumer Psychol 9(4):189–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP0904_1
Dogerlioglu-Demir K, Koçaş C, Cavdar Aksoy N (2022) The role of presentation order in consumer choice: the abrupt disparity effect. Mark Lett Adv online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-022-09643-6
Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM (2021) How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 133:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Dowling K, Guhl D, Klapper D, Spann M, Stich L, Yegoryan N (2020) Behavioral biases in marketing. J Acad Mark Sci 48(3):449–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00699-x
Evangelidis I, van Osselaer SM (2018) Points of (dis)parity: expectation disconfirmation from common attributes in consumer choice. J Mark Res 55(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0233
Evangelidis I, Levav J, Simonson I (2022) The upscaling effect: how the decision context influences tradeoffs between desirability and feasibility. J Consum Res. Article ucac059. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac059
Evans NJ, Holmes WR, Dasari A, Trueblood JS (2021) The impact of presentation order on attraction and repulsion effects in decision-making. Decision 8(1):36–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000144
Farmer GD, Baron-Cohen S, Skylark WJ (2017) People with autism spectrum conditions make more consistent decisions. Psychol Sci 28(8):1067–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617694867
Farquhar PH, Pratkanis AR (1993) Decision structuring with phantom alternatives. Manage Sci 39(10):1214–1226. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1214
Fortunato S, Bergstrom CT, Börner K, Evans JA, Helbing D, Milojević S, Petersen AM, Radicchi F, Sinatra R, Uzzi B, Vespignani A, Waltman L, Wang D, Barabási A–L (2018) Science of science. Science 359(6379). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
Frederick S, Lee L (2008) Attraction, repulsion, and attribute representation. ACR North American Advances
Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J Mark Res 51(4):487–507. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0061
Galeotti F, Montero M, Poulsen A (2021) The attraction and compromise effects in bargaining: experimental evidence. Manage Sci 68(4):2377–3174. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4025
Garvey AM, Meloy MG, Shiv B (2017) The jilting effect: antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences for preference. J Mark Res 54(5):785–798. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0373
Ge X, Messinger PR, Li J (2009) Influence of soldout products on consumer choice. J Retail 85(3):274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2009.05.009
Gerasimou G (2016a) Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice. Theor Decis 80(2):295–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-015-9499-7
Gerasimou G (2016b) Partially dominant choice. Econ Theor 61(1):127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-015-0869-8
Geyskens I, Gielens K, Gijsbrechts E (2010) Proliferating private-label portfolios: how introducing economy and premium private labels influences brand choice. J Mark Res 47(5):791–807. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.791
Gill T, Lei J, Kim HJ (2022) Adding more portion-size options to a menu: a means to nudge consumers to choose larger portions of healthy food items. Appetite 169:105830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105830
Glazer R, Kahn BE, Moore WL (1991) The influence of external constraints on brand choice: the lone-alternative effect. J Consum Res 18(1):119. https://doi.org/10.1086/209246
Graham DJ, Mohr GS (2014) When zero is greater than one: consumer misinterpretations of nutrition labels. Health Psychol 33(12):1579–1587. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000080
Grün B, Hornik K (2011) Topicmodels: an R package for fitting topic models. J Stat Softw 40(13):1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i13
Guath M, Stikvoort B, Juslin P (2022) Nudging for eco-friendly online shopping – attraction effect curbs price sensitivity. J Environ Psychol 81:101821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101821
Harrison DM, Luchtenberg KF, Seiler MJ (2021) Improving mortgage default collection efforts by employing the decoy effect. J Real Estate Finance Econ. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-021-09876-8
Heath TB, Chatterjee S (1995) Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: meta-analytic and experimental evidence. J Consum Res 22(3):268–284. https://doi.org/10.1086/209449
Hedgcock WM, Rao AR (2009) Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Mark Res 46(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.1
Hedgcock WM, Rao AR, Chen H (2009) Could Ralph Nader’s entrance and exit have helped Al Gore? The impact of decoy dynamics on consumer choice. J Mark Res 46(3):330–343. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.330
Hedgcock WM, Rao RS, Chen H (2016) Choosing to choose: the effects of decoys and prior choice on deferral. Manage Sci 62(10):2952–2976. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2289
Hendriks T, Warren MA, Schotanus-Dijkstra M, Hassankhan A, Graafsma T, Bohlmeijer E, de Jong J (2019) How WEIRD are positive psychology interventions? A bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials on the science of well-being. J Posit Psychol 14(4):489–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1484941
Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466(7302):29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Huber JC, Puto C (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J Consum Res 10(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/208943
Huber JC, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consum Res 9(1):90–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899
Huber JC, Payne JW, Puto CP (2014) Let’s be honest about the attraction effect. J Mark Res 51(4):520–525. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0208
Inman JJ, Campbell MC, Kirmani A, Price LL (2018) Our vision for the Journal of Consumer Research: it’s all about the consumer. J Consum Res 44(5):955–959. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx123
Kahn B, Moore WL, Glazer R (1987) Experiments in constrained choice. J Consum Res 14(1):96–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/209096
Karmarkar UR (2017) The impact of “display-set” options on decision-making. J Behav Decis Mak 30(3):744–753. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1998
Kelman M, Rottenstreich Y, Tversky A (1996) Context-dependence in legal decision making. J Legal Stud 25(2):287–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/467979
Khan U, Zhu M, Kalra A (2011) When trade-offs matter: the effect of choice construal on context effects. J Mark Res 48(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.62
Kim J, Kim PB, Lee J–S, Kim S, Hyde KF (2019) The influence of decision task on the magnitude of decoy and compromise effects in a travel decision. J Travel Res 58(7):1071–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518794316
Kim J, Kim J–E, Marshall R (2020) Choose quickly! The influence of cognitive resource availability on the preference between the intuitive and externally recommended options. Australasian Mark J 28(4):263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.009
Koida N (2018) Anticipated stochastic choice. Econ Theor 65(3):545–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-016-1025-9
Kreilkamp N, Matanovic S, Sommer F, Wöhrmann A (2021) The effect of compensation caps on risk-taking. J Manag Account Res 33(3):77–95. https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR-18-053
Liao J, Chen Y, Lin W, Mo L (2021) The influence of distance between decoy and target on context effect: attraction or repulsion? J Behav Decis Mak 34(3):432–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2220
Lichters M, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2015) On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: a cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments. AMS Rev 5(1–2):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-015-0066-8
Lichters M, Brunnlieb C, Nave G, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2016a) The influence of serotonin deficiency on choice deferral and the compromise effect. J Mark Res 53(2):183–198. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0482
Lichters M, Müller H, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2016b) How durable are compromise effects? J Bus Res 69(10):4056–4064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016b.02.039
Lichters M, Bengart P, Sarstedt M, Vogt B (2017) What really matters in attraction effect research: when choices have economic consequences. Mark Lett 28(1):127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9394-6
Liu PJ, Lamberton C, Haws KL (2020) The aggregated extremes effect: not all routes to “balanced” bundles are equally appealing. J Consumer Psychol 30(2):219–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1134
Lu J, Liang Y, Duan H (2017) Justifying decisions: making choices for others enhances preferences for impoverished options. Social Psychol 48(2):92–103. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000302
Maier D, Waldherr A, Miltner P, Wiedemann G, Niekler A, Keinert A, Pfetsch B, Heyer G, Reber U, Häussler T, Schmid-Petri H, Adam S (2018) Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures 12(2–3):93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
Mantyla MV, Claes M, Farooq U (2018) Measuring LDA topic stability from clusters of replicated runs. In M. Oivo (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th ACMIEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 1–4). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239235.3267435
Marini M, Ansani A, Paglieri F (2020) Attraction comes from many sources: attentional and comparative processes in decoy effects. Judgm Decis Mak 15(5):704–726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007889
Marini M, Sapienza A, Paglieri F (2023) There is more to attraction than meets the eye: studying decoy-induced attention allocation without eye tracking. J Behav Decis Mak 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2299
Masicampo EJ, Baumeister RF (2008) Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psychol Sci 19(3):255–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x
Milberg SJ, Silva M, Celedon P, Sinn F (2014) Synthesis of attraction effect research. Eur J Mark 48(7/8):1413–1430. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2012-0391
Missbach B, König JS (2016) Middle choice preference and snack choice: the role of self-regulatory resources to nudge healthier food choice. Food Qual Prefer 53:127–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.007
Mochon D (2013) Single-option aversion. J Consum Res 40(3):555–566. https://doi.org/10.1086/671343
Müller H, Schliwa V, Lehmann S (2014) Prize decoys at work — new experimental evidence for asymmetric dominance effects in choices on prizes in competitions. Int J Res Mark 31(4):457–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.09.003
Neumann N, Böckenholt U, Sinha A (2016) A meta-analysis of extremeness aversion. J Consumer Psychol 26(2):193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.05.005
Newman MEJ (2010) Networks: an introduction. Oxford University Press
Nisbett RE, Miyamoto Y (2005) The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception. Trends Cogn Sci 9(10):467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004
Novemsky N, Dhar R, Schwarz N, Simonson I (2007) Preference fluency in choice. J Mark Res 44(3):347–356. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.3.347
Otto AR, Devine S, Schulz E, Bornstein AM, Louie K (2022) Context-dependent choice and evaluation in real-world consumer behavior. Sci Rep 12(1):17744. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22416-5
Padamwar PK, Dawra J, Kalakbandi VK (2018) Range effect on extremeness aversion. Decision 45(4):345–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-018-0197-5
Padamwar PK, Dawra J, Kalakbandi VK (2021) The impact of range extension on the attraction effect. J Bus Res 126:565–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.017
Padamwar PK, Kalakbandi VK, Dawra J (2023) Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: the role of induced cognitive reflection. J Bus Res 154:113335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113335
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Reviews 10(89). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Palmeira MM (2011) The zero-comparison effect. J Consum Res 38(1):16–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/657998
Pan Y, O’Curry S, Pitts R (1995) The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. J Consumer Psychol 4(1):85–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_04
Pechtl H (2009) Value structures in a decoy and compromise effect experiment. Psychol Mark 26(8):736–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20297
Pettibone, Wedell (2000) Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81(2):300–328. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2880
Pittarello A, Caserotti M, Rubaltelli E (2020) Three is better than two’: increasing donations with the attraction effect. Br J Psychol 111(4):805–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12428
Pocheptsova A, Amir O, Dhar R, Baumeister RF (2009) Deciding without resources: resource depletion and choice in context. J Mark Res 46(3):344–355. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.344
Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol Rev 108(2):370–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370
Rojas-Lamorena ÁJ, Barrio-García D, S., Alcántara-Pilar JM (2022) A review of three decades of academic research on brand equity: a bibliometric approach using co-word analysis and bibliographic coupling. J Bus Res 139:1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.025
Ryu G, Suk K, Yoon S–O, Park J (2014) The underlying mechanism of self-regulatory focus impact on compromise choice. J Bus Res 67(10):2056–2063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.013
Sablotny-Wackershauser V, Betts MJ, Brunnlieb C, Apostolova I, Buchert R, Düzel E, Gruendler TOJ, Vogt B (2020) Older adults show a reduced tendency to engage in context-dependent decision biases. Neuropsychologia 142:107445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107445
Schliwa VA, Ciornea R (2020) Drivers and inhibitors of the compromise effect – a conceptual overview. J Consumer Mark 37(4):375–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2018-2606
Schwartz JA, Chapman GB (1999) Are more options always better? The attraction effect in physicians’ decisions about medications. Med Decis Making: Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 19(3):315–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9901900310
SCImago. (n.d.). SJR — SCImago Journal and Country Rank 2021 [Portal]. Retrieved March 7 (2023) from http://www.scimagojr.com
Shafir E (1993) Choosing versus rejecting: why some options are both better and worse than others. Mem Cognit 21(4):546–556. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197186
Shafir E, Simonson I, Tversky A (1993) Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1–2):11–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-S
Shampanier K, Mazar N, Ariely D (2007) Zero as a special price: the true value of free products. Mark Sci 26(6):742–757. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0254
Sharpe KM, Staelin R, Huber JC (2008) Using extremeness aversion to fight obesity: policy implications of context dependent demand. J Consum Res 35(3):406–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/587631
Shen A, Liu S (2016) Asymmetric dominance and the stability of constructed preferences. Judgm Decis Mak 11(3):213–222
Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consum Res 16(2):158–174. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205
Simonson I (2014) Vices and virtues of misguided replications: the case of asymmetric dominance. J Mark Res 51(4):514–519. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0093
Simonson I (2015) Mission (largely) accomplished: what’s next for consumer BDT-JDM researchers? J Mark Behav 1(1):9–35. https://doi.org/10.1561/107.00000001
Simonson I, Nowlis SM (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. J Consum Res 27(1):49–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/314308
Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J Mark Res 29(3):281–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900301
Spektor MS, Kellen D, Hotaling JM (2018) When the good looks bad: an experimental exploration of the repulsion effect. Psychol Sci 29(8):1309–1320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618779041
Spektor MS, Gluth S, Fontanesi L, Rieskamp J (2019) How similarity between choice options affects decisions from experience: the accentuation-of-differences model. Psychol Rev 126(1):52–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000122
Spektor MS, Kellen D, Klauer KC (2022) The repulsion effect in preferential choice and its relation to perceptual choice. Cognition 225:105164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105164
Su Y, Rao L–L, Li X, Wang Y, Li S (2012) From quality to quantity: the role of common features in consumer preference. J Econ Psychol 33(6):1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.07.002
Sürücü O, Djawadi BM, Recker S (2019) The asymmetric dominance effect: reexamination and extension in risky choice – an experimental study. J Econ Psychol 73:102–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.05.007
Thomadsen R, Rooderkerk RP, Amir O, Arora N, Bollinger B, Hansen K, John L, Liu W, Sela A, Singh V, Sudhir K, Wood W (2018) How context affects choice. Customer Needs and Solutions 5(1–2):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0084-9
Trueblood JS (2022) Theories of context effects in multialternative, multiattribute choice. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 31(5):428–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221109587
Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A, Busemeyer JR (2013) Not just for consumers: context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psychol Sci 24(6):901–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612464241
Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A (2014) The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. Psychol Rev 121(2):179–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036137
Tsetsos K, Usher M, Chater N (2010) Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psychol Rev 117(4):1275–1293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020580
Tsetsos K, Chater N, Usher M (2015) Examining the mechanisms underlying contextual preference reversal: comment on Trueblood, Brown, and Heathcote (2014). Psychological Review, 122(4), 838–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038953
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manage Sci 39(10):1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179
Usher M, McClelland JL (2004) Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychol Rev 111(3):757–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.3.757
van den Enden G, Geyskens K (2021) Attract the best: the attraction effect as an effective strategy to enhance healthy choices. PLoS ONE 16(11):e0259521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259521
Web of Science Group (2022), June 29 Journal Impact Factor - Journal Citation Reports - Web of Science Group. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/journal-citation-reports/
Wessel M, Adam M, Benlian A (2019) The impact of sold-out early birds on option selection in reward-based crowdfunding. Decis Support Syst 117:48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.12.002
Wickham H (2016) Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Use R! Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4
Wojcik EH (2022) Diversifying collaboration networks to increase equity in psychology. Nat Reviews Psychol 1(1):9–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00014-y
Wollschlaeger, Diederich (2020) Similarity, attraction, and compromise effects: original findings, recent empirical observations, and computational cognitive process models. Am J Psychol 133(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.133.1.0001
Won EJS (2007) Research note —a theoretical investigation of the effects of similarity on brand choice using the elimination-by-tree model. Mark Sci 26(6):868–875. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0259
Wörfel P, Frentz F, Tautu C (2022) Marketing comes to its senses: a bibliometric review and integrated framework of sensory experience in marketing. Eur J Mark 56(3):704–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2020-0510
Wu S, Yu R (2019) Fatigue biases the decoy effect in males but not females. Int J Psychology: J Int De Psychologie 54(5):604–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12516
Yang S, Lynn M (2014) More evidence challenging the robustness and usefulness of the attraction effect. J Mark Res 51(4):508–513. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0020
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Adler, S.J., Schöniger, M.K., Lichters, M. et al. Forty years of context effect research in marketing: a bibliometric analysis. J Bus Econ 94, 437–466 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01167-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01167-3