 “Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€Müller, Holger, Eike Benjamin Kroll and Bodo Vogt Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2010, vol. 17, issue 5, 441-448 Abstract: In this article, the compromise effect (CE) is investigated according to which the choice share of a particular product is expected to increase when it is in an intermediate position in a subset of a product line. In a laboratory-based replication study, we tested CE both in hypothetical non-binding settings most commonly used in previous research on CE as well as in settings where experienced consumers make unforced and binding purchase decisions between real brands of two particular categories. While results prove robustness of the compromise effect even in the binding choice context, its magnitude is significantly reduced, hence indicating a hypothetical bias. Thus, since the CE is evidently less prevalent in the more realistic binding choice setting, compromise effects must be considered overrated to a certain degree in the previous studies on hypothetical decisions. Keywords: Behavioral anomalies; Choice in context; Compromise effect; Experimental designs; Binding decisions (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:joreco:v:17:y:2010:i:5:p:441-448 DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.05.001 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services is currently edited by Harry Timmermans More articles in Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.