The decoy effect: how you are influenced to choose without really knowing it

February 18, 2019 by Gary Mortimer, The Conversation
The decoy effect is the phenomenon where consumers swap their preference between two options when presented with a third option. Credit: Shutterstock

Price is the most delicate element of the marketing mix, and much thought goes into setting prices to nudge us towards spending more.

There's one particularly cunning type of pricing strategy that marketers use to get you to switch your choice from one option to a more expensive or profitable one.

It's called the decoy effect.

Imagine you are shopping for a Nutribullet blender. You see two options. The cheaper one, at $89, promotes 900 watts of power and a five-piece accessory kit. The more expensive one, at $149, is 1,200 watts and has 12 accessories.

Which one you choose will depend on some assessment of their relative value for money. It's not immediately apparent, though, that the more expensive option is better value. It's slightly less than 35% more powerful but costs nearly 70% more. It does have more than twice as many plastic accessories, but what are they worth?

Now consider the two in light of a third option.

The decoy effect: how you are influenced to choose without really knowing it

This one, for $125, offers 1,000 watts and nine accessories. It enables you to make what feels like a more considered comparison. For $36 more than the cheaper option, you get four more accessories and an extra 100 watts of power. But if you spend just $24 extra, you get a further three accessories and 200 watts more power. Bargain!

You have just experienced the decoy effect.

Asymmetric dominance

The decoy effect is defined as the phenomenon whereby consumers change their preference between two options when presented with a third option – the "decoy" – that is "asymmetrically dominated". It is also referred to as the "attraction effect" or "asymmetric dominance effect".

What asymmetric domination means is the decoy is priced to make one of the other options much more attractive. It is "dominated" in terms of perceived value (quantity, quality, extra features and so on). The decoy is not intended to sell, just to nudge consumers away from the "competitor" and towards the "target" – usually the more expensive or profitable option.

The effect was first described by academics Joel Huber, John Payne and Christopher Puto in a paper presented to a conference in 1981 (and later published in the Journal of Consumer Research in 1982).

They demonstrated the effect through experiments in which participants (university students) were asked to makes choices in scenarios involving beer, cars, restaurants, lottery tickets, films and television sets.

In each product scenario participants first had to choose between two options. Then they were given a third option – a decoy designed to nudge them toward picking the target over the competitor. In every case except the lottery tickets the decoy successfully increased the probability of the target being chosen.

These findings were, in marketing terms, revolutionary. They challenged established doctrines – known as the "similarity heuristic" and the "regularity condition" – that a new product will take away market share from an existing product and cannot increase the probability of a customer choosing the original product.

How decoys work

When consumers are faced with many alternatives, they often experience choice overload – what psychologist Barry Schwartz has termed the tyranny or paradox of choice. Multiple behavioural experiments have consistently demonstrated that greater choice complexity increases anxiety and hinders decision-making.

In an attempt to reduce this anxiety, consumers tend to simplify the process by selecting only a couple of criteria (say price and quantity) to determine the best value for money.

Through manipulating these key choice attributes, a decoy steers you in a particular direction while giving you the feeling you are making a rational, informed choice.

The decoy effect is thus a form of "nudging" – defined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (the pioneers of nudge theory) as "any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options". Not all nudging is manipulative, and some argue that even manipulative nudging can be justified if the ends are noble. It has proven useful in social marketing to encourage people to make good decisions such as using less energy, eating healthier or becoming organ donors.

Read more: 'Nudging' people towards changing behaviour: what works and why (not)?

In the market

We see decoy pricing in many areas.

A decade ago behavioural economist Dan Ariely spoke about his fascination with the pricing structure of The Economist and how he tested the options on 100 of his students.

In one scenario the students had a choice of a web-only subscription or a print-only subscription for twice the price; 68% chose the cheaper web-only option.

They were given a third option – a web-and-print subscription for the same price as the print-only option. Now just 16% chose the cheaper option, with 84% opting for the obviously better combined option.

In this second scenario the print-only option had become the decoy and the combined option the target. Even The Economist was intrigued by Ariely's finding, publishing a story about it entitled "The importance of irrelevant alternatives".

Subscription pricing for The Australian today replicates this "irrelevant alternative", though in a slightly different way to the pricing architecture Ariely examined.

Why would you choose the digital-only subscription when you can get the weekend paper delivered for no extra cost?

In this instance, the digital-only option is the decoy and the digital+weekend paper option is the target. The intention appears to be to discourage you from choosing the more expensive six-day paper option. Because that option is not necessarily more profitable for the company. What traditionally made print editions profitable, despite the cost of printing and distribution, was the advertising they carried. That's no longer the case. It makes sense to encourage subscribers to move online.

Not all decoys are so conspicuous. In fact the may be extremely effective by being quite subtle.

Consider the price of drinks at a well-known juice bar: a small (350 ml) size costs $6.10; the medium (450 ml) $7.10; and the large (610 ml) $7.50.

Which would you buy?

If you're good at doing maths in your head, or committed enough to use a calculator, you might work out that the medium is slightly better value than the small, and the large better value again.

But the pricing of the medium option – $1 more than the small but just 40 cents cheaper than the large – is designed to be asymmetrically dominated, steering you to see the biggest drink as the best value for money.

So have you just made the sensible , or been manipulated to spend more on a drink larger than you needed?

Explore further: How marketing decoys influence decision-making

Related Stories

How marketing decoys influence decision-making

November 6, 2017

The neural underpinnings of the decoy effect—a marketing strategy in which one of three presented options is unlikely to be chosen but may influence how an individual decides between the other two options—are investigated ...

Inside the consumer mind: brain scans reveal choice mechanism

December 11, 2008

That gorgeous sweater has your name written on it. But, those red suede pumps are calling your name too. What goes through your mind as you consider these choices? During normal economic times, you might indulge in a whole ...

Study shows female frogs susceptible to 'decoy effect'

August 28, 2015

(Phys.org)—A pair of researchers has found that female túngaras, frogs that live in parts of Mexico and Central and South America, appear to be susceptible to the "decoy effect." In their paper published in the journal ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

Paleontologists report world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex

March 22, 2019

University of Alberta paleontologists have just reported the world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex and the largest dinosaur skeleton ever found in Canada. The 13-metre-long T. rex, nicknamed "Scotty," lived in prehistoric Saskatchewan ...

5 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2019
Among other things, note, this may have been "first described by academics" in 1981, but, apparently, it had already been recognized by scamming corporations for decades or even centuries and used to make so many spend what they didn't want. This can indicate, among other things, that,even if someone did not receive training in a particular area, that doesn't mean they can't make valuable statements there. Also, it can ask just how many such tricks, other than this, are also being played on so many. For example, too, the swindle of never offering everything someone wants. A lot of power but not the right attachments, or too little power and twenty attachments, but only two a consumer wants. In the end, someone may need to buy two items or just a set of accessories..
julianpenrod
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2019
This invokes the idea of "selling" politicians, too. How often, a fake "candidate" is intended to convince people to vote for a different individual. Note that no candidate ever has offered all that many, many voters wanted!
Cusco
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2019
Although the technique can backfire, as the 2016 Republican "fake" candidate actually won the nomination.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2019
I spent an extra twenty-five bucks and got the 2,000W Nutribullet with optional Cement Mixer and Pet Euthanizing attachments...they warn you not to use it on elderly relatives...
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2019
Then there are those of us who gauge what they buy not upon value but upon our needs. And some consideration of how those needs might change. No point in buying a king size bed if you're 5'9" and old enough not to grow any more.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.