The Upscaling Effect: How The Decision Context Influences Tradeoffs Between Desirability and Feasibility

The Upscaling Effect: How the Decision
Context Influences Tradeoffs between
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucac059/6935792 by Sogang University user on 17 March 2023

Desirability and Feasibility
IOANNIS EVANGELIDIS
JONATHAN LEVAV
ITAMAR SIMONSON
Purchase decisions typically involve tradeoffs between attributes associated with

desirability (e.g., quality) and feasibility (e.g., price). In this article, we examine
how the decision context impacts consumers’ preference between a high-
desirability (HD) option and a high-feasibility (HF) alternative. Nineteen studies
demonstrate a novel context effect, the “upscaling effect,” whereby introducing a
symmetrically dominated decoy option to a set (i.e., an option that is inferior com-
pared to all alternatives in the set) leads to an increase in the choice share of the
HD option. To account for the upscaling effect, we advance a two-stage model of
consumer decision-making for decisions that involve tradeoffs between desirability
and feasibility. According to our model, when the decision context provides a rea-
son for choosing either option, such as when a decoy option is added to the set,
consumers prioritize reasons that support choice of HD options over HF alterna-
tives. Our model can explain the upscaling effect, as well as other findings
reported in the literature, such as asymmetric attraction effects (Heath and
Chatterjee 1995) and asymmetric sales promotion effects (Blattberg and
Wisniewski 1989). Furthermore, the upscaling effect holds important managerial
implications because it provides an effective way to increase sales of high-end
products.
Keywords: upscaling effect, context effects, symmetric dominance, desirability,

feasibility, price–quality tradeoffs
P urchase decisions often involve tradeoffs between

attributes associated with desirability and feasibility.
For instance, consumers buying a hard drive may need to
Ioannis Evangelidis (ioannis.evangelidis@esade.edu) is an associate
professor of marketing at ESADE, Universitat Ramon Llull, Sant Cugat choose between a higher-capacity higher-price product and
del Valles, Barcelona, Spain. Jonathan Levav (jlevav@stanford.edu) is a a lower-capacity lower-price alternative. When buying a
King Philanthropies Professor of Marketing at the Graduate School of
Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Itamar Simonson
printer, consumers may face a choice between a brand
(itamars@stanford.edu) is a Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing, associated with higher print quality, but lower reliability,
Emeritus at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, and a brand associated with lower print quality, but higher
Stanford, CA, USA. Please address correspondence to Ioannis reliability. Or, when planning a vacation, consumers may
Evangelidis. Supplementary materials are included in the web appendix
accompanying the online version of this article. face a choice between a 4-star hotel that is far from the city
center and a 3-star hotel that is closer to the city center. It
is commonly assumed that consumers resolve such trade-
Editors: J. Jeffrey Inman and June Cotte offs by assessing the differences in attribute values
between the options, as well as the importance of each of
Associate Editor: Gerald H€
aubl these dimensions (Bettman, Capon, and Lutz 1975a,
1975b; Carmon and Simonson 1998; Kahn and Meyer
Advance Access publication December 19, 2022
1991). Besides considering the value of the attributes,
C The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.
V
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Vol. 00 2023
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac059
1
2 EVANGELIDIS, LEVAV, AND SIMONSON
classic consumer research shows that choice behavior can THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
be further influenced by the decision context, such as
changes in the configuration of the choice set (Huber, How Consumers Resolve Tradeoffs between
Payne, and Puto 1982, 1983; Simonson 1989). Desirability and Feasibility
Consumer research on context effects has primarily
Drawing on Montgomery’s (1983) seminal work, we
focused on two prominent findings: the attraction effect

propose that consumers follow a two-stage process when
and the compromise effect. The attraction effect (also
choosing between options that present tradeoffs on attrib-
known as the asymmetric dominance or decoy effect)
utes associated with desirability and feasibility. During the
describes the empirical finding that introducing an asym-
first stage, consumers search for a promising alternative.
metrically dominated option to a binary set increases the
According to Montgomery (p. 355), individuals first look
choice share of the now dominating (target) option (Huber
et al. 1982). The compromise effect (also known as for “the alternative that most naturally can be seen as dom-
extremeness aversion) describes the empirical finding that inant over the others.” An alternative is deemed to be
introducing a new extreme option to a binary set increases promising when the consumer believes or hopes that option
the choice share of the now intermediate (i.e., compromise) is actually better than the alternatives. We propose that,
option (Simonson 1989). To date, Huber et al. (1982) and during this stage, a high-desirability (i.e., HD) option is
Simonson (1989) have each garnered thousands of cita- more likely to be identified as a promising alternative com-
tions, inspiring substantial development of choice models pared to a high-feasibility (i.e., HF) alternative. This is
to capture these effects (Bhatia 2013; Dumbalska et al. because HD options are inherently more desirable than HF
2020; Noguchi and Stewart 2018; Rooderkerk, Van alternatives. All else equal, people prefer options that are
Heerde, and Bijmolt 2011; Trueblood, Brown, and high on desirable dimensions; the feasibility concerns are
Heathcote 2014; Tversky, Sattath, and Simonson 1993), weighed against this desire, but they are less likely to
research that extends these findings to perceptual tasks determine the options that consumers actually covet. Our
(Trueblood et al. 2013), as well as research investigating hypothesis is consistent with research in consumer behav-
the boundaries of these effects (Evangelidis, Levav, and ior (Liu 2008) and psychology (Liberman and Trope
Simonson 2018; Frederick, Lee, and Baskin 2014; Yang 1998), which concludes that desirability is construed as a
and Lynn 2014). more primary goal than feasibility. Therefore, we hypothe-
In this article, we advance a novel context effect, which size that, in choice between an HD option and an HF alter-
we call the upscaling effect. The upscaling effect native, consumers will conclude the first stage of the
describes the empirical finding that introducing a sym- decision process by conferring the HD option the “status”
metrically dominated decoy option to a set (i.e., an option of promising alternative.
that is dominated by all the alternatives in the set) Moving on to the second stage of the decision process,
increases the choice share of the option that is superior in consumers will seek to accumulate evidence that supports
terms of desirability (hereafter referred to as the “HD” choice of the promising alternative; that is, consumers will
option) rather than the option that is superior in terms of see whether there are strong enough reasons for choosing
feasibility (hereafter referred to as the “HF” option). For the HD option that they could invoke to justify its choice.
instance, in many of our studies, we present robust evi- We surmise that there are a multitude of reasons that con-
dence that adding a low-quality high-price decoy option sumers could invoke at this stage. For instance, if the price
to a binary set that comprises a high-quality high-price difference between the options is relatively small, consum-
option and a low-quality low-price alternative leads to a ers may invoke the reason that the HD option is only
substantial increase in the choice share of the high-quality slightly more expensive than the alternatives (as in
high-price option. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the “decisive advantage;” Tversky, Sattath, and Slovic 1988;
upscaling effect is a general phenomenon that extends to see also Evangelidis and Levav 2013; Fischer and Hawkins
a wide range of tradeoffs between desirability and feasi- 1993; Gonzalez-Vallejo 2002). Or, if the HD option is
bility attributes, to environments that force (vs. not) con- strictly better than another option in the set (e.g., if there is
sumers to make a choice, to cases where the decoy is not a similarly priced option of lower quality), consumers may
strictly dominated by—but is relatively inferior compared invoke the reason that the HD option dominates that option
to—the original alternatives, to choice sets that comprise to justify its choice (Evangelidis et al. 2018; Simonson
more than three options, as well as to cases where product 1989). Generally, if consumers can identify a reason that
attributes are represented using either text or pictures allows them to justify choosing the HD option, they will
(Frederick et al. 2014). To accommodate our results, we terminate the decision process by selecting the said option.
put forth a two-stage account of consumer decision- If they cannot identify strong enough reasons supporting
making that explains the upscaling effect, as well as other the choice of the HD option, consumers may subsequently
hitherto unexplained empirical findings in the consumer look for reasons supporting the choice of the HF alternative
and marketing literatures. or defer choice.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 3
Note that we do not argue that consumers always priori- a given alternative after accumulating supporting evidence
tize desirability over feasibility. Clearly, consumers often over time (Bhatia 2013; Noguchi and Stewart 2018; Roe,
choose HF options, which implies that feasibility is the key Busemeyer, and Townsend 2001; Trueblood et al. 2014;
driver of many decisions. Rather, we conjecture that, all Usher and McClelland 2004). However, while these mod-
else equal, consumers typically covet HD options and are els typically assume that evidence is accumulated ran-
motivated to assess whether their choice can be justified domly (e.g., all reasons are equally likely to be invoked),

depending on the decision context. Our main argument is our framework specifies intentionality, as consumers will
that consumers tend to prioritize reasons that support first seek evidence supporting choice of the promising
choice of HD options over reasons that support choice of alternative. Thus, our framework implies that consumers
HF alternatives; that is, consumers may look first for rea- will prioritize reasons that support choice of HD options
sons in favor of HD options, before proceeding to look for over reasons that support choice of HF options when both
reasons that support HF options. Our view is consistent are available. Importantly, our framework can account for
with a perspective of decision-making put forth by Query previously unexplained empirical regularities reported in
Theory, which postulates that decision-makers make deci- the marketing and consumer literatures (see General
sions by answering a series of queries in a sequential man- Discussion section) and inspires predictions about a novel
ner (Johnson, H€aubl, and Keinan 2007; Weber et al. 2007). context effect, the upscaling effect, that we elucidate
In our context, consumers first answer whether there are below.
good enough reasons to choose the HD option, before
answering whether there are good enough reasons to
choose the HF option. Ultimately, according to our frame- The Upscaling Effect
work, consumers will select the HF option when they can- The upscaling effect can occur in choice between
not invoke strong enough reasons to justify choosing the options that present tradeoffs between attributes associated
HD alternative. Furthermore, our framework implies that with desirability and feasibility. According to the upscaling
consumers may be particularly likely to switch from an HF effect, introducing a symmetrically dominated decoy
option to an HD alternative—even more than they are to option to a set (i.e., an option that is dominated by all the
switch from an HD option to an HF alternative—when the alternatives in the set) increases the choice share of the HD
context changes, such that they can invoke reasons to jus- option. For instance, adding a symmetrically dominated
tify choosing the HD option. option (option C in figure 1) to a binary set characterized
Furthermore, the second stage of the decision process by a tradeoff between quality and price can increase the
that we propose is consistent with the notion of evidence choice share of the HD option (option B in figure 1).
accumulation in models of multi-alternative multi-attribute For a demonstration of the upscaling effect, consider the
preferential choice, which postulate that individuals select following scenario. First, consider the case of consumers
FIGURE 1
THE UPSCALING EFFECT
A Two Options B Three Options

Desirability
Desirability
B B
A C A
Feasibility Feasibility
NOTES.—Illustration of the upscaling effect—introducing a symmetrically dominated decoy option (i.e., C) to a binary set that consists of an HF option (i.e., A) and an HD
option (i.e., B) increases the choice share of the HD option (i.e., B).
choosing between A, a 1TB hard drive that costs $40, and likely to occur for A because A is superior to C on the fea-
B, a 2TB drive that costs $80. In this example, A is the HF sible dimension. In other words, the fact that A has the
option and B is the HD option. According to our frame- same capacity at a lower price than C is less likely to be
work, to reach a decision, consumers will first search for a invoked because B was prioritized over A when it was
promising alternative. As we argued above, an HD option identified as the promising alternative during the first stage
is more likely to be identified as a promising alternative of the decision process. Thus, A is less likely to draw

compared to an HF alternative because the former is inher- choice share than B. Consequently, when C is added to the
ently more desirable and desirability is a more primary set, there should be more consumers that are willing to
goal than feasibility (Liberman and Trope 1998; Liu 2008). switch to B than there are consumers willing to switch to
Consequently, in this example, consumers will identify B A. This is the essence of the upscaling effect: the presence
as the promising alternative. Consumers will then proceed of a symmetrically dominated alternative will provide a
to the second stage of the decision process. During this stronger reason for consumers to upscale and select the
stage, they will seek evidence that supports choice of the option that is superior on the desirable dimension than to
promising alternative B. In this case, however, consumers select the option that is superior on the feasible dimension.
may struggle to find strong enough evidence that allows
them to justify choosing B. For instance, the price differ-
ence between the options is substantial, while B is not
Moderators of the Upscaling Effect
clearly better than any other option in the set. The upscaling effect holds potentially important mana-
Consequently, while consumers may covet B, they may gerial implications because it can boost sales of products
find it difficult to justify choosing it. In turn, consumers that typically carry high prices. As such, it may be particu-
may end up choosing A or deferring choice. larly important to explore moderators of the effect.
Second, consider the case of consumers presented with Drawing on our framework, we propose that the upscaling
the same two alternatives, as well as an additional decoy effect should be particularly pronounced under certain con-
option C, a 1TB drive priced at $80. The decoy is domi- ditions. First, the upscaling effect should be more pro-
nated by both A and B because it has the same capacity as nounced when consumers do not invoke reasons for
A but is more expensive and has the same price—but less selecting the HF option. We argued above that consumers
capacity—compared to B. Although C is clearly unattrac- will naturally identify the HD option as the promising
tive and would be an insensible choice, we argue that it can alternative at the first stage of the decision process. In turn,
systematically influence choice between A and B. In they will be more likely to invoke reasons that support
theory, the presence of the decoy provides a reason for choice of that option (vs. the HF option) during the second
choosing either one of the two dominating options: C may stage of the process. If our theory is correct, then it should
boost the choice of B because consumers may feel that be possible to attenuate the upscaling effect by prompting
they are getting more capacity without paying more rela- consumers to consider reasons for choosing the HF option
tive to the decoy and could similarly boost the choice of A besides the HD alternative. When consumers are prompted
because consumers may feel that they can get the same to consider arguments for choosing both options, it should
capacity as the decoy while paying less. Thus, from a clas- become salient that the symmetrically dominated decoy
sic dominance perspective (Huber et al. 1982; Simonson provides strong enough reasons for choosing either domi-
1989), consumers could invoke either of these reasons nating alternative. This should lead to an attenuation of the
when choosing between A, B, and C. We argue, however, upscaling effect.
that the likelihood of invoking these reasons will differ, Second, according to our theory, the upscaling effect
sometimes substantially. should be more pronounced when it is relatively hard to
According to our framework, and like the case of choos- justify choosing the HD option in the absence of the decoy.
ing from the binary set described above, consumers choos- As discussed above, that could be the case when the price
ing from the trinary set will first identify B as the of the HD option is high, such that it is difficult for many
promising alternative. Moving on to the second stage of consumers to justify paying a substantial premium over the
the decision process, consumers will seek evidence that HF alternative. In this case, the presence of the decoy
supports choice of the promising alternative B. In this case, option can boost choice of the HD option because it can
our framework predicts that the presence of the decoy provide a justification to choose the latter. In contrast,
boosts the choice of B because it provides a reference of when the price of the HD option is (relatively) rather low,
comparison that offers a justification to choose B. For con- such that the HD option is only slightly more expensive
sumers who might have had a difficult time justifying the than the HF alternative, most consumers should be able to
choice of B in the binary set, the presence of C provides a justify its choice regardless of the presence of the decoy.
strong reason to choose B: it has more capacity (the desir- Thus, the upscaling effect may be smaller in the latter case.
able dimension) at the same price (the feasible dimension). Third, the upscaling effect should be more pronounced
However, the same justification process would be less when it is relatively easier for consumers to compare the
decoy to the HD option. In this research, we operationalize are systematic differences in the importance of the attrib-
ease of comparison in two ways. First, we facilitate the utes along which our stimuli are described that could possi-
comparison between the decoy and the HD alternative by bly explain the upscaling effect; we do not find such
manipulating whether the decoy is displayed next to the systematic differences. Second, while the finding reported
HD option versus the HF alternative. We propose that the in Evangelidis and Levav (2013) involves a decrease in the
impact of the decoy on the choice share of the HD option choice share of target options (i.e., options that are superior

should be relatively stronger when the decoy is located on prominent attributes), the finding reported in this article
next to the HD option compared to when the decoy is dis- involves an increase in the choice of target (i.e., HD)
played next to the HF alternative. Consumers should be options. In fact, we even observe increases—rather than
particularly likely to discern that the HD option dominates decreases—in the choice share of target options that are
the decoy when the two options are adjacent to each other superior on prominent attributes. For instance, in our hard
because comparing the two options should be relatively drive choice studies, the capacity of the hard drive is often
easier. In contrast, consumers should be less likely to dis- more prominent than its price (web appendix A); yet, we
cern that the HD option dominates the decoy when the two still find that the choice share of the high-capacity high-
options are not adjacent to each other, such as when the price product (i.e., the HD option) increases—rather than
decoy is next to the HF option, because a comparison of decreases—when the symmetric decoy is added to the set.
the two options is harder to perform. Consequently, the Third, whereas the upscaling effect involves the addition
location of the symmetrically dominated decoy option of a symmetrically dominated decoy option to a binary set,
should moderate the magnitude of the upscaling effect. We all studies featuring tradeoffs between desirability and fea-
expect the upscaling effect to be larger in magnitude when sibility in Evangelidis and Levav (2013) involved the addi-
the decoy is located next to the HD (vs. the HF) option. tion of both a symmetrically dominated and a
Similarly, we manipulate the ease of comparison by vary- symmetrically dominating option to a two-option set. It is
ing the mode by which alternatives are presented. We pro- possible that the presence of a symmetrically dominating
pose that the upscaling effect will be larger in magnitude option is a key factor for the results reported in Evangelidis
when the alternatives are presented on the same page com- and Levav (2013), particularly those that featured tradeoffs
pared to when each alternative is presented on a different between desirability and feasibility.
page. Presumably, it should be relatively easier for con-
sumers to discern that the HD option dominates the decoy
when options are presented on the same page compared to OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
when they are presented on separate pages. We empirically
test the proposed moderators in our studies reported below. We investigate the upscaling effect in 7 well-powered,
preregistered experimental studies, as well as in 12 supple-
The Upscaling Effect Vis-a-Vis Prior Research mental studies presented in our web appendix (total
N ¼ 18,787). Study 1 tests for the effect using five different
on Symmetric Dominance sets of stimuli. Studies 2 and 3 test our proposed two-stage
Note that the upscaling effect is qualitatively different decision process. Study 2 uses a repeated-measures design
from another context effect that arises in symmetric domi- to assess whether the HD option is liked more by choosers
nance environments reported in Evangelidis and Levav of the HF option than the HF option is liked by choosers of
(2013). According to Evangelidis and Levav (2013), con- the HD option in an initial choice. Consequently, we exam-
sumers’ preference for an option that is superior on a rela- ine whether there are more participants that switch from
tively more important (prominent) attribute can decrease the HF option to the HD option than there are participants
when a symmetrically dominating or dominated decoy switching from the HD option to the HF option when the
option is added to the choice set. There are three major dif- decoy is added to the set. Presumably, that should be the
ferences between the present research and the studies of case because consumers who covet the HD option should
Evangelidis and Levav (2013). First, the effect in find it easier to justify choosing the HD option when the
Evangelidis and Levav (2013) was specifically defined as decoy option is added to the set. Study 2 also tests whether
relevant to situations that involved tradeoffs between participants are more likely to express the belief that the
attributes that differed in importance (i.e., prominence). In HD (vs. HF) option is better than the decoy, consistent
contrast, our conceptualization of the upscaling effect does with our argument that consumers are more likely to
not invoke differences in attribute importance. Instead, the invoke reasons that support choice of the HD (vs. the HF)
upscaling effect is relevant to situations that involve trade- option when the decoy is added to the set. Study 3 directly
offs between attributes associated with desirability and fea- tests our theoretical claim that consumers will be more
sibility, regardless of the relative importance of the likely to invoke reasons that support choice of the HD
attributes. In our web appendix (web appendix A), we option than they are to invoke reasons supporting the
report the results of a test aiming to assess whether there choice of the HF alternative. In addition, study 3 also
examines whether consumers find it easier to justify choos- Method

ing the HD option when the decoy option is added to the
Participants (N ¼ 2,014: 57.8% female; Mage ¼
set.
36.2 years, MTurk) were randomly assigned to one of 10
Building on the results of studies 2 and 3, studies 4–7
conditions of a 2 (choice set: 2 vs. 3 options) 5 (choice
test our proposed moderators of the upscaling effect. In
problem: backpacks vs. Bluetooth speakers vs. external
study 4, we seek to moderate the upscaling effect by

hard drives vs. hotels vs. TVs) between-participants design.
prompting consumers to rate the justifiability and invoke
Participants in the two-option conditions were provided
reasons supporting the choice of both options before choos-
with a high-quality high-price (HD) option and a low-
ing. We expect that this intervention would lead to an
quality low-price (HF) alternative. Participants in the
attenuation of the upscaling effect because it would
three-option conditions were additionally provided with a
become apparent to consumers that the decoy provides a
symmetrically dominated (decoy) option that offered low
reason for choosing either one of the two dominating alter-
quality at a high price. For example, in the control two-
natives. In study 5, we attempt to moderate the upscaling
option condition of the Bluetooth speaker problem, partici-
effect by manipulating the price of the HD option. We
pants were provided with two options: brand A (Amazon
anticipate that the upscaling effect will be less pronounced
rating: 3.6 out of 5 stars, price: $39.99) and brand B
when the price of the HD option is relatively low because
(Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars, price: $69.99).
consumers should find it easy to justify choosing the HD
Participants in the three-option condition were provided
option regardless of the presence of the decoy. Study 6
with an additional option: brand C (Amazon rating: 3.6 out
tests whether the upscaling effect is larger in magnitude
of 5 stars, price: $69.99). In this and in all subsequent stud-
when the HD option is adjacent to the decoy compared to
ies (unless noted otherwise), options were presented in a
when the HF option is positioned next to the decoy. We
table with a different column for each attribute.
anticipate larger upscaling effects when the HD option and
Participants could choose one of the options, while they
the decoy are adjacent to each other because it should be
were also provided with the possibility to defer choice
easier to compare the two options. Similarly, study 7 tests
(worded as “search for other options”). The exact stimuli
whether the upscaling effect is larger in magnitude when
and choice frequencies for each choice problem are dis-
the alternatives are presented on the same page compared
played in table 1.
to when they are presented on different pages. Presumably,
the upscaling effect should be larger in magnitude when
the alternatives are presented together on the same page
because it should be easier for consumers to notice that the
Results and Discussion
HD option dominates the decoy. Overall, we found strong support for the upscaling effect
Note that our basic hypothesis is that participants will be (table 1). Participants were significantly more likely to
more likely to select the HD option when a symmetrically select the HD option when the symmetrically dominated
dominated decoy option is added to the set. In our web decoy was added to the choice set compared to the control
appendix B, we report the results of a study validating two-option condition (53.1% vs. 33.9%; Wald v2 ¼ 74.33,
which option in each of our stimuli is associated with p < .001; logit d ¼ 0.44, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.34, ULCI ¼
higher desirability versus higher feasibility. In the presen- 0.54). This result was robust across choice problems (back-
tation of our findings below, we provide absolute (uncondi- packs: 46.5% vs. 28.4%; Wald v2 ¼ 13.99, p < .001;
tional) choice shares, as well as effect sizes (logit d) Bluetooth speakers: 58.4% vs. 39.6%; Wald v2 ¼ 14.13, p
associated with the tests of our basic effects. Our preregis- < .001; external hard drives: 45.8% vs. 26.5%; Wald v2 ¼
trations, materials, and data can be accessed at https:// 15.83, p < .001; hotels: 53.5% vs. 26.2%; Wald v2 ¼
researchbox.org/55. 30.23, p < .001; TVs: 61.2% vs. 48.8%; Wald v2 ¼ 6.25, p
¼ .012). In summary, data from a well-powered, preregis-
tered experimental study provide strong support for the
upscaling effect across different choice problems.
Participants were more likely to select the HD option when
STUDY 1: UPSCALING EFFECTS a symmetrically dominated option was added to the choice
set.
Study 1 tests our basic hypothesis using five different Importantly, we conducted a host of additional studies
stimuli: backpacks, Bluetooth speakers, external hard that tested the upscaling effect in different decision envi-
drives, hotels, and TVs. We find robust evidence for the ronments (table 2 and web appendices C–I). In these stud-
upscaling effect whereby introducing a symmetrically ies, we varied the product category, the attributes, the
dominated decoy option to a two-option set that consists of number of options, whether choice was forced, whether the
an HD option and an HF alternative leads to an increase in decoy was strictly inferior to the target, whether options
the choice share of the HD option. were represented using text as opposed to pictures, as well
TABLE 1
STIMULI AND RESULTS OF STUDY 1 (N ¼ 2,014)
Overall results
Two-option condition (%) Three-option condition (%)

Choice of HF option 44.1 37.1
Choice of HD option 33.9 53.1
Deferral (search) 22 8.9
Backpacks
“Imagine that you consider buying a backpack. You have the following options: Backpack A [capacity: 30 L, price: $29.99], Backpack B
[capacity: 40 L, price: $39.99], (Backpack C [capacity: 30 L, price: $39.99]). What would you do? (I would buy Backpack A/B(/C), I would
search for other options)”
Backpack A (HF) 56.7 42.1
Backpack B (HD) 28.4 46.5
Backpack C 2
Deferral (search) 14.9 9.4
Bluetooth speakers
“Imagine that you consider buying a Bluetooth speaker. In your search, you find the following options: Brand A [Amazon rating: 3.6 out of 5 stars,
price: $39.99], Brand B [Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars, price: $69.99], (Brand C [Amazon rating: 3.6 out of 5 stars, price: $69.99]). What
would you do? (I would buy Brand A/B(/C), I would search for other options)”
Brand A (HF) 24.8 29.7
Brand B (HD) 39.6 58.4
Brand C 0
External hard drives
“Imagine that you consider buying an external hard drive. You have the following options: Brand A [capacity: 1TB, price: $39.99], Brand B
[capacity: 2TB, price: $79.99], (Brand C [capacity: 1TB, price: $79.99]). What would you do? (I would buy Brand A/B(/C), I would search for
other options)”
Brand A (HF) 50.5 43.8
Brand B (HD) 26.5 45.8
Brand C 0.5
Deferral (Search) 23 10
Hotels
“Imagine that you are searching for a hotel room for your upcoming summer holidays. In your search, you find the following options: Hotel A
[price per night: $79, hotel rating: 3-star], Hotel B [price per night: $109, hotel rating: 4-star], (Hotel C [price per night: $109, hotel rating: 3-
star]). What would you do? (I would book Hotel A/B(/C), I would search for other options)”
Hotel A (HF) 59.9 39.6
Hotel B (HD) 26.2 53.5
Hotel C 1
TVs
“Suppose you consider buying a new TV. You pass by an electronics store that is having a one-day clearance sale. They offer the following
products: Brand A [resolution: 1920 x 1080, picture quality: good, price: $199], Brand B [resolution: 3840 x 2160, picture quality: excellent,
price: $399], (Brand C [resolution: 1920 x 1080, picture quality: good, price: $399]). What would you do? (I would buy Brand A/B(/C), I would
Brand A (HF) 28.9 30.3
Brand B (HD) 48.8 61.2
Brand C 1
as whether decisions were hypothetical as opposed to con- S6 demonstrates that the upscaling effect can be extended
sequential. Across studies, we obtained robust evidence for to choices that involve a higher number of options. Study
the upscaling effect. Studies S1 and S2 provide evidence S7 provides evidence for the upscaling effect when prod-
that the upscaling effect can be observed when consumers ucts are represented perceptually using pictures (vs. text).
face tradeoffs on various attributes associated with desir-
ability and feasibility besides quality and price. Study S3
replicates our effect using consequential purchase deci- STUDIES 2 AND 3: PROCESS EVIDENCE
sions. Study S4 demonstrates that the effect replicates
when participants are forced (vs. not) to make a choice. Study 1 and studies S1–S7 provided robust evidence for
Study S5 shows that the upscaling effect replicates when the upscaling effect. In studies 2 and 3, we delve into the
the decoy option is not strictly dominated by the focal process underlying the effect. We have advanced a two-
alternatives but is a relatively inferior option instead. Study stage view of choice between options that present tradeoffs
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE UPSCALING EFFECT IN WEB APPENDIX
Product Number of Desirability Feasibility Strict Product No-choice Consequential

Study category options attribute attribute dominance representation option decisions

Study S1 (N ¼ 1,005) Hotels 2 versus 3 Star rating Price versus Yes Text Yes No
Distance
Study S2 (N ¼ 504) Printers 2 versus 3 Print quality Reliability Yes Text Yes No
Study S3 (N ¼ 247) Laptop bags 2 versus 3 Straps Price Yes Text Yes Yes
Study S4 (N ¼ 801) Hard drives 2 versus 3 Capacity Price Yes Text No No
Study S5 (N ¼ 604) Bluetooth 2 versus 3 Amazon rating Price No Text Yes No
speakers
Study S6 (N ¼ 402) Bluetooth 3 versus 4 Battery life Price Yes Text Yes No
speakers and power
Study S7 (N ¼ 1,003) Backpacks 2 versus 3 Size Price Yes Pictures Yes No
between desirability and feasibility. Our account asserts support choice of HD options than they are to invoke rea-
that, in the first stage of the decision process, consumers sons supporting the choice of HF alternatives.
will identify the HD option as the promising alternative. Furthermore, we also find support for our hypothesis that
Furthermore, in the second stage of the decision process, consumers find it easier to justify choosing the HD option
consumers will search for reasons that support choice of when the decoy option is included in the set.
the promising HD option. When choosing from the binary
set, consumers may struggle to find strong enough evi- Study 2
dence that allows them to justify choosing the HD option.
Consequently, while consumers may covet the HD option, Method. All participants (N ¼ 506: 56.3% male; Mage
they may find it difficult to justify choosing it. In turn, con- ¼ 38.3 years, MTurk) made an initial choice between two
sumers may end up choosing the HF alternative or defer hard drives. Specifically, participants were provided with
choice. However, when the decoy is added to the set, con- brand A (price: $39.99; capacity: 2TB) and brand B (price:
sumers who previously might have had a difficult time jus- $79.99; capacity: 4TB). Participants could choose one of
tifying the choice of the HD option may now find it easier the alternatives or defer choice (worded as “search for
to justify choosing that option. Consequently, when the other options”). After making an initial choice, participants
decoy is added to the set, there should be more consumers rated their liking of each option on two independent 20-
that are willing to switch to the HD option than there are point rating scales (“How much do you like each brand?”
consumers willing to switch to the HF option because con- (1 ¼ not at all, 20 ¼ very much; slider scale). In the next
sumers will primarily invoke reasons that support choice of page, participants completed a 10-item self-construal scale
the HD option. (Singelis 1994) that served as a filler task. After complet-
We provide supporting evidence for our hypotheses in ing the filler task, participants were shown the same two
studies 2–3. Study 2 uses a repeated-measures design to hard drives, brand A and brand B, as well as an additional
demonstrate that the HD option is liked more by choosers decoy option, brand C (price: $79.99; capacity: 2TB).
of the HF option than the HF option is liked by choosers of Participants were asked to make a choice and indicate
the HD option in an initial choice between the two options. which option they believed was clearly better than C (i.e.,
As a result, when the symmetrically dominated decoy A, B, or both). Both measures were jointly presented on
option is subsequently added to the set, there are more par- the same page in a random order.
ticipants that switch from the HF option to the HD option Results. Results were consistent with our hypotheses
than there are participants switching from the HD option to (table 3). In the initial choice between brand A and brand
the HF option. Furthermore, study 2 shows that participants B, 38.7% of the participants selected the HD option (brand
are more likely to express the belief that the HD (vs. HF) B), while 47% selected the HF option (brand A) and 14.2%
option is better than the decoy. Study 3 directly tests our deferred choice. Furthermore, we found that the HD option
theoretical claim that consumers will be more likely to was liked more by choosers of the HF option (M ¼ 12.13,
invoke reasons that support choice of HD options than they SD ¼ 4.16) than the HF option was liked by choosers of
are to invoke reasons supporting the choice of HF alterna- the HD option (M ¼ 11.41, SD ¼ 4.08); t(432) ¼ 1.81, p ¼
tives. Specifically, in study 3, we use an open-ended ques- .072). This finding suggests that, as we have argued, some
tion to ask participants to describe the reasons that individuals may covet the HD option when choosing from
motivate their choices. We find support for our hypothesis the binary set but may find it difficult to justify choosing it
that consumers are more likely to invoke reasons that given its high price. As a result, there are more consumers
TABLE 3 95% LLCI ¼ 0.34, ULCI ¼ 0.64) and the number of partic-
RESULTS OF STUDY 2 (N ¼ 506) ipants who indicated that both A and B dominated C
(41.9% vs. 35.4%, v2 ¼ 4.54, p ¼ .033; logit d ¼ 0.15,
Choice
95% LLCI ¼ 0.01, ULCI ¼ 0.29). Thus, participants in
study 2 were more likely to express the belief that the HD
Two-option set Three-option
(vs. HF) option is better than the decoy. Interestingly,

(1st choice) set (2nd choice)
(%) (%) table 3 also shows that, whereas 29.4% of the participants
who initially selected A expressed the belief that only B
Brand A (HF) 47 39.9
Brand B (HD) 38.7 48.4
was better than C, only 10.7% of those who initially
Brand C 2.6 selected B believed that only A was better than C.
Deferral (search) 14.2 9.1 Overall, the data supported our theoretical account.
Mean liking (SD) Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that the HD
Overall
Brand A (HF) 12.44 (4.21) option is liked more by choosers of the HF option than the
Brand B (HD) 12.54 (4.25) HF option is liked by choosers of the HD option.
Split by initial choice of A versus B Consequently, when the decoy option is added to the set,
Choosers of A Choosers of B
Brand A (HF) 13.92 (3.90) 11.41 (4.08)
there are more consumers that are willing to switch from
Brand B (HD) 12.13 (4.16) 13.89 (3.98) the HF option to the HD alternative than there are consum-
Beliefs about dominance ers willing to switch from the HD to the HF option. In
Overall theory, the presence of the decoy provides a reason for
A dominates C 22.7%
B dominates C 41.9% choosing either one of the two dominating options. Thus,
Both A and B dominate C 35.4% in the context of this study, the decoy (brand C) may boost
Split by initial choice of A versus B choice of the HD option (brand B) because consumers may
Choosers Choosers feel that they are getting more capacity without paying
of A (%) of B (%)
A dominates C 35.7 10.7 more relative to the decoy. However, the decoy could also
B dominates C 29.4 60.2 boost choice of the HF option (brand A) because consum-
Both A and B dominate C 34.9 29.1 ers may feel that they can get the same capacity as the
decoy while paying less. Thus, as we previously argued,
consumers have the discretion to select which reason to
invoke when making a choice in the presence of the decoy
that are willing to switch to the HD option than there are
option. Our data support our hypothesis that consumers
consumers willing to switch to the HF option. Indeed,
tend to prioritize the reason that B provides more capacity
whereas 18.9% of the participants who initially selected
than C at the same price over the reason that A provides
the HF option (brand A) switched to the HD option (brand
the same capacity as C at a lower price. As a result, con-
B), only 3.6% of those who first selected the HD option
sumers end up selecting the coveted HD option B more fre-
(brand B) switched to the HF option (brand A), Wald v2 ¼
quently when the decoy is added to the set.
19.28, p < .001; logit d ¼ 1.01, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.56,
ULCI ¼ 1.47. Furthermore, whereas 92.9% of the partici-
pants who initially selected the HD option (brand B) Study 3
remained faithful to their chosen option when the decoy
Method. Participants (N ¼ 809: 54.7% female; Mage ¼
was added, only 77.7% of those who initially selected the
38.7 years, Prolific) were randomly assigned to one of two
HF option (brand A) did the same, Wald v2 ¼ 17.09, p <
conditions (two vs. three options) of a hotel choice prob-
.001; logit d ¼ 0.72, 95% LLCI ¼ 1.07, ULCI ¼ 0.38.
lem. Participants in the two-option condition were pro-
Consequently, replicating our basic effect, we observed
vided with an HD option and HF alternative. Participants
that participants were more likely to select the HD option
in the three-option condition were additionally provided
(brand B) when the decoy (brand C) was added to the
with a symmetrically dominated (decoy) option.
choice set (48.4% vs. 38.7%; z ¼ 5.72, p < .001).1
Specifically, participants in the control two-option condi-
Furthermore, we also found that most participants
tion were asked to imagine that they were searching for a
(41.9%) expressed the belief that only brand B was better
hotel room for their upcoming summer holidays and that in
than brand C. Importantly, the number of participants who
their search they found the following options: hotel A
felt that only B dominated C was higher than the number
(price per night: $89, hotel rating: 3 stars) and hotel B
of participants who indicated that only A dominated C
(price per night: $119, hotel rating: 4 stars). Participants in
(41.9% vs. 22.7%, v2 ¼ 42.51, p < .001; logit d ¼ 0.49,
the three-option condition were additionally provided with
hotel C (price per night: $119, hotel rating: 3 stars). Note
1 The z statistic is derived from a logit model with clustered standard that we counterbalanced which of the two focal options
errors (at the participant level). was labeled as hotel A versus hotel B.
Before making a choice, participants were asked to in that participant’s experimental condition]. B and C are
explain what were the reasons motivating their preference the same price and have different ratings. My conclusion
(“Before making a choice, we would like to ask you to will simply be that hotel C is unnecessarily expensive. It
please explain in a few sentences what motivates your should probably be $89 dollars or less.” A third participant
decision. Specifically, what are the reasons or factors moti- stated, “Hotel B [the HD option in that participant’s experi-
vating your preference for one (or none) of these mental condition]—I want something a bit nicer if its for a

options?”). Afterwards, participants could either choose vacation and would not trade down to 3 stars for the same
one of the options or defer choice (worded as “search for price.” A fourth mentioned that “[he/she] would choose
other options”). Hotel B [the HD option in that participant’s experimental
Two independent raters that were blind to our hypothe- condition], because it is 4 stars, and the same price as
ses coded participants’ responses using three binary varia- Hotel C. Furthermore, it is not much more expensive than
bles (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no): (1) whether the participant indicated Hotel A.” And a fifth one wrote that, “I want a clean, quiet
that they like a given option because it provides higher and safe hotel. Four star at the same price as three stars
quality for the same price as hotel C, (2) whether the par- may be a good deal.” These results are consistent with our
ticipant indicated that they like a given option because it account and suggest that consumers are more likely to
provides the same quality as hotel C at a lower price, and invoke reasons that support choice of HD options than they
(3) whether the participant found it hard to justify paying are to invoke reasons supporting the choice of HF
more (i.e., $119) for the expensive high-quality hotel. alternatives.
Variables (1) and (2) were only coded for the three-option Furthermore, consistent with our account, we also found
condition, while variable (3) was coded for both condi- that participants in the two-option condition more fre-
tions. These variables were not mutually exclusive. quently invoked the reason that it is difficult to justify pay-
Disagreements were solved upon discussion between the ing more for the HD option compared to their counterparts
two independent raters. in the three-option condition (43.2% vs. 34.1%; Wald v2 ¼
We predicted that adding hotel C to the two-option set 7.13, p ¼ .008; logit d ¼ 0.21, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.06, ULCI ¼
would lead to an increase in the choice share of the HD 0.37). Thus, data of study 3 further support our hypothesis
option. Importantly, we also predicted that participants in that consumers prioritize reasons that support choice of the
the three-option condition would more frequently invoke HD option over the HF alternative. Furthermore, consistent
the reason that the preferred option (i.e., the HD option) with our account, the data show that the presence of the
provides higher quality at the same price as the decoy than decoy boosts the choice of the HD option because it pro-
the reason that the preferred option (i.e., the HF option) vides a reference of comparison that offers an additional
provides the same quality as the decoy at a lower price. justification to choose the latter alternative. For consumers
Furthermore, we also anticipated that participants in the who might have had a difficult time justifying the choice
two-option condition will more frequently invoke the rea- of the HD option in the binary set, the presence of the
son that it is difficult to justify paying more for the HD decoy provides a reason to choose it: it has higher quality
option compared to their counterparts in the three-option (the desirable dimension) at the same price (the feasible
condition. dimension).
Results. We replicated our basic effect. Participants STUDIES 4–7: MODERATORS OF THE
were significantly more likely to select the HD option UPSCALING EFFECT
when the symmetrically dominated decoy was added to the
choice set compared to the control two-option condition Study 4
(59.2% vs. 48.9%; Wald v2 ¼ 8.62, p ¼ .003; logit d ¼
Study 3 demonstrated that consumers more frequently
0.23, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.08, ULCI ¼ 0.38).
invoke reasons that support choice of the HD option than
Furthermore, we examined participants’ explanations of
they invoke reasons supporting choice of the HF alterna-
their choices. As predicted, we found that participants in
tive. Building on the results of this study, in study 4, we
the three-option condition more frequently invoked the rea-
attempt to moderate the upscaling effect by prompting con-
son that the preferred option provides higher quality at the
sumers to rate the justifiability and invoke reasons support-
same price as the decoy than the reason that the preferred
ing the choice of both options before (vs. after) choosing.
option provides the same quality as the decoy at a lower
By doing so, we anticipated that the upscaling effect would
price (10.2% vs. 3.5%; Pearson v2 ¼ 14.23, p < .001; logit
be attenuated because it would become salient that the
d ¼ 0.63, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.29, ULCI ¼ 0.98). For example,
symmetrically dominated decoy provides strong enough
one participant stated that “I would choose Hotel A [the
reasons for choosing either of the dominating alternatives.
HD option in that participant’s experimental condition] as
it is 4-star while being the same price as Hotel C, a 3 star Method. Participants (N ¼ 1,609: 50.4% female; Mage
hotel.” Another stated that, “I would take B [the HD option ¼ 39.5 years, MTurk) were randomly assigned to one of
four conditions of a 2 (choice set: two vs. three options) TABLE 4

2 (justifications: before choice vs. after choice) between- RESULTS OF STUDY 4 (N ¼ 1,609)
participants design of a Bluetooth speaker choice problem.
Participants in the two-option conditions were provided Two-option Three-option
with brand A (price: $29.99; rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars) and condition (%) condition (%)
brand B (price: $59.99; rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars).

Justifications after choice
Participants in the three-option conditions were addition- HF 33 31.2
ally provided with brand C (price: $59.99; Amazon rating: HD 42.2 58.6
3.5 out of 5 stars). Note that we counterbalanced which of Decoy 0.5
the two focal options was labeled as brand A versus brand Justifications before choice
B. Furthermore, participants in the “after choice” justifica- HF 35.9 39.1
tion conditions were asked to rate the justifiability [“In HD 46.2 49.4
Decoy 0.8
your opinion, how easy is it to justify choosing Brand A/ Deferral (search) 17.9 10.8
B?” (1 ¼ not at all easy, 7 ¼ very easy)] and invoke reasons
supporting the choice of both focal options (“Please
explain in a few sentences how choice of Brand A/B could
be justified”) after choosing one of the alternatives. We Study 5
expected that choice shares in these conditions would mir- Studies 2–4 provided evidence that consumers may often
ror those in prior studies, such that we would observe our have a difficult time justifying the choice of HD options
usual upscaling effect. In contrast, participants in the
over HF alternatives when choosing from binary sets. As
“before choice” justifications conditions responded to the such, the presence of a symmetrically dominated decoy
exact same measures before making a choice. As we can influence choice because it provides a reference of
argued above, we expected that the upscaling effect would comparison that offers a justification to choose the HD
be attenuated in these conditions. option. According to our theoretical account, the impact of
the decoy on choice should be attenuated when it is rela-
Results. Consistent with our hypotheses, the upscaling tively easy to justify choosing the HD option in the absence
effect was moderated by our manipulation of justifications of decoys, such as when the price of the HD option is rela-
(Wald v2 ¼ 7.06, p ¼ .008; table 4). In the “after choice” tively low, so that the rate of exchange between price and
justifications conditions, participants were significantly quality appears relatively favorable; that is, when the HD
more likely to select the HD option when the decoy was option is only slightly more expensive than the HF alterna-
added to the choice set compared to the control two-option tive, most consumers should be able to justify its choice
condition (58.6% vs. 42.2%; Wald v2 ¼ 21.59, p < .001; regardless of the presence of the decoy. Consequently, an
logit d ¼ 0.36, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.21, ULCI ¼ 0.52). In sharp HD option should be less likely to benefit from the addition
contrast, the upscaling effect was smaller in magnitude— of a decoy when its price is only slightly higher than that
and not statistically significant—in the “before choice” jus- of the HF alternative. We test this hypothesis in study 5.
tifications conditions (49.4% vs. 46.2%; Wald v2 ¼ 0.80, p
¼ .371; logit d ¼ 0.07, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.08, ULCI ¼ 0.22).
Note that, consistent with the data of study 3, we also Method. Participants (N ¼ 2,016: 50% female; Mage ¼
found that participants felt that it was easier to justify 37.9 years, MTurk) were randomly assigned to one of four
choosing the HD option when the decoy was added to the conditions of a 2 (choice set: two vs. three options) 2
set compared to the control two-option condition [price of HD option: high (i.e., $79.99) vs. low (i.e.,
(M ¼ 5.28, SD ¼ 1.64 vs. M ¼ 4.83, SD ¼ 1.74; t(1607) ¼ $42.99)] between-participants design of a hard drive choice
5.33, p < .001; d ¼ 0.27, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.17, ULCI ¼ problem. Participants in the two-option conditions were
0.36). This result was not moderated by our manipulation provided with brand A (price: $39.99; capacity: 2TB) and
of justifications (p > .10). brand B (price: $79.99/$42.99; capacity: 4TB).
In conclusion, study 4 demonstrates that the upscaling Participants in the three-option conditions were addition-
effect can be eliminated when consumers are prompted to ally provided with brand C (price: $79.99/$42.99; capacity:
rate the justifiability—as well as invoke reasons supporting 2TB). Note that we counterbalanced which of the two focal
the choice of both HD and HF options—before selecting options was labeled as brand A versus brand B.
an alternative. We surmise that this happens because, under Participants could choose one of the options or defer
these conditions, the fact that the symmetrically dominated choice (worded as “search for other options”). Consistent
decoy provides strong enough reasons for choosing either with previous studies, we predicted that participants would
dominating alternative becomes apparent, and consumers’ be more likely to select the HD option when a symmetri-
proclivity to prioritize reasons that support choice of the cally dominated decoy was added to the set. Furthermore,
HD option over the HF alternative is disrupted. as we argued above, we expected that this result would be
attenuated when the price of the HD option was low (vs. decoy. Consequently, an HD option is less likely to benefit
high). from the addition of a decoy when its price is only slightly
higher than that of the HF alternative.
Results. Consistent with our hypotheses, the upscaling
effect was moderated by the price of the HD option (Wald
v2 ¼ 22.53, p < .001; table 5). We observed an upscaling Study 6

effect when the price of the HD option was high, such that
We previously proposed that the upscaling effect should
participants were significantly more likely to select the HD
be larger in magnitude when it is relatively easier for con-
option when the decoy was added to the choice set com-
sumers to compare the decoy to the HD option. To demon-
pared to the control two-option condition (55.6% vs.
strate this point, studies 6 and 7 moderate the upscaling
42.9%; Wald v2 ¼ 15.98, p < .001; logit d ¼ 0.28, 95%
effect by manipulating the ease of comparing the decoy to
LLCI ¼ 0.14, ULCI ¼ 0.42). In sharp contrast, this effect
the HD option. In study 6, we manipulate the location of
reversed when the price of the HD option was low (80.4%
the decoy vis-a-vis the original alternatives. Presumably, it
vs. 87.3%; Wald v2 ¼ 8.76, p ¼ .003; logit d ¼ 0.28,
should be relatively easier for consumers to compare the
95% LLCI ¼ 0.47, ULCI ¼ 0.10).
HD option to the decoy when the two options are adjacent
Therefore, study 5 provided additional evidence for our
to each other. In contrast, it should be relatively harder for
account. We found that the upscaling effect was contingent
consumers to compare the HD option to the decoy when
on the price of the HD option. When the price of the HD
the two options are not adjacent to each other, such as
option was relatively high, introducing a symmetrically
when the decoy is next to the HF option. Consequently, we
dominated decoy led to an increase in the choice of the HD
hypothesize that the upscaling effect will be larger in mag-
option. Presumably, the presence of the decoy facilitated
nitude when the HD option is next to the decoy compared
choice of the HD option because it provided consumers
to when the HF option is positioned next to the decoy.
with a reason to justify its choice. In contrast, when the
Note that we obtained some ancillary evidence for this
price of the HD option was relatively low, such that con-
hypothesis in studies 3–5, where we counterbalanced the
sumers could justify choosing it regardless of the decoy,
order of the two focal options. In those studies, we noticed
we no longer observed an upscaling effect.
that the upscaling effect was typically larger in magnitude
Indeed, we obtained additional evidence supporting our
when the decoy was next to the HD (vs. the HF option)
account in a follow-up study where we randomly assigned
option. For instance, in the high-price conditions of study
participants (N ¼ 302: 58.9% male; Mage ¼ 36.7 years,
5, the upscaling effect was larger in magnitude when the
MTurk) to one of the two-option conditions of study 5 and
decoy was next to the HD option (52.6% vs. 35.1%) com-
asked them to rate the justifiability of each option [“In
pared with when the decoy was next to the HF option
your opinion, how easy is it to justify choosing Brand A/
(58.6% vs. 50.8%). However, it is important to acknowl-
B?” (1 ¼ not at all easy, 7 ¼ very easy)]. Participants felt
edge that, compared to study 6, those studies were rela-
that it was easier to justify choosing the HD option when
tively underpowered when testing for an interaction
the price of the HD option was low (M ¼ 6.12, SD ¼ 1.16)
between the location of the decoy and the composition of
compared to high (M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.47; t(300) ¼ 5.55, p
the choice set since that was not the main hypothesis of
< .001; d ¼ 0.64, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.41, ULCI ¼ 0.87).
interest. Study 6 provides a better test of our hypothesis
Therefore, when the HD option is only slightly more
that the magnitude of the upscaling effect is contingent on
expensive than the HF alternative, most consumers are
the location of the decoy because (1) it employs a larger
able to justify its choice regardless of the presence of the
sample, (2) it features a wider range of stimuli, and (3) it
precludes additional experimental factors besides the com-
TABLE 5
position of the choice set and the location of the decoy.
RESULTS OF STUDY 5 (N ¼ 2,016)
Method. Participants (N ¼ 2,018: 61.3% female; Mage
Two-option Three-option ¼ 36.7 years, MTurk) were randomly assigned to one of 20
condition (%) condition (%) conditions of a 2 (choice set: 2 vs. 3 options) 2 (decoy
High price location: next to HD vs. next to HF) 5 (choice problem:
HF 44.9 35.9 backpacks vs. Bluetooth speakers vs. external hard drives
HD 42.9 55.6
Decoy 1.8
vs. hotels vs. TVs) between-participants design.
Deferral (search) 12.2 6.7 Participants in the two-option conditions were provided
Low price with an HD option and an HF alternative. In addition to
HF 10.9 14.6 these options, participants in the three-option conditions
HD 87.3 80.4
Decoy 2.8 were provided with a symmetrically dominated (decoy)
Deferral (search) 1.8 2.2 option. For half of the participants (decoy next to HD), the
HF option was alternative A, while the HD option was
alternative B. For the other half (decoy next to HF), the are adjacent to each other, presumably because it is rela-
HD option was alternative A, while the HF option was tively easier for consumers to compare the decoy to the
alternative B. The decoy option was always alternative C. HD option. In study 7, we vary the ease of comparing the
For example, when the decoy was next to the HD option, decoy to the HD option by manipulating the mode by
in the two-option condition of the Bluetooth speaker prob- which alternatives are presented. We reasoned that the
lem, participants were provided with two options: brand A upscaling effect is larger in magnitude when the alterna-

(Amazon rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars, price: $29.99) and brand tives are presented on the same page compared to when
B (Amazon rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars, price: $59.99), while each alternative is presented on a different page.
their counterparts in the three-option condition were pro- Presumably, it should be relatively easier for consumers to
vided with an additional option: brand C (Amazon rating: discern that the HD option dominates the decoy when
3.5 out of 5 stars, price: $59.99). When the decoy was next options are presented on the same page compared to when
to the HF option, in the two-option condition of the they are presented on separate pages. We tested this
Bluetooth speaker problem, participants were provided hypothesis in study 7.
with two options: brand A (Amazon rating: 4.4 out of 5
stars, price: $59.99) and brand B (Amazon rating: 3.5 out Method. Participants (N ¼ 805: 54.3% male; Mage ¼
of 5 stars, price: $29.99), while their counterparts in the 38.7 years, MTurk) were randomly assigned to one of four
three-option condition were provided with an additional conditions of a 2 (choice set: two vs. three options) 2
option: brand C (Amazon rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars, price: (presentation mode: same page vs. different pages)
$59.99). Participants could choose one of the options and between-participants design of a hard drive choice prob-
were also provided with the possibility to defer choice lem. They were provided with the following options (in
(worded as “search for other options”). The exact stimuli text rather than in tables):
and choice frequencies for each experimental condition are
displayed in table 6.
Brand A is priced at $39.99 and has a storage capacity of 2TB.
Results. Replicating previous results, participants were Brand B is priced at $79.99 and has a storage capacity of 4TB.
Brand C is priced at $79.99 and has a storage capacity of 2TB.
significantly more likely to select the HD option when the
symmetrically dominated decoy was added to the choice
set compared to the control two-option condition (48.6%
Participants in the two-option conditions viewed only
vs. 32.1%; Wald v2 ¼ 56.65, p < .001; logit d ¼ 0.38,
brand A and brand B. Participants in the three-option con-
95% LLCI ¼ 0.28, ULCI ¼ 0.48). This result was robust
ditions were additionally provided with brand C. For half
across choice problems (backpacks: 47.3% vs. 31.7%;
of the participants (same page), all options were presented
Wald v2 ¼ 10.13, p ¼ .001; Bluetooth speakers: 56.2% vs.
on the same page. For the other half (different pages), the
34.2%; Wald v2 ¼ 19.44, p < .001; external hard drives:
options were presented on different pages and these partici-
45% vs. 32.5%; Wald v2 ¼ 6.58, p ¼ .01; hotels: 50.2%
pants were asked to make a choice after viewing all
vs. 32.3%; Wald v2 ¼ 13.13, p < .001; TVs: 44.3% vs.
options. Participants in both presentation mode conditions
29.7%; Wald v2 ¼ 9.20, p ¼ .002).
viewed the options in the same order, whereby brand A
Importantly, the effect reported above was significantly
was displayed first, brand B was displayed second, and
moderated by the location of the decoy option (Wald v2 ¼
brand C was displayed third (only for those in the three-
6.13, p ¼ .013). The impact of the symmetric decoy on the
option conditions). Note that, to demonstrate the robustness
choice share of the HD option was stronger when the decoy
of the upscaling effect, in this study, we presented alterna-
was located next to the HD option (52.3% vs. 30.3%; Wald
tives in all conditions in text rather in tables. Participants
v2 ¼ 49.30 p < .001; logit d ¼ 0.51, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.37,
could choose one of the options, while they were also pro-
ULCI ¼ 0.65), compared to when it was located next to the
vided with the possibility to defer choice (worded as
HF alternative (45% vs. 33.9%; Wald v2 ¼ 12.94, p <
“search for other options”).
.001; logit d ¼ 0.26, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.12, ULCI ¼ 0.40).
Therefore, data of study 6 provide further evidence for Results. We found that the upscaling effect was moder-
our basic effect and additionally demonstrate that the ated by the mode of presentation (Wald v2 ¼ 3.83, p ¼
upscaling effect is larger in magnitude when the decoy is .05; table 7). When the options were presented on the same
located next to the HD option compared to when it is page, participants were significantly more likely to select
located next to the HF alternative. the HD option (brand B) when the decoy (brand C) was
added to the choice set compared to the control two-option
condition (51% vs. 32.8%; Wald v2 ¼ 13.51, p < .001;
Study 7 logit d ¼ 0.42, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.19, ULCI ¼ 0.64). This
Study 6 demonstrated that upscaling effects tend to be result was smaller in magnitude—and not statistically sig-
larger in magnitude when the HD and the decoy options nificant—when the options were presented on different
TABLE 6
STIMULI AND RESULTS OF STUDY 6 (N ¼ 2,018)
Overall results

Decoy next to HD option
Choice of HD option 30.3 52.3
Decoy next to HF option
Choice of HD option 33.9 45
Deferral (search) 19 8.3
Backpacks 1 (decoy next to HD option)
Backpack A (HF) 53.5 41
Backpack B (HD) 28.7 51
Backpack C 1
Deferral (search) 17.8 7
Backpacks 2 (decoy next to HF option)
Backpack A (HD) 34.7 43.6
Backpack B (HF) 52.5 49.5
Backpack C 1
Bluetooth speakers 1 (decoy next to HD option)
Brand A (HF) 31.7 27.5
Brand B (HD) 32.7 59.8
Brand C 0
Bluetooth speakers 2 (decoy next to HF option)
Brand A (HD) 35.6 52.5
Brand B (HF) 37.6 33.7
Brand C 0
External hard drives 1 (decoy next to HD option)
other options)”
Brand A (HF) 58.8 54
Brand B (HD) 22.5 41
Brand C 0
External hard drives 2 (decoy next to HF option)
other options)”
Brand A (HD) 42.6 49
Brand B (HF) 38.6 45
Brand C 1
Hotels 1 (decoy next to HD option)
[price per night: $79, hotel rating: 3-star], Hotel B [price per night: $109, hotel rating: 4-star], (Hotel C [price per night: $109, hotel rating:
3-star]). What would you do? (I would book Hotel A/B(/C), I would search for other options)”
TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
Overall results
Hotel A (HF) 53 33
Hotel B (HD) 34 62

Hotel C 0
Deferral (search) 13 5
Hotels 2 (decoy next to HF option)
[price per night: $109, hotel rating: 4-star], Hotel B [price per night: $79, hotel rating: 3-star], (Hotel C [price per night: $109, hotel rating: 3-
star]). What would you do? (I would book Hotel A/B(/C), I would search for other options)”
Hotel A (HD) 30.7 38.6
Hotel B (HF) 57.4 56.4
Hotel C 0
TVs 1 (decoy next to HD option)
products: Brand A [resolution: 1920 x 1080, price: $299], Brand B [resolution: 3840 x 2160, price: $599], (Brand C [resolution: 1920 x 1080,
price: $599]). What would you do? (I would buy Brand A/B(/C), I would search for other options)”
Brand A (HF) 38.6 37.6
Brand B (HD) 33.7 47.5
Brand C 1
TVs 2 (decoy next to HF option)
products: Brand A [resolution: 3840 x 2160, price: $599], Brand B [resolution: 1920 x 1080, price: $299], (Brand C [resolution: 1920 x 1080,
price: $599]). What would you do? (I would buy Brand A/B(/C), I would search for other options)”
Brand A (HD) 25.7 41.2
Brand B (HF) 49.5 46.1
Brand C 1
TABLE 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION

RESULTS OF STUDY 7 (N ¼ 805)
In this article, we investigated the impact of the decision
Two-option Three-option context on purchase decisions that involve tradeoffs
condition (%) condition (%) between attributes associated with desirability (e.g., qual-
ity) and feasibility (e.g., price). We advanced a novel con-
Same page
Brand A (HF) 51.5 37 text effect, the upscaling effect, whereby introducing a
Brand B (HD) 32.8 51 symmetrically dominated decoy option to a two-option set
Brand C 3.5 that consists of an HD option and an HF alternative
Different pages
increases the choice share of the HD option. We provided
Brand A (HF) 51 47.8 evidence for the upscaling effect in a series of well-
Brand B (HD) 35 39.3 powered preregistered experimental studies. Study 1 pro-
Brand C 5 vided evidence for the effect using five different sets of
Deferral (search) 14 8
stimuli that involved price–quality tradeoffs. A series of
additional experiments discussed in our web appendix
(studies S1–S7) provided further evidence for the upscaling
pages (39.3% vs. 35%; Wald v2 ¼ 0.79, p ¼ .373; logit d effect in a wide range of decision environments featuring
¼ 0.10, 95% LLCI ¼ 0.12, ULCI ¼ 0.33). both hypothetical and consequential decisions. Studies 2
Therefore, the data from this study provide further evi- and 3 provided evidence for our theoretical account. They
dence for the upscaling effect and additionally demonstrate showed that consumers are more likely to invoke reasons
that the effect is larger in magnitude when the alternatives that support choice of HD options than they are to invoke
are presented on the same page compared to when they are reasons supporting the choice of HF alternatives. This find-
presented on different pages. As we previously argued, this ing is consistent with our theoretical account whereby con-
result may be explained by the fact that it is relatively eas- sumers prioritize reasons that support choice of HD
ier for consumers to compare the HD option to the decoy options over reasons that support choice of HF options
when the two alternatives are presented jointly. when both are available. Consequently, as evidenced by
the data of study 2, there are more consumers that switch literature. Specifically, in a meta-analysis of the attraction
from an HF option to an HD alternative than there are con- effect, Heath and Chatterjee (1995) found that asymmetri-
sumers that switch from an HD option to an HF alternative cally dominated decoys commonly increase choice shares
when the decoy is added to the set. Our data also show that of high-quality high-price (i.e., HD) options, while they
consumers find it easier to justify choice of the HD option often failed to increase shares of low-price low-quality
when the decoy is added to the set. Finally, studies 4–7 (i.e., HF) options. According to Heath and Chatterjee, these

tested various moderators of the upscaling effect predicted asymmetric attraction effects pose a “theoretical puzzle
by our theoretical framework. Study 4 showed that the (p. 282).” We suggest that these asymmetric attraction
upscaling effect is eliminated when we prompted consum- effects can be readily explained by our two-stage frame-
ers to rate the justifiability and invoke reasons supporting work. According to our framework, consumers first iden-
the choice of both HD and HF options before (vs. after) tify promising alternatives, which, as we have argued, are
choosing. Study 5 showed that the upscaling effect can be likely to be HD options (vs. HF alternatives). In turn, con-
eliminated when the price of the HD option is only slightly sumers seek to accumulate evidence supporting choice of
higher than that of the HF option, such that participants promising HD alternatives. As a result, when an asymmet-
can easily justify choice of the former option without rely- rically dominated decoy option is added next to an HD
ing on the decoy. Studies 6 and 7 showed that manipula- target, consumers can invoke the superiority of the target
tions influencing the ease of comparing the decoy to the vis-a-vis the decoy, to justify choice of the promising alter-
HD option moderate the magnitude of the upscaling effect. native (i.e., the HD option). In contrast, when an asymmet-
Study 6 showed that the upscaling effect is larger in magni- rically dominated decoy is added next to an HF target
tude when the HD option is positioned next to the decoy option, consumers should be less likely to invoke a similar
compared to when the HF option is positioned next to the reason for choice because HF options are typically not
decoy. Study 7 demonstrated that the upscaling effect is qualified as promising alternatives during the first stage of
larger in magnitude when the alternatives are presented on the decision process. Overall, our findings and those of
the same page compared to when they are presented on dif- Heath and Chatterjee (1995) suggest that consumers are
ferent pages. We discuss the results of five additional stud- generally more likely to invoke the decision context to jus-
ies testing alternative accounts and potential moderators of tify choice of HD (vs. HF) options.
the upscaling effect in our web appendix (studies S8–S12). Similarly, our framework can explain findings reported
in classic literature on asymmetric sales promotion effects.
This literature reports that, whereas discounted high-
Theoretical Contribution quality high-price (i.e., HD) options steal sales from
The theoretical contribution of our research is threefold. low-quality low-price (i.e., HF) alternatives, discounted
First, our article contributes to research on context effects. low-quality low-price options do not steal a substantial
Prior research on this topic has primarily examined two amount of sales from high-quality high-price options
context effects, attraction (Huber et al. 1982) and compro- (Allenby and Rossi 1991; Blattberg and Wisniewski 1989;
mise (Simonson 1989), both of which violate normative Bronnenberg and Wathieu 1996; Hardie, Johnson, and
choice principles. Both effects have had a profound impact Fader 1993). Prior literature traces this empirical regularity
on behavioral research, with thousands of citations on to the fact that HD options are typically liked more by
Google Scholar. Here, we present a novel context effect those who buy HF alternatives than HF options are liked
that, similar to attraction and compromise, violates two by those buying HD options (Blattberg and Wisniewski
normative principles. First, it violates IIA, which postulates 1989; Heath et al. 2000). As a result, this prior literature
that the addition of a new option should have no effect on argues that there are more consumers that are willing to
relative preference for the original alternatives (Ray 1973). switch from a low-quality option to a high-quality alterna-
Second, it violates the regularity hypothesis (Luce 1977), tive than there are consumers that are willing to switch
which postulates that the choice probability of a given from a high-quality option to a low-quality alternative
option should not increase when another option is added to (Heath et al. 2000; see also Simonson, Kramer, and Young
the set. Extant theories and choice models do not predict or 2004). Our data corroborated these empirical regularities in
account for the upscaling effect. different settings that featured experimental manipulations
Second, our article holds important implications for the of the choice set, rather than presence (vs. absence) of dis-
literatures on the resolution of tradeoffs between desirabil- counts. Importantly, our theoretical account can explain
ity and feasibility. Drawing on Montgomery (1983), our consumers’ psychology underlying asymmetric sales pro-
article advances a novel two-stage framework of consumer motion effects. Specifically, as we have argued, consumers
decision-making for choices that involve tradeoffs between are likely to elect HD (vs. HF) options as promising alter-
desirability and feasibility. While our framework can natives and, in turn, invoke reasons to support their choice.
explain the occurrence of the upscaling effect, it can also Consequently, when an HD option is discounted, consum-
account for hitherto unexplained findings reported in prior ers can invoke the discount to justify choice of the
promising alternative (i.e., the HD option). In contrast, symmetrically dominated decoy option is displayed right
when an HF alternative is discounted, consumers may be next to the high-quality high-price product (e.g., in the
less likely to invoke a similar reason for choice because same page and within the same table in an online retail set-
HF options are typically not qualified as promising alterna- ting) and when the price of the higher-quality product is
tives during the first stage of the decision process. substantially higher than that of the lower-quality
Third, our research suggests a potential modification to competitor(s).

the well-established dominance rule that is featured promi-
nently in behavioral research. According to the classic for-
mulation of the dominance rule (Montgomery 1983), a
Conclusion
given option dominates an alternative in the choice set Consumers frequently make decisions that involve
when the former is better than the latter on at least one attribute tradeoffs between desirability and feasibility. In
attribute and not worse on all other attributes (see also this article, we examined how the decision context influen-
Evangelidis and Levav 2013; Evangelidis et al. 2018; ces consumers’ choices in such settings. We put forth a
Tversky et al. 1988). Therefore, the classic formulation of two-stage decision-making framework that stipulates that
the dominance rule assumes that consumers treat all attrib- consumers tend to prioritize reasons that allow them to jus-
utes the same when they assess dominance relationships. tify choosing options that are relatively higher in terms of
However, we posit that this assumption may be incorrect. desirability (vs. feasibility). Our data provided support for
Indeed, our data suggest that attributes related to desirabil- this assertion, while amassing robust evidence for a novel
ity may be prioritized over attributes related to feasibility context effect: the upscaling effect. Interestingly, our
in dominance judgments. Therefore, we propose a modifi- research suggests that consumers may use the context in a
cation to the dominance rule, whereby a given option dom- motivated manner to support choice of the option that, all
inates an alternative in the choice set when the former is else equal, they desire most. Thus, the decision context can
better than the latter on desirability attributes (e.g., quality) be leveraged in consumers’ pursuit to fulfill their desires.
and not worse on feasibility attributes (e.g., price). Data of
study 2 are consistent with our thesis.
DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
Managerial Implications The first author collected and analyzed all data reported
in this article. Data were collected between 2019 and 2022
The managerial implications of our research are straight- on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, on Prolific, and in the
forward. Our studies repeatedly demonstrate that introduc- Behavioral Lab of the first author’s university. We prede-
ing a clearly inferior decoy option can increase the termined a minimum sample size of 100 participants per
likelihood that the consumer purchases options that are condition. Data collection procedures and analyses plans
superior in desirability, such as higher-quality higher-price were preregistered at aspredicted.org. Our preregistrations,
alternatives within the set. In addition, although not the materials, and data can be accessed at https://researchbox.
main focus of our research, our data also show that intro- org/55.
ducing clearly inferior decoy options can also increase the
overall likelihood that the consumer makes a purchase to
begin with (e.g., see lower deferral rates when decoy REFERENCES
options are added to the set in table 1). Therefore, manu- Allenby, Greg M. and Peter E. Rossi (1991), “Quality Perceptions
facturers and retailers can boost their sales by introducing and Asymmetric Switching Between Brands,” Marketing
symmetrically dominated decoy options to their product Science, 10 (3), 185–204.
lines or assortments. For example, a retailer selling Bettman, James R., Noel Capon, and Richard J. Lutz (1975a),
Bluetooth speakers can increase revenues by adding a low- “Cognitive Algebra in Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,”
quality, high-price speaker next to low-quality, low-price Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (2), 151–64.
——— (1975b), “Multiattribute Measurement Models and
and high-quality, high-price alternatives. Similarly, a hard Multiattribute Attitude Theory: A Test of Construct
drive manufacturer may boost sales by adding an expen- Validity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (4), 1–15.
sive, low-capacity hard drive to its product line next to Bhatia, Sudeep (2013), “Associations and the Accumulation of
low-capacity, low-price and high-capacity, high-price Preference,” Psychological Review, 120 (3), 522–43.
alternatives. Or, a retailer selling backpacks may see an Blattberg, Robert C. and Kenneth J. Wisniewski (1989), “Price-
increase in its revenues by adding an expensive low- Induced Patterns of Competition,” Marketing Science, 8 (4),
capacity backpack to its assortment. Our data consistently 291–309.
Bronnenberg, Bart J. and Luc Wathieu (1996), “Asymmetric
show that consumers may feel more inclined to make a Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning,” Marketing
purchase, particularly an expensive one, in the presence of Science, 15 (4), 379–94.
clearly inferior options. Finally, we should note that our Carmon, Ziv and Itamar Simonson (1998), “Price-Quality
results tend to be stronger in magnitude when the Tradeoffs in Choice versus Matching: New Insights into the
Prominence Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (4), Liu, Wendy (2008), “Focusing on Desirability: The Effect of
323–43. Decision Interruption and Suspension on Preferences,”
Dumbalska, Tsvetomira, Vickie Li, Konstantinos Tsetsos, and Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 640–52.
Christopher Summerfield (2020), “A Map of Decoy Influence Luce, R. Duncan (1977), “The Choice Axiom after Twenty
in Human Multialternative Choice,” Proceedings of the Years,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15 (3),
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 215–33.

America, 117 (40), 25169–78. Montgomery, Henry (1983), “Decision Rules and the Search for a
Evangelidis, Ioannis and Jonathan Levav (2013), “Prominence Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision
versus Dominance: How Relationships Between Alternatives Making,” Advances in Psychology, 14, 343–69.
Drive Decision Strategy and Choice,” Journal of Marketing Noguchi, Takao and Neil Stewart (2018), “Multialternative
Research, 50 (6), 753–66. Decision by Sampling: A Model of Decision Making
Evangelidis, Ioannis, Jonathan Levav, and Itamar Simonson Constrained by Process Data,” Psychological Review, 125
(2018), “The Asymmetric Impact of Context on Advantaged (4), 512–44.
versus Disadvantaged Options,” Journal of Marketing Ray, Paramesh (1973), “Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives,”
Research, 55 (2), 239–53. Econometrica, 41 (5), 987–91.
Fischer, Gregory W. and Scott A. Hawkins (1993), “Strategy Roe, Robert M., Jermone R. Busemeyer, and James T. Townsend
Compatibility, Scale Compatibility, and the Prominence (2001), “Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic
Effect,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Connectionist Model of Decision Making,” Psychological
Perception and Performance, 19 (3), 580–97. Review, 108 (2), 370–92.
Frederick, Shane, Leonard Lee, and Ernest Baskin (2014), “The Rooderkerk, Robert P., Harald J. Van Heerde, and Tammo H. A.
Limits of Attraction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), Bijmolt (2011), “Incorporating Context Effects into a Choice
487–507. Model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (4), 767–80.
Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia (2002), “Making Trade-Offs: A Simonson, Itamar (1989), “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of
Probabilistic and Context-Sensitive Model of Choice Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer
Behavior,” Psychological Review, 109 (1), 137–55. Research, 16 (2), 158–74.
Hardie, Bruce G. S., Eric J. Johnson, and Peter S. Fader (1993), Simonson, Itamar, Thomas Kramer, and Maia J. Young (2004),
“Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects “Effect Propensity,” Organizational Behavior and Human
on Brand Choice,” Marketing Science, 12 (4), 378–94. Decision Processes, 95 (2), 156–74.
Heath, Timothy B. and Subimal Chatterjee (1995), “Asymmetric Singelis, Theodore M. (1994), “The Measurement of Independent
Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality and Interdependent Self-Construals,” Personality and Social
Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence,” Journal Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 580–91.
of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 268–84. Trueblood, Jennifer S., Scott D. Brown, and Andrew Heathcote
Heath, Timothy B., Gangseog Ryu, Subimal Chatterjee, Michael (2014), “The Multiattribute Linear Ballistic Accumulator
S. McCarthy, David L. Mothersbaugh, Sandra Milberg, and Model of Context Effects in Multialternative Choice,”
Gary J. Gaeth (2000), “Asymmetric Competition in Choice Psychological Review, 121 (2), 179–205.
and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages,” Journal Trueblood, Jennifer S., Scott D. Brown, Andrew Heathcote, and
of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 291–308. Jerome R. Busemeyer (2013), “Not Just for Consumers:
Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982), Context Effects Are Fundamental to Decision Making,”
“Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Psychological Science, 24 (6), 901–8.
Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,” Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic (1988),
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 90–8. “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”
——— (1983), “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Psychological Review, 95 (3), 371–84.
Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Itamar Simonson (1993),
Consumer Research, 10 (1), 31–44. “Context-Dependent Preferences,” Management Science, 39
Johnson, Eric J., Gerald H€aubl, and Anat Keinan (2007), “Aspects (10), 1179–89.
of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction,” Usher, Marius and James L. McClelland (2004), “Loss Aversion
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and and Inhibition in Dynamical Models of Multialternative
Cognition, 33 (3), 461–74. Choice,” Psychological Review, 111 (3), 757–69.
Kahn, Barbara E. and Robert J. Meyer (1991), “Consumer Weber, Elke U., Eric J. Johnson, Kerry F. Milch, Hannah Chang,
Multiattribute Judgments under Attribute-Weight Jeffrey C. Brodscholl, and Daniel G. Goldstein (2007),
Uncertainty,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), “Asymmetric Discounting in Intertemporal Choice: A
508–22. Query Theory Account,” Psychological Science, 18 (6),
Liberman, Nira and Yaacov Trope (1998), “The Role of Feasibility 516–23.
and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Yang, Sybil and Michael Lynn (2014), “More Evidence
Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” Journal of Challenging the Robustness and Usefulness of the Attraction
Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5–18. Effect,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 508–13.

The Upscaling Effect: How The Decision Context Influences Tradeoffs Between Desirability and Feasibility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Upscaling Effect: How The Decision Context Influences Tradeoffs Between Desirability and Feasibility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Upscaling Effect: How the Decision

Context Influences Tradeoffs between

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucac059/6935792 by Sogang University user on 17 March 2023

Purchase decisions typically involve tradeoffs between attributes associated with

Keywords: upscaling effect, context effects, symmetric dominance, desirability,

P urchase decisions often involve tradeoffs between

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucac059/6935792 by Sogang University user on 17 March 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcr/ucac059/6935792 by Sogang University user on 17 March 2023