[Dominated Alternatives - Decoy effect] When deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived preference between the other two
![[Dominated Alternatives - Decoy effect] When deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived preference between the other two](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bluesofy/__sized__/pic/topics/dc1a96cc606444c38af366595cc391ce-fit_width_resize_q20-30x0.gif)
![[Dominated Alternatives - Decoy effect] When deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived preference between the other two](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bluesofy/pic/topics/dc1a96cc606444c38af366595cc391ce.gif)
Dominated Alternatives: Can introducing a third decoy option make you more likely to choose the option, I secretly want you to choose?
In marketing, this is also called the decoy effect or attraction effect or asymmetric dominance effect. A phenomenon whereby the introduction of a third option leads to a change in choice.
Dominated alternatives here quickens the choice patterns of consumers by dulling the relevance of one option by the introduction of another, thereby making one option almost invalid.
More simply, when deciding between two options, an unattractive third option can change the perceived preference between the other two.
Example (1)
Just look at any web b2b platforms, they will almost have a pricing plan split in three options
Comment
article ?
Interpretation
Comment
article ?
Probability is not a mere computation of odds on the dice or more complicated variants; it is the acceptance of the lack of certainty in our knowledge and the development of methods for dealing with our ignorance. Outside of textbooks and casinos, probability almost never presents itself as a mathematical problem or a brain teaser. Mother Nature does not tell you how many holes there are on the roulette table, nor does she deliver problems in a textbook way (in the real world one has to guess the problem more than the solution).
Loss aversion is a notion derived from behavioral economics. In finance, this aversion to loss is reflected in the reluctance ...
![[sunk-cost fallacy] Sometimes quitting really is the best option](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bluesofy/__sized__/pic/topics/5d4ec720b15346d0a752c0dab38026a7-fit_width_resize_q20-30x0.gif)
![[sunk-cost fallacy] Sometimes quitting really is the best option](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bluesofy/pic/topics/5d4ec720b15346d0a752c0dab38026a7.gif)
A "sunk cost" is just what it sounds like: time or money you've already spent. The sunk-cost fallacy is when you tell yourself that you can't quit because of all that time or money you spent. We shouldn't fall for this fallacy, but we do it all the time.
Yerkes and Dodson's experiment should make us wonder about the real rela- tionship between payment, motivation, and performance in the labor ...
In 1986, psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman showed that even profit-maximizing firms will have an incentive to act as a manner that is perceived as fair to their customer. People have a tendency to resist unfairness as soon a profit-maximizing agent or a firm is seeking to overly exploit some profit opportunities.
For instance, a question was put to 191 adult residents in Vancouver: When football games tickets are in great demand, which one of the allocation methods seems the most and least fair?
- By auction: the tickets are sold to the highest bidders.
- By lottery: the tickets are sold to the people whose names are drawn.
- By queue: the tickets are sold on a first-come first-served basis.
Auction came out as the least fair (75% of the respondents) and queuing being the most fair.