ArticlePloS one2019
Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using an inferior decoy alternative to nudge COVID-19 vaccination.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Testing the Effectiveness of an Animated Decision Aid to Improve Recruitment of Control Participants in a Case-Control Study: Web-Based Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Exploring the decoy effect to guide tobacco treatment choice: a randomized experiment.BMC research notes · 2020Trial
- Article
- Testing Behavioral Messages to Increase Recruitment to Health Research When Embedded Within Social Media Campaigns on Twitter: Web-Based Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Testing a decoy donation incentive to improve online survey participation: Evidence from a field experiment.PloS one · 2024Article
- To Consent or Not to Consent to Screening, That Is the Question.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Review
- Testing messages from behavioral economics to improve participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Cyprus: Results from two randomized controlled trials.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Attract the best: The attraction effect as an effective strategy to enhance healthy choices.PloS one · 2021Article
- Offering male endoscopists as decoy option to nudge disinclined women to have colorectal cancer screening.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Testing verbal quantifiers for social norms messages in cancer screening: evidence from an online experiment.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Correction: Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Literature on consumer choice has demonstrated that the inclusion of an inferior alternative choice (decoy) can increase interest in a target product or action. In two online studies, we tested the impact of decoys on the probability of previous non-intenders to have a screening test which could significantly lower their chances of dying of colorectal cancer. We find that the presence of a decoy increased the probability to choose screening at the target hospital (over no screening) from 39% to 54% and 37% to 59% depending on how many hospital attributes were communicated and how strongly the decoy was dominated by the target. We also show that the presence of the decoy was associated with lower levels of reported decisional complexity while not undermining information seeking and knowledge acquisition. These findings offer a 'proof of principle' that decoys have the potential to increase screening uptake without negatively influencing informed choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.