Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40841543›Full record

ArticleNPJ science of learning2025

How decoy options ferment choice biases in real-world consumer decision-making.

Sean Devine, James Goulding, John Harvey, Anya Skatova, A Ross Otto

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ science of learning, 2025. 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sean DevineDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. seandamiandevine@gmail.com.
James GouldingN/LAB, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK.
John HarveyN/LAB, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK.
Anya Skatova *Digital Footprints Lab & Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
A Ross Otto *Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

UK Research and Innovation,United Kingdom MR/T043520/1)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The decoy effect describes a bias in which people's choices between two valuable options are swayed by a third, inferior, "decoy" option. Despite being documented in lab settings, relatively little work has investigated whether decoy effects occur "in the wild" where consumers face large, diverse choice sets. We employ a new methodology to examine the impact of decoy options on purchase decisions using a dataset of 3.6 million UK grocery-store wine transactions. Results indicate that when comparing wines that vary in quality and price across contexts, the presence of dominated (i.e., inferior) decoy options increased consumers' likelihood of choosing a target option-a hallmark of the well-documented attraction effect. The strength of these effects was modest overall (roughly 1% change in preference) and, interestingly, depended on consumers' idiosyncratic histories of experience. Our study provides a proof of principle demonstrating that these sorts of context effects are detectable in richer, complex real-world consumer choice settings.

Identifiers

PMID40841543
PMCPMC12371001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.