No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
When a new alternative introduces to a choice set, the preferences for the original alternatives will be effected (Mourali, Böckenholt and Laroche 2007). Consumers often feel uncertainty about the true values of options when they want to purchase products (Simonson 1989). Huber, Payne, and Puto (1982) defined the attraction effect as “when adding an alternative that is inferior to another alternative in the choice set increases the share of the relatively superior alternative.” Compromise effect is defined as “when adding an extreme option to the choice set shifts the choice preferences in favor of the compromise option” (Simonson 1989). The size of compromise effect and attraction effect may differ based on self-construal. Independent self-construal has attributes that make them separate from others (Markus and Kitayama 1991). They emphasize on positive information and try to make achievements (Lee, Aaker and Gardner 2000). In contrast, Interdependent self-construal focus being a member of a group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and attempt to avoid mistakes (Lee, Aaker and Gardner 2000). Therefore, we expect that independent consumers are more sensitive to attraction effect and interdependent consumers are more sensitive to compromise effect and self-regulatory mediates this relationship. Consequently, the current research first shows the relationship between self-construal and context effects. Then, introduces self-regulatory as mediator to explain how distinct self-construal behave through context effects.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.