Radka Kubalová – Silesian University in Opava, School of Business Administration in Karvina, Univerzitní náměstí 1934/3,
733 40 Karviná, Czechia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/EMAN.S.P.2021.93

5th International Scientific Conference – EMAN 2021 – Economics and Management: How to Cope With Disrupted Times, Online/Virtual, March 18, 2021, SELECTED PAPERS published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia; ISBN 978-86-80194-44-8, ISSN 2683-4510


This paper explores the impact of adding a compromise alternative into the choice set taking
into account the previous findings in the literature. The paper takes a meta-analytical approach when
examining the results of previously published peer-reviewed studies which included specific product
categories in their study design. The literature selection process generated 69 choice set comparisons
across 8 scientific studies including over 14 000 individual observations which allow examining the
compromise effect in a broader view.


Compromise, Consumer, Context Effect, Decision-making.


Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review
and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2): Pages 333–358.
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., (2010). Statistical algorithms in Review Manager 5. Available at:
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis
of Context Effects in Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 189-200.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532-538.

Gui, Y., Kim, S., & Kim, J. (In Press). Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude
of compromise and decoy effects. Journal of Business Research.
Wu, P. H., Huang, M. C., & Wang, Y. S. (2015). Price Range Effect on Extremeness Aversion
and Compromise Effect. Universal Journal of Psychology, 3(5), 137-141.
Kim, J. (2017). The influence of graphical versus numerical information representation modes
on the compromise effect. Marketing Letters, 28(3), 397-409.
Kim, J., Spence, M. T., & Marshall, R. (2018). The Color of Choice: The Influence of Presenting
Product Information in Color on the Compromise Effect. Journal of Retailing, Elsevier,
94(2), 167-185.
Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise
Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-257.
Müller, H., Vogt, B. & Eike B. Kroll, E. B. (2012). To Be or Not to Be Price Conscious—a
Segment‐Based Analysis of Compromise Effects in Market‐Like Framings. Psychology &
Marketing, 29(2), 107-116.
Panwar, D., Anand, S., Farmaan Ali, F., & Kanika Singal, K. (2019). Consumer Decision Making
Process Models and their Applications to Market Strategy. International Management
Review, 15(1), 36-44.
Sheng, S., Parker, A. M., & Nakamoto, K. (2005). Understanding the Mechanism and Determinants
of Compromise Effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), 591–609.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness
Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295.
Thomadsen, R., Rooderkerk, R. P., Amir, O., Arora, N., Bollinger, B., Hansen, K., John, L.,
Liu, W., Sela, A., Singh, V., Sudhir, K. & Wood, W. (2018). How Context Affects Choice.
Customer Needs and Solutions, 5, 3–14.

Download full paper

Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans – UdEkoM Balkan
179 Ustanicka St, 11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

EMAN conference publications are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.