Let's say you are in a cafe and you want to buy a coffee. There are three options: small, medium and large glass size. The medium size costs almost as much as the large one. An obvious opportunity arises before your eyes.
Have you ever made the most expensive choice with the largest glass - even though you may not intend to drink that much coffee?
If so, you're not the only one who 's stuck with a marketing ploy - and an interesting aspect of it psychology -according to which the deliberate presentation of a less attractive option -in this case the middle cup of coffee- pushes you to pay more money than you would have initially chosen.
"If you put options in a specific context, you can push people towards more expensive products" explains Linda Chang, a psychologist at Harvard University, to the BBC.
This trick, the so-called "decoy effect", was first explored as a possible marketing strategy to influence consumer behaviors like the one in the cafeteria. Recent research, however, suggests that it may have an impact on other sectors, including politics. It shows how easily our crisis "plays" depending on the context in which the events are presented.
Knowing how this "trick" works, one is less likely to be influenced by this unconscious influence but may also discover ways to use it as a tool of persuasion.
The trick was first recorded in the 80s, according to the BBC, and works as follows:
Suppose someone has to choose a flight from the following:
The researchers found that most would choose Flight A, which is cheaper than Flight C and more expensive than Flight B but with less waiting at the stopover.
Here is a different set of flights:
In this scenario, the most common option is flight B.
Quite logically, this change of attitude does not make sense. Flight B should not be more attractive now than in the first example, since both the waiting time and the price are exactly the same. However, the change in flight C - which has a longer waiting time - changes the way those concerned consider the other possibilities. And so now they prefer to wait for so long -150 minutes in both examples- for a lower price.
In each example, Flight C - the "barker" - was designed to look similar but be less attractive than one of the other options, the target option. And it is precisely this comparison that reinforces how desirable the target flight is. Experiments studying options like these have found that using a well-designed "barker", as in the example, can change the decision between the other two options by as much as 40%, which shows how easily our decisions can be changed. depending on the context in which we are called to decide.
As the first example shows, such a "barker" can make the consumer pay more money - hence the interest of his industry. marketing.
In the circles of psychologists, the discussion about the exact reasons for this behavior is still ongoing. One idea, however, is that the comparison with the "barker" option offers a rationale for an otherwise seemingly arbitrary choice. If you only compare flights A and B it is difficult to estimate the waiting time - how much money is really an extra 90 minute wait? But when one option is clearly better than the "barker" option - flight C - then there is an explanation to substantiate one's preference.
These patterns of behavior have been observed in many different kinds of goods, from beers to televisions and from cars to homes. The unattractive third option changes the way people choose between the other two.
In his book Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely describes how the Economist uses such a set of options to encourage his readers to choose the most expensive subscription package. A subscription to the digital edition of the magazine cost just $ 59, a subscription to the print edition $ 125 and the third option, which combines both editions, also costs $ 125.
The second option, that of subscription only to the printed version, is obviously the "barker", since it offers less than the third package at the same price. But Ariely found that her mere presence as an option increases the choice of the combination of versions in relation to the subscription only to the digital version. When only the first two options were presented, readers were 52% more likely to choose the cheapest online reading of the magazine, compared to the presentation of all three odds. In other words, he is the "barker" who made the difference.
This pattern of behavior also applies to extreme goods and luxury items, as the pattern of behavior seems to move along the same axes. A recent publication from the University of British Columbia documented the effect of the "barker" trick on the market diamonds! As he found, the presence of slightly inferior but just as much products contributed more than 20% to the profits of traders.
But not everyone is equally prone to such choices. As has been reported in other research on cognitive behavior, researchers have found that the way one thinks plays a role. Questionnaires, for example, can record whether some people "listen" more to their instinct and emotion or whether they are more detailed and prefer more reasoned reasoning. According to research findings, those who take more into account their instinct are more likely to be "seduced" by such a trick.
An interesting fact is that in this process can also play a role hormonesHigher testosterone levels, for example, tend to make people more impulsive, which means they are more "vulnerable" to such tricks. This trick also has a bigger "pass" when it comes to making a group decision.
Scientists have also explored this "trick" in different contexts, regardless of consumer behavior. Ariely, for example, found that he could even show up on dates. According to his research, we are more likely to like someone if there is a "barker" next to him, who looks like the first but is slightly less attractive. This is worth keeping in mind when browsing profiles on Tinder, for example. The perception of how attractive someone is depends on who you saw before or after that person.
In the same way it seems to affect the way we vote (although some elements of our electoral behavior will always seem inexplicable, no matter how much research is done…) but also the way companies select staff. In these cases, the "barker" may appear by chance and not be deliberately placed between the options. However, if the person concerned examines two candidates with great similarities, but one of whom is slightly superior to the other, this will put him in the eyes of the one he chooses in comparison with other candidates.
Chang, who has been researching how this "third choice" works in the recruitment process, wonders if this could be a specific factor as algorithms begin scanning candidates and presenting choices to those who have to make the choice. . "You can present options - barkers and thus essentially push the person closer to some options," he says. It's not just people who choose staff who can be influenced: Recent experiments have shown that the same way a person can be influenced employee evaluates the benefits of potential workplaces.
On a more positive note, British scientists have begun to consider whether this trick can be used to encourage people to make choices that are more beneficial to their health.
Christian Von Wagner, a behavioral science and health researcher at University College London, for example, studied people's intention to undergo a major - but unpleasant - screening for colorectal cancer. He found that if those interested had to choose between arranging an appointment for the examination or not doing it at all, most chose to ignore it. But if they had a third option - an appointment at a less convenient hospital and with a longer wait (here's the "barker" - then more people would skip the first option.
As has been seen in the other examples, this has nothing to do with people choosing the "barker". His presence simply made the first choice less "difficult".
Von Wagner also offered women the option of being examined by a doctor of the same sex or the opposite sex - the barker again, and found that his presence increased their intention to undergo the examination. In this case, this trick can save lives.
With all of the above in mind, one can become a little more careful in his decisions, whether it has to do with the headphones he buys to listen to music or with the insurance coverage package he chooses. It is worthwhile to wonder if he is really making a choice that he needs or wants, with the characteristics he was initially looking for, or if he was distracted by a less attractive choice that came into play. And to be able to observe as a third party how much clearer things look afterwards.