Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 29:10:941936.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.941936. eCollection 2022.

Consumers' decoy effect when purchasing pork with traceability technologies

Affiliations

Consumers' decoy effect when purchasing pork with traceability technologies

Mo Chen et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Despite government investment, policy guidance, and publicity, it has been difficult to establish a traceable food market in China over the past 2 decades. Once a food safety problem occurs, it is difficult to implement effective traceability, recall, and accountability along the food supply chain. How to use the decoy effect to promote the development of China traceable food market? As bounded rationality, a decoy effect exists when adding an alternative to a choice set increases the chance an existing alternative to be chosen. However, few studies have examined the decoy effect in food purchases. Based on consumers in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China, we show the decoy effect in traceable pork hindquarter purchases and that the effects differ across product quality and price attributes. The effects are heterogeneous across consumers and are less likely to occur among those who had a personal annual income of more than 50,000 yuan (USD $7,000), were married, and had minor children in the family. These findings have implications on leveraging the influence of the decoy effect on consumer behavior and facilitating the construction of food traceability systems.

Keywords: decoy effect; food safety; individual characteristics; negative binomial count regression; traceable pork.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Decoy effect from the perspective of loss aversion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
QR code for traceable pork hindquarters.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Decoy effect in types 1 and 2 traceable pork.

Similar articles

References

    1. Gintis H. The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of Bahavion Scineces. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press; (2009). p. 116.
    1. Heath TB, Chatterjee S. Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: meta-analytic and experimental evidence. J Consumer Res. (1995) 3:268–84. 10.1086/209449 - DOI
    1. Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consumer Res. (1982) 9:90–8. 10.1086/208899 - DOI
    1. Prelec D, Birger W, Florian Z. The role of inference in context effects: inferring what you want from what is available. J Consumer Res. (1997) 24:118–25. 10.1086/209498 - DOI
    1. Gonzalez PD, Sallan JM, Simo P, Carrion R. Effects of the addition of simple and double decoys on the purchasing process of airline tickets. J Air Transport Manag. (2013) 29:39–45. 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2013.02.002 - DOI

Publication types