Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings

Numerous empirical studies have confirmed the existence of the compromise effect, which stipulates that options positioned between extreme alternatives in a product space are perceived as more attractive, hence becoming more likely to be chosen by consumers. However, literature on the topic frequently addresses the limited realism of prior work due to the artificial designs that were used. In a laboratory-based replication study, we examine the compromise effect across several categories in a more market-like scenario, in which experienced consumers make unforced decisions between real brands. In particular, we investigate whether the compromise effect varies in strength across the choice settings, depending on whether a hypothetical choice setting or a binding setting (in which subjects face buying obligations in terms of real payments for products) has been applied. While our results prove the robustness of the compromise effect for both choice frames, its strength differs significantly. Specifically, the compromise effect is evidently not as strong when real payments are introduced in binding choice settings. In addition, analysis of moderating factors confirms that compromise effects are stronger for categories where subjects are more in agreement about the relative quality of the options.