Social inferences from choice context: Dominated options can engender distrust

Abstract

The details of a decision context — including the set of alternatives being offered — can considerably influence the judgments and choices that people make. For instance, people’s decisions are often influenced by the presence of a dominated option (one that is objectively inferior to one of the alternatives) in a choice set. In studying such “context effects,” previous research has focused on how the composition of a choice set affects people’s choices and the way they attend to options and weigh attributes. We take a complementary approach. Here, we propose that the composition of a choice set may be interpreted as signaling information about the choice architect who curated the choice set. Further, we hypothesize that these social inferences can systematically influence decisions. Across seven experiments (N = 3328) using vignette studies and incentive-compatible economic games, we focus on one example of this more general phenomenon, showing that the inclusion of a dominated option can engender distrust in the choice architect. This distrust in turn leads to greater preference for other choice providers. By investigating the social implications of dominated options, we uncover novel psychological and behavioral consequences of choice set composition. We close by considering broader theoretical and practical implications regarding social inferences from choice context.