The Decoy Effect is a cognitive bias where people shift their preference between two options when presented with a third option – a decoy – that is asymmetrically dominated. The decoy is not intended to be chosen; it exists to make one of the original options appear more attractive.
Picture yourself at a local bakery, craving a sweet treat but watching your calorie intake. Two options catch your eye: a decadent chocolate cake and a healthy fruit tart. Then a third option appears – a massive blueberry muffin piled high with sugary streusel. This is the decoy. While it might not be your ideal choice, it makes the fruit tart suddenly seem sensible compared to the muffin’s overwhelming richness. 
The same principle applies in digital products. A music streaming service offers three tiers: free with ads, premium with ad-free listening, and “premium plus” with hi-fi audio and exclusive content. For most users, premium plus is excessive – but its presence positions the standard premium plan as the reasonable middle ground, nudging users away from the free tier and toward the subscription that aligns with the service’s business goals.
The study
Ariely (2008) tested the Decoy Effect using subscriptions to The Economist magazine. Participants saw three options: web-only for $59, print-only for $125, and a web-and-print combination for $125. The print-only option served as the decoy – priced the same as the combination but offering less. This setup dramatically shifted preference toward the combination option, despite the web-only being the most economical. The experiment demonstrates how adding a strategically inferior option can steer people toward a more expensive item that otherwise might not have been their first choice.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins.
The Decoy Effect hinges on a fundamental principle: we evaluate options relative to one another, not in isolation. Adding an option that is inferior in key aspects but similar to the target makes the target look more appealing. Three mechanisms drive this:
-
Asymmetric dominance
We find decisions easier when we can clearly justify them. A decoy that is similar but inferior to the target provides that justification – the target visibly outperforms it, making the choice feel obvious and rational (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982). -
Context-dependent choice
The addition of a decoy alters the decision context. It shifts preference toward the target by providing a clear rationale for the decision – reducing complexity and increasing confidence in the choice. -
Reference point manipulation
According to Loss Aversion theory, losing $10 feels worse than gaining $10 feels good. The decoy establishes a new reference point, changing what counts as a “loss” and a “gain.” The target option appears to offer gains relative to the decoy, while the competitor appears to involve trade-offs – making the target the safer-feeling choice.
Designing products with the Decoy Effect
By being strategic about how you present options, you can nudge users toward preferred choices while enhancing perceived value.
-
Understand your audience first
Before crafting a decoy, identify your target audience’s preferences and pain points. A decoy only works when it highlights attributes the audience already cares about. -
Make the decoy comparable but clearly inferior
An effective decoy seems comparable to the target, facilitating easy comparison, yet falls short in crucial aspects. A subscription decoy might be priced close to the premium option but with noticeably fewer features – positioning the premium as the obvious choice. -
Limit the total number of options
While the decoy adds a layer of complexity, aim for overall simplicity. Ideally, limit choices to three: a target, a competitor, and the decoy. More options trigger decision overload (Chernev, Böckenholt, & Goodman, 2015), undermining the decoy’s clarity. -
Make comparison effortless
Use straightforward language and visual aids like comparison charts to ensure users understand the distinctions between options. Transparent comparison builds trust and lets the decoy do its work naturally. -
Get the dominance structure right
The target must outperform the decoy on all key attributes (better on both A and B), while the competitor beats the decoy on some but not all (better on A, worse on B). This asymmetric dominance is what makes the target feel like the clearly superior option.
Ethical recommendations
The Decoy Effect can erode trust when misused. A poorly designed decoy – excessively inferior or oddly priced – signals manipulation rather than guidance. A decoy priced far above the target can make the target seem artificially cheap, leading to suspicion rather than confidence. And a decoy that feels inauthentic can backfire entirely, damaging long-term brand relationships.
-
Be transparent
Clearly communicate the differences between options. Present all choices objectively to help customers make informed decisions. -
Price fairly
Ensure pricing reflects genuine value. Avoid setting unrealistic prices for decoys to artificially inflate the appeal of the target option. -
Ensure every option offers real value
Design decoys that hold genuine value. No matter the choice, the customer should gain a positive outcome – not feel tricked into a suboptimal one. -
Avoid exploiting biases
The goal is to facilitate better decision-making, not to capitalize on psychological vulnerabilities. A decoy should simplify choice, not pressure users into decisions that don’t align with their actual needs.
Real life Decoy Effect examples
iPhone pricing
Apple often uses the Decoy Effect in its pricing strategy by presenting older models at slightly reduced prices alongside newer, slightly more expensive models with significantly better features. This setup encourages customers to opt for the newer model, perceiving it as better value for a small price increase.
Movie Theater Concessions
Cinemas commonly use the Decoy Effect in their pricing of snack sizes. By pricing a small popcorn close to a medium but with significantly less popcorn, customers are more likely to buy the medium size, seeing it as a better deal.
Economist
One of the most cited examples of the Decoy Effect is the Economist magazine’s subscription model. They offered three subscriptions: web only, print only, and a combination of web and print. The print-only option was priced the same as the combination option, making the combination appear more valuable and increasing its sales.
Trigger Questions
- What is the target option we want users to choose?
- What are the key attributes users value in our product/service?
- Can we create a decoy option slightly inferior on these attributes?
- How can we visually distinguish the decoy without overpowering the target?
- Is the decoy priced strategically to nudge users towards the target?
- Does the overall choice architecture remain clear and transparent?
- Are our decoy options clearly inferior to the target choice but still plausible as a viable choice?
- Do we provide enough value in the preferred option to justify its cost compared to the decoy?
- How do we ensure that the introduction of a decoy does not complicate the decision-making process unnecessarily?
- Are we maintaining ethical standards by ensuring the decoy adds real choice and does not exploit customer biases?
Pairings
Decoy Effect + Anchoring Bias
The Anchoring Bias occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. Pairing the Decoy Effect with Anchoring Bias can lead customers to perceive the anchor as a better deal, especially when the decoy makes the anchor appear more reasonable in price or value.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We tend to rely too heavily on the first information presented
Decoy Effect + Framing Effect
By presenting choices in a way that highlights the positive attributes of the target option compared to the decoy, the framing effect can manipulate the context to make one option seem more beneficial than another. This enhances the effectiveness of the Decoy Effect by shaping perception through positive framing.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
The way a fact is presented greatly alters our judgment and decisions
Decoy Effect + Scarcity Bias
Introducing a decoy as a limited-time offer can make the target option seem more desirable due to its availability. This exploits the scarcity bias, where people place higher value on products that are perceived as scarce or in limited supply.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We value something more when it is in short supply
Decoy Effect + Loss Aversion
Loss Aversion suggests that people prefer to avoid losses rather than acquiring equivalent gains. When a decoy option underscores what could be lost by not choosing the superior option, it leverages loss aversion to push customers towards the target choice.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
Our fear of losing motivates us more than the prospect of gaining
Decoy Effect + Endowment Effect + IKEA Effect
The Endowment Effect occurs when individuals value an item more highly simply because they own it. By allowing customers to customize or partly create a product (triggering the IKEA Effect), and positioning a decoy that enhances the value of their creation, companies can deepen the customer’s attachment to the chosen product.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We value objects more once we feel we own them
We place a disproportionately high value on products we helped create
Decoy Effect + Social Proof
Imagine an e-commerce site showcasing a new phone with three options: basic, standard (target), and premium. The “standard” option boasts positive user reviews alongside a strategically priced decoy with slightly lower specs and no reviews. This taps into social proof (positive reviews) while the decoy subtly positions the standard option as the more trustworthy choice.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We assume the actions of others in new or unfamiliar situations
Decoy Effect + Reciprocity
In the context of the Decoy Effect, offering a small concession or bonus with the target product can be perceived as a reciprocal gesture, encouraging customers to choose it over the decoy. For instance, providing free shipping or a small gift with the purchase of the target option enhances its attractiveness.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We feel obliged to give when we receive
Decoy Effect + Default Effect
Often, people will stick with pre-selected options. Pairing the Decoy Effect with setting the target option as the default choice can subtly nudge consumers towards it. Since the decoy is easily discarded, the default setting further simplifies the decision-making process, steering preferences towards the target.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We are more likely to choose a pre-selected option
Decoy Effect + Limited Choice
A restaurant offers three meal sizes: small, medium (target), and large. The “medium” option is the most popular and profitable. The decoy could be a “Snack” size, appealing to those with smaller appetites. By limiting choices to three and introducing the “Snack” option, users are more likely to perceive the “medium” size as the standard and most logical choice.
Create a new option that is easy to discard
We are more likely to make a decision with fewer options to choose from
Decoy Effect is one of the cards in this deck
Get this pattern in Persuasive Patterns: Conversions & Decisions.Use physical cards to explore ways to reduce friction and help users make decisions.
$129 · Printed deck + digital edition
Get your deck!- Decoy Effect by The Decision Lab at The Decision Lab
- Decoy effect by Wikipedia contributors at Wikipedia (en)
- Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins.
- Iyengar, S. S., & Schwartz, B. (2004). How choice affects and limits satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 349-370.
- Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding options: Decoy effects in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-96.
- Roebuck, M., Bechara, A., & Lakshmanan, R. (2016). Decoy effects and the brain: Alleviating decision conflict through attribute-based processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 202-213.
- Doyle, J. R., & O'Connor, D. J. (1999). The effect of the Decoy Effect on preferences between models. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 299-308.
- Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Changing preferences through the Decoy Effect: The role of inconsistency and trade-off contrasts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 588-600.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
- Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press.
- Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn & Bacon.
- Hiebert, P. (2014, December 18). The paradox of choice, 10 years later. Pacific Standard.
- Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358.
- Bateman, I. J., Munro, A., & Poe, G. L. (2008). Decoy effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation: Asymmetric dominance. Land Economics, 84(1), 115-127.
- Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
- Slaughter, J. E., Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2006). Context effects on group-based employee selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 47-59.
- Stoffel, S. T., Yang, J., Vlaev, I., & von Wagner, C. (2019). Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0213668.