Why a Third Option Changes What You PickThe Decoy Effect 19 October 2026 · 7 min read · 51 reads
Marketing · Decisions · Pricing
Why a Third Option Changes What You Pick The Decoy Effect
Add one option few people want and the choice between the other two can shift. How the decoy effect works, where it fails, and how to use it fairly.
Imagine you run a small online course. You sell two plans. A cheap one with the basics, and a premium one with everything. Customers are split about evenly. Now you add a third plan that
Earn Embers for what you read
Sign in, answer a few quick questions about this piece, and earn Embers you can spend in the app.
nobody
really
wants.
Suddenly
more
people
pick
the
premium
one.
You did not change the premium plan. You did not lower its price. You only added an option that looks worse. This is called the decoy effect, and I wanted to know how strong it really is, and when it is fair to use.
What the decoy effect is
Wikipedia's page describes it as a decision effect where adding a third, unattractive option changes how people choose between the other two. It has other names: the attraction effect, or the asymmetric dominance effect. "Asymmetric" is the key word. The decoy is worse than one of the two main options on every point, but only partly worse than the other.
The page gives a phone example, which I will turn into my own simple version with made-up numbers. Suppose Phone A costs $400 and has 300GB of storage. Phone B costs $300 and has 200GB. People split between them: one wants the extra space, the other wants the lower price. Now add Phone C at $450 with 250GB. Compare C with A: it costs more and holds less. C is simply worse than A. But C is not clearly worse than B, because B has less space. So C makes A look good by comparison. A's share rises, even though nobody wants C.
The first paper on this idea is by Huber, Payne and Puto, published in 1982 in the Journal of Consumer Research. The title says it all: "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis." In plain words, they found that adding an option can change which of the old options people like, which standard theories of choice say should not happen.
How a three-tier price page uses it
You see three-tier pricing everywhere: Basic, Standard, Premium. Here is a made-up example, labelled illustrative.
- Basic: $10 a month, one user.
- Plus: $22 a month, one user and extra storage.
- Pro: $25 a month, five users and extra storage.
Plus is the decoy. For $3 more you get five users instead of one. Next to Plus, Pro looks like the obvious deal. And without Plus in the list, Basic and Pro look like a plain choice between "cheap" and "everything." The seller wanted Pro, so Plus was placed there to help.
I need to be careful, though. I am building this example myself. The page describes a well-known version from the book Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, with a subscription to The Economist and specific percentages. The page flags part of those numbers as needing a source, and I could not check them myself, so I am not repeating them. Treat that example as a classroom story until you have seen the data.
Higher price Pro (target)$25, five users, more storage
Plus (decoy)$22, one user, more storage
Basic$10, one user
More features Illustrative prices. The middle tier is the decoy.The limits: it does not always work
If this were a perfect trick, every store would use it perfectly. The research is more careful.
According to the page, the original authors themselves wrote in 2014 that the effect shows up only under certain conditions. The person must be nearly indifferent between the two main options. Both features must matter about equally. The decoy cannot be too unattractive. And the dominance, meaning that C is worse than A, must be easy to see.
Other researchers have pushed harder. The page lists papers by Yang and Lynn (2014) and by Frederick, Lee and Baskin (2014, titled "The Limits of Attraction") that challenge how robust and useful the effect is. The original authors also published a paper in that same issue. In 2017, Dimara, Bezerianos and Dragicevic found that the effect continued even when options were shown in charts such as scatter plots. So the effect shows up in many lab settings, and is less certain in real buying situations, such as when the options differ a lot in value.
My reading is simple. It is a nudge with real support, in the right conditions, and not a switch you flip.
The decoy effect is easier to resist once you can see the shape. When you meet a set of three options, I find these steps help.
Look for the option that is clearly worse than another option in the list. If one plan costs more than another and gives you less or the same, ask why it exists. It may be there for a good reason, such as a small group of customers who need it. Or it may be there to make a neighbour look good.
Then forget the decoy and compare the two real options on their own. Would you still choose the same one? If your answer changes when the third option disappears, the third option was steering you.
Finally, decide what you need before you look at the list. Write down the two or three things that matter most to you, such as price, space, number of users, or support. A person who knows their own needs is much harder to nudge, because they are not comparing options against each other. They are comparing options against a list of their own.
The page also notes that researchers sometimes measure the effect another way. Rather than counting choices, Crosetto and Gaudeul in 2016 looked at how much more people would pay for the target option than for its competitor. That is a useful reminder for sellers: the real question is not only "did more people choose it?" but "did they value it more?" And for buyers, it is a reminder that a nudge can change what you are willing to pay, not only what you choose.
The ethics: when does a nudge turn into a trick?
The page does not discuss ethics much; it only points to a BBC article called "The trick that makes you overspend." That title tells you how some people see it. So here are my own questions to ask before using a decoy.
Is the target honestly a good option? If Pro really is better value for the customer, a decoy only helps them see it. If Pro is a worse deal and the decoy hides that, you are manipulating.
Would you be comfortable explaining the page to the customer? Imagine saying, "We put this plan here so the next one looks better." If that makes you cringe, it is a warning sign.
Is there a real reason for the middle tier? A good tier exists because some customers truly want it. A decoy exists because nobody does. If you notice that nobody buys a plan, ask yourself if it is useful to anyone, or only there for show.
Does the customer have room to choose well? Clear prices and clear differences between plans protect them. Confusing names and hidden limits do the opposite.
I think the line is this: helping someone compare is fine. Steering someone toward something worse for them is not.
How to use the idea more kindly
You do not need to build a decoy to use what the research tells you. Three small ideas come from it.
First, people judge options by comparing them with each other, not in isolation. So the options you show shape how others feel about each one. Place your plans side by side with clear differences.
Second, a plan nobody picks is information. If the middle tier never sells, either remove it or make it useful.
Third, if you do test a decoy, measure the right thing. The page says it is usually measured by how often the target is chosen with and without the decoy. Do the same: run your page with and without the tier for a few weeks, and look at both sales and how happy customers are afterwards, such as refunds and cancellations.
One last point on honesty. The page reports doubts that the effect shows up in realistic buying situations, especially when the main options differ a lot in value. For a seller, that is a useful warning: if your plans are truly different, a decoy is unlikely to do much, and the effort is better spent explaining the real differences clearly. For a buyer, it is a reminder that the trick has limits, and clear information is the best defence.
What I take from this
It is easy to see a pricing page as just a list. After reading, I see it as a small piece of design where each option changes how the others look. I am trying to ask of any set of choices I make for other people: does each option have a real reason to exist, and would I be comfortable if the customer knew why it was there?
Try this week: Look at one pricing page, either yours or one you use. Cover the middle option with your hand and ask: would I choose differently? Then ask whether that middle option helps people or only helps the seller.
Sources
- Decoy effect (Wikipedia): definition, the Huber, Payne and Puto citation, conditions, critiques and replies named above. I read the summary only, not the original papers.
Record a 60-Second Founder Intro This WeekMarketing · Social Media · Storytelling
Comments
Sign up free, read the story and mark it finished to join the conversation.
Loading comments…