Watch on YouTube
Premieres 30 October 2026 at 6pm UK time
Who's Tricking You? · Episode 12
Why the Medium Size Always Looks Smart
Some options on a menu exist only to make another one look like a bargain. The Old Fox explains the decoy effect, from a 1982 study to a famous magazine offer, and why later research says it's weaker in real life. Tip: cover one option with your thumb and see if you still want it.
- The 'decoy effect' was first reported in 1982: adding an option that is clearly worse than one product made that product more likely to be chosen (Huber, Payne & Puto, 'Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives', Journal of Consumer Research, 1982).
- In his book Predictably Irrational (2008), behavioural economist Dan Ariely described a magazine offering web-only for $59, print-only for $125 and print-and-web for $125; in his test with students, most chose print-and-web, but when the print-only option was removed most chose web-only.
- Later research found the decoy effect is often weaker when products are described realistically, though the original authors argue it is real under the right conditions (Frederick, Lee & Baskin, 'The Limits of Attraction', Journal of Marketing Research, 2014; Huber, Payne & Puto, Journal of Marketing Research, 2014).
🌐 https://theoldfoxtalks.com
Watch on YouTube Follow on TikTok
Share this story
What the fox said
Why does the medium size always look like the smart choice?
Because someone put a silly option on the menu. On purpose.
It's called a decoy. An option nobody is meant to buy. Its only job is making another look good.
In 1982, three American researchers showed it in the lab. Add a choice that's plainly worse than one option, and that option gets more popular.
A best-selling book later described a magazine offer. Web only, fifty-nine dollars. Print only, a hundred and twenty-five. Print and web, also a hundred and twenty-five.
Nobody wants print only. But it makes print and web look like a free gift.
Students mostly picked the bundle. Remove the silly option, and most picked the cheap one.
You'll see the same shape everywhere. A small coffee, a large, and a medium priced just below the large.
The large suddenly looks like a bargain. Which was the plan.
To be fair, later studies found it's often weaker in real life. But it costs nothing to try.
So cover one option with your thumb. Would you still want this, if that choice wasn't there?
If one option looks too silly to buy, ask who it's really for. Keep your nose to the wind.
Sources
- The 'decoy effect' was first reported in 1982: adding an option that is clearly worse than one product made that product more likely to be chosen (Huber, Payne & Puto, 'Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives', Journal of Consumer Research, 1982).
- In his book Predictably Irrational (2008), behavioural economist Dan Ariely described a magazine offering web-only for $59, print-only for $125 and print-and-web for $125; in his test with students, most chose print-and-web, but when the print-only option was removed most chose web-only.
- Later research found the decoy effect is often weaker when products are described realistically, though the original authors argue it is real under the right conditions (Frederick, Lee & Baskin, 'The Limits of Attraction', Journal of Marketing Research, 2014; Huber, Payne & Puto, Journal of Marketing Research, 2014).
Spotted a mistake? Tell us in the YouTube comments and we'll correct it.