Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 22, no. 4 (fall 2014), pp. 421–435. © 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com ISSN 1069–6679 (print) / ISSN 1944–7175 (online) DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679220405 Attraction effect is the phenomenon in which consum- ers express greater preference for a brand (target brand) to which they were previously indifferent (relative to its competitor) when a decoy brand uniformly inferior to the target brand (but not the competitor) is introduced into the choice set. Since the decoy brand is uniformly inferior to the target brand but not to the competitor brand, it high- lights the dominance of the target brand, and hence, more consumers are “attracted” to the target brand. Attraction effect is of enormous strategic importance, as it can be used to increase market shares of a target brand without making any changes to the target brand itself, by merely changing the composition of the choice set. The marketer merely needs to introduce a decoy brand into the choice set to get consumers to disproportionately choose the target brand over the competitor. In an online context, for example, where multiple brands are listed, the marketer could easily skew the choice toward one of the brands by placing a decoy within the choice set. Despite the importance of attraction effect, there is con- siderable debate with respect to the underlying motivation for consumers to choose the target brand disproportion- ately in the presence of a decoy brand. Some have argued that the target brand is chosen because it is the most easily justifiable brand (Hedgcock and Rao 2009; Malaviya and Sivakumar 2002), given its dominance over the decoy (Simonson 1989). We label this motivation the “ease of justification.” Others have argued that the target brand is chosen because it is perceived to be the best brand, and this decision is reached at the end of a careful, deliberative process (Bhargava, Kim, and Srivastava 2000; Park and Kim 2005). We label this motivation to seek the best option as “overall attractiveness.” Still others have argued that both motivations are responsible for the attraction effect and that they coexist side by side (e.g., Pettibone and Wedell 2000; Wedell and Pettibone 1996). In our paper, we assert that this apparent conflict in the attraction literature as to which motivation underlies attraction effect disappears when one considers the self- regulatory state of the individual. Self-regulation focus or goal orientation theory (Higgins 1998) posits two possible goal orientations, namely, promotion focus and prevention focus. Individuals in the promotion-focus state seek to maxi- mize gains, whereas individuals in the prevention-focus state seek to minimize losses. We contend that the conflict as to which motivation underlies attraction effect can be resolved considerably by associating the motivation of “ease of justification” with individuals in a promotion-focus mode and that of “overall attractiveness” with individuals in one that is prevention focused. Thus, the goal orientation of the individual determines which of the two motivations Ali Besharat (Ph.D., University of South Florida), Assistant Pro- fessor of Marketing, Daniels College of Business, University of Denver, Denver, CO, Ali.Besharat@du.edu. Sajeev Varki (Ph.D., Vanderbilt University), Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, svarki@usf.edu. EXAMINING HOW SELF-REGULATION DETERMINES CHOICE-PROCESSING STRATEGIES AND MOTIVATIONS UNDERLYING ATTRACTION EFFECT Ali Besharat and Sajeev Varki Attraction effect is observed when consumers, who are indifferent regarding two brands, disproportion- ately choose one alternative (the “target”) over the other (the “competitor”) when a decoy brand, uni- formly inferior to the target but not the competitor, is introduced into the choice set. While this effect is widely known and replicated, there is less clarity as to the mechanisms underlying the attraction effect. In this paper, we explore both the motivation (i.e., why people process choice information the way they do) and the choice-processing strategy (i.e., how people process choice information) underpinning the phenomenon of attraction effect. Our results indicate that in the case of promotion-focused individuals, the desire for a choice that can be easily justified (ease of justification) influences the attraction effect, whereas for prevention-focused individuals, the desire for a choice that maximizes overall utility (overall attractiveness) influences the same effect. Furthermore, promotion-focused people rely on lexicographic- processing strategy, whereas prevention-focused individuals use an equal-weight processing strategy as a means of demonstrating their motivations.