Compromise effect

When an option sits between two others, one cheaper and one more expensive, we tend to choose it.

What problem it addresses

It explains why adding a more expensive option can make the middle one sell more.

Cameras were offered to two groups. One got two models; the other, the same two plus a more expensive one.

Two cameras

The $240 one is chosen by 50%.

Three cameras

With a $470 one added, the $240 one rises to 57%.

The $240 camera was the same. Sitting in the middle, it looked like the most sensible choice.

We don’t know what each feature is worth, so we compare options with each other.
The extremes seem risky: one falls short and the other costs too much.
The middle option is easy to justify, to ourselves and to others.

Use it like this
Order plans so that the recommended option is the one that truly suits most people.
Avoid
Adding a very expensive option nobody wants just to make the middle one look reasonable.
Don’t fall for it
Look at each option on its own: would you choose it if there were no others beside it?

50% → 57%

People who chose the middle camera without and with the more expensive option (Simonson and Tversky, 1992).

Solid evidence. Simonson (1989) described it alongside the decoy effect: both show that what we choose depends on the other options.

1989
Itamar Simonson
Showed that we prefer the option that is easiest to justify.
1992
Itamar Simonson and Amos Tversky
Measured it with products such as cameras and called it extremeness aversion.

Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174. View source: Simonson, I. (1989)
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295. View source: Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992)

Last reviewed: October 25, 2026