People are tending to face countless choices in different categories every day. According to the view of economics, people should have always pick the alternative that they expected to have maximum benefits. However, in the real situation of market, the vary of context and the different object one is choosing for shows different outcomes.
This research is directed to determine whether the context effect, which included compromise effect and attraction effect, is greater for people choosing for others than choosing for themselves.
Furthermore, this research will discuss how the processing disfluent condition and retrieval disfluent condition moderate the relationship between choosing behavior for different individuals and context effect. Four hypotheses are proposed to test if the condition would fit the heuristic-systematic binary theory.

Babrow,Q3 A. S., Hines, S. C., & Kasch, C. R. (2000). Managing uncertainty in illness explanation: An application of problematic integration theory. In B. Whaley (Ed.), Explaining illness: Research, theory, and strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chang, C. C., & Liu, H.-H. (2008). Information format-option characteristics compatibility and the compromise effect. Psychology and Marketing, 25, 881-900.

Chang, C. J. (2013). Price or quality? The influence of fluency on the dual role of price. Marketing Letters, 24(4), 369-380.

Chuang, S. C., & Yen, H. R. (2007). The impact of a product’s country-of-origin on compromise and attraction effects. Marketing Letters, 18(4), 279-291.

Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189-200.

Kim, J. (2016). The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 387-401.

Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Extending compromise effect models to complex buying situations and other context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 262-268.

Lee, C. F., Chuang, S. C., Chiu, C. K., & Lan, K. H. (2017). The Influence of Task Difficulty on Context Effect-Compromise and Attraction Effects. Current Psychology, 36(3), 392-409.

Mao, W. (2016). When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 66-80.

Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of marketing research 44, 347-356.

Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 520-533.

Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of consumer research, 16(2), 158-174.

Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of marketing research, 29(3), 281.

Stone, E. R., Yates, A., & Caruthers, A. S. (2002). Risk taking in decision making for others versus the self. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1797–1824.

Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807–821.

Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.