What you're looking to do is introduce response bias in your questioning. It'll get your results rejected from a scientific journal, and it's a very common tactic in partisan polling.
Now, there is a lot of research - specifically if you're looking to push a specific price point.
For pricing, there are two supported ideas.
The first is that potential purchasers with no information will have a higher average price, but a lower maximum price. By providing three options (instead of two), you're essentially pushing for the middle one with users that have no comparison (or with a unique product that has no direct alternative).
The second idea is that we will frame our decision based on the nearest alternative. Again with three options, we'll generally choose the "better" of the options if we can "chunk" them mentally into 2-similar options vs. 1 different option. In other words, if you're offering 3 options:
Option 1: Cheese (Mozzarella)
Option 2: Cheese (Cheddar)
Option 3: Apples
... then users will select their preferred cheese (2 options, selecting the "better" one), no matter how they feel about fruit (unless they're anti-cheese).
Now, that won't help if you're set on two options - unless you're willing to play with the sentence leading up to the options (which is what you'd like to do).
For non-pricing examples, you'll present both options, but give additional depth to one of them. With the Cheese / Fruit example, you'd say something like:
"Please select from the following two options, Fruit or Cheese. Remember: Your choice is for generalities, not specifics. Fruit should be evaluated as a whole, and cheese should not be evaluated as if it was a competition between cheddar and mozzarella."
There's no obvious bias involved - you're explaining the positive option with fruit, and the negative option with cheese. Involving additional choices though, for one of the options (even in what appears to be a negative option), you're actually providing more cognitive wiggle room. You're increasing the cognitive space allocated to cheese, and improving that selection.
The easiest way to explain this to others is to say "Do you like options, or no?". Everyone likes options (just not too many - and that's a different discussion) - so increasing the options available, even when it's not a true option, should get your results the way you want them.