Consumer choice deferral contributes to the low conversion rate in online retailing. This article investigates the impact of visual product frames on consumers’ decisions regarding choice deferral. The authors show that using visual frames to separate options in a product assortment increases consumers’ relative use of the by-alternative (vs. by-attribute) approach for option comparisons, which induces greater perception of assortment variety and subsequently decreases choice-deferral rate. Through seven preregistered studies (including an eye-tracking study and a field experiment), the authors obtain convergent empirical evidence for these proposed effects and suggest actionable guidelines for online retailers regarding how to best design their product displays to encourage sales.
AggarwalPankajMcGillAnn L. (2007), “Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 468–79.
2.
AlbaJoseph W.HutchinsonJ. Wesley (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 411–54.
3.
BiswasAbhijitSherrellDaniel L. (1993), “The Influence of Product Knowledge and Brand Name on Internal Price Standards and Confidence,” Psychology & Marketing, 10 (1), 31–46.
4.
BroniarczykSusan M.HoyerWayne D.McAlisterLeigh (1998), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (2), 166–76.
5.
CheemaAmarSomanDilip (2008), “The Effect of Partitions on Controlling Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 665–75.
6.
ChernevAlexander (2003), “When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 170–83.
7.
ChernevAlexander (2005a), “Context Effects Without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 213–23.
8.
ChernevAlexander (2005b), “Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 748–59.
9.
ChernevAlexanderBöckenholtUlfGoodmanJoseph (2015), “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333–58.
10.
ChernevAlexanderHamiltonRyan (2009), “Assortment Size and Option Attractiveness in Consumer Choice among Retailers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (3), 410–20.
11.
CutrightKeisha M. (2012), “The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 775–90.
12.
DengXiaoyanKahnBarbara E.UnnavaH. RaoLeeHyojin (2016), “A ‘Wide’ Variety: Effects of Horizontal Versus Vertical Display on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 682–98.
13.
DharRavi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 215–31.
14.
DharRaviNowlisStephen M. (1999), “The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (4), 369–84.
15.
DharRaviSimonsonItamar (2003), “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (2), 146–60.
16.
EtkinJordanGhoshAnastasiya Pocheptsova (2018), “When Being in a Positive Mood Increases Choice Deferral,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (1), 208–25.
17.
FajardoTatiana M.ZhangJiaoTsirosMichael (2016), “The Contingent Nature of the Symbolic Associations of Visual Design Elements: The Case of Brand Logo Frames,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (4), 549–66.
18.
GoodmanJoseph K.MalkocSelin A. (2012), “Choosing Here and Now Versus There and Later: The Moderating Role of Psychological Distance on Assortment Size Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 751–68.
19.
GreenleafEric A.LehmannDonald R. (1995), “Reasons for Substantial Delay in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (2), 186–99.
HagtvedtHenrikBraselS. Adam (2017), “Color Saturation Increases Perceived Product Size,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 396–413.
22.
HayesAndrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.
23.
HochStephen J.BradlowEric T.WansinkBrian (1999), “The Variety of an Assortment,” Marketing Science, 18 (4), 527–46.
24.
HolbrookMorris B.MooreWilliam L. (1981), “Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (1), 103–13.
25.
HuangYunhuiLimKai H.LinZhijieHanShunping (2019), “Large Online Product Catalog Space Indicates High Store Price: Understanding Customers’ Overgeneralization and Illogical Inference,” Information Systems Research, 30 (3), 963–79.
26.
HuangFeifeiWongVincent ChiWanEcho Wen (2019), “The Influence of Product Anthropomorphism on Comparative Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (5), 936–55.
27.
IyengarSheena S.LepperMark R. (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995–1006.
28.
JiaJayson ShiShivBabaRaoSanjay (2014), “The Product-Agnosia Effect: How More Visual Impressions Affect Product Distinctiveness in Comparative Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 342–60.
29.
JiangZhenhuiBenbasatIzak (2007), “Research Note—Investigating the Influence of the Functional Mechanisms of Online Product Presentations,” Information Systems Research, 18 (4), 454–70.
30.
JiangYuweiGornGerald J.GalliMariaChattopadhyayAmitava (2015), “Does Your Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why Circular- and Angular-Logo Shapes Influence Brand Attribute Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 709–26.
31.
KahnBarbara E. (1998), “Dynamic Relationships with Customers: High-Variety Strategies,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (1), 45–53.
32.
KahnBarbaraMooreWilliam L.GlazerRashi (1987), “Experiments in Constrained Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (1), 96–113.
33.
KahnBarbara E.WansinkBrian (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 519–33.
34.
KetronSeth (2018), “Perceived Product Sizes in Visually Complex Environments,” Journal of Retailing, 94 (2), 154–66.
35.
KimJongminNovemskyNathanDharRavi (2013), “Adding Small Differences Can Increase Similarity and Choice,” Psychological Science, 24 (2), 225–29.
36.
LandwehrJan R.McGillAnn L.HerrmannAndreas (2011), “It’s Got the Look: The Effect of Friendly and Aggressive ‘Facial’ Expressions on Product Liking and Sales,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (3), 132–46.
37.
LeeAngela Y.KellerPunam AnandSternthalBrian (2010), “Value from Regulatory Construal fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit Between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 735–47.
38.
LevavJonathanKivetzRanChoCecile K. (2010), “Motivational Compatibility and Choice Conflict,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 429–42.
39.
LichtersMarcelBrunnliebClaudiaNaveGideonSarstedtMarkoVogtBodo (2016), “The Influence of Serotonin Deficiency on Choice Deferral and the Compromise Effect,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (2), 183–98.
40.
LiuYangJiangZhenhuiChanHock Chuan (2019), “Touching Products Virtually: Facilitating Consumer Mental Imagery with Gesture Control and Visual Presentation,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 36 (3), 823–54.
41.
LohseGerald L. (1997), “Consumer eye Movement Patterns on Yellow Pages Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (1), 61–73.
42.
MaheswaranDurairajSternthalBrian (1990), “The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation, and Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 66–73.
43.
McGillAnn L.AnandPunam (1989), “The Effect of Imagery on Information Processing Strategy in a Multiattribute Choice Task,” Marketing Letters, 1 (1), 7–16.
MishraArulMishraHimanshu (2010), “Border Bias: The Belief That State Borders Can Protect Against Disasters,” Psychological Science, 21 (11), 1582–86.
46.
MogilnerCassieRudnickTamarIyengarSheena S. (2008), “The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers’ Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 202–15.
47.
MouraliMehdiYangZhiyongPonsFrankHassayDerek (2018), “Consumer Power and Choice Deferral: The Role of Anticipated Regret,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35 (1), 81–99.
OppenheimerDaniel M.MeyvisTomDavidenkoNicolas (2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72.
50.
PaasLeonard J.DolnicarSaraKarlssonLogi (2018), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: A Longitudinal Analysis with Implications for MTurk,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35 (2), 258–69.
51.
PalinkasLawrence A. (2003), “The Psychology of Isolated and Confined Environments: Understanding Human Behavior in Antarctica,” American Psychologist, 58 (2), 353–63.
52.
PayneJohn W.BettmanJames R.JohnsonEric J. (1988), “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (3), 534–52.
53.
PfeifferJellaPfeifferThiesMeißnerMartinWeißElisa (2020), “Eye-Tracking-Based Classification of Information Search Behavior Using Machine Learning: Evidence from Experiments in Physical Shops and Virtual Reality Shopping Environments,” Information Systems Research, 31 (3), 675–91.
54.
PinnaBaingio (2012), “Perceptual Organization of Shape, Color, Shade, and Lighting in Visual and Pictorial Objects,” i-Perception, 3 (5), 257–81.
55.
SchenkmanBo N.JönssonFredrik U. (2000), “Aesthetics and Preferences of Web Pages,” Behaviour & Information Technology, 19 (5), 367–77.
56.
SenSankar (1998), “Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1), 64–77.
57.
SenSankarJohnsonEric J. (1997), “Mere-Possession Effects Without Possession in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 105–17.
SethuramanRajGázquez-AbadJuan CarlosMartínez-LópezFrancisco J. (2022), “The Effect of Retail Assortment Size on Perceptions, Choice, and Sales: Review and Research Directions,” Journal of Retailing, 98 (1), 24–45.
60.
SevillaJulioTownsendClaudia (2016), “The Space-to-Product Ratio Effect: How Interstitial Space Influences Product Aesthetic Appeal, Store Perceptions, and Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 665–81.
61.
ShuganSteven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2), 99–111.
62.
SimmonsJoseph P.NelsonLeif D.SimonsohnUri (2011), “False-positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” Psychological Science, 22 (11), 1359–66.
63.
SujanMitaBettmanJames R. (1989), “The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (4), 454–67.
64.
ThorndykePerry W. (1981), “Distance Estimation from Cognitive Maps,” Cognitive Psychology, 13 (4), 526–50.
65.
TownsendClaudiaKahnBarbara E. (2014), “The ‘Visual Preference Heuristic’: The Influence of Visual Versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 993–1015.
66.
TverskyAmos (1977), “Features of Similarity,” Psychological Review, 84 (4), 327–52.
67.
TverskyAmosShafirEldar (1992), “Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,” Psychological Science, 3 (6), 358–61.
68.
ValenzuelaAnaDharRaviZettelmeyerFlorian (2009), “Contingent Response to Self-Customization Procedures: Implications for Decision Satisfaction and Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 754–63.
69.
Van HerpenEricaPietersRik (2002), “The Variety of an Assortment: An Extension to the Attribute-Based Approach,” Marketing Science, 21 (3), 331–41.
70.
VeryzerRobert W., Jr.,HutchinsonJ. Wesley (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374–94.
71.
WangYong JianMinorMichael S.WeiJie (2011), “Aesthetics and the Online Shopping Environment: Understanding Consumer Responses,” Journal of Retailing, 87 (1), 46–58.
72.
XuJingJiangZixiDharRavi (2013), “Mental Representation and Perceived Similarity: How Abstract Mindset Aids Choice from Large Assortments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 548–59.
73.
YanDengfengPena-MarinJorge (2017), “Round Off the Bargaining: The Effects of Offer Roundness on Willingness to Accept,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 381–95.
74.
YeNingMorrinMaureenKampferKristina (2020), “From Glossy to Greasy: The Impact of Learned Associations on Perceptions of Food Healthfulness,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (1), 96–124.
75.
YiChengJiangZhenhuiBenbasatIzak (2015), “Enticing and Engaging Consumers via Online Product Presentations: The Effects of Restricted Interaction Design,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 31 (4), 213–42.
76.
ZhangYuliKwakHyokjinPuzakovaMarinaTaylorCharles R. (2021), “Space Between Products on Display: The Impact of Interspace on Consumer Estimation of Product Size,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (6), 1109–31.
77.
ZhaoMinLeeLeonardSomanDilip (2012), “Crossing the Virtual Boundary: The Effect of Task-Irrelevant Environmental Cues on Task Implementation,” Psychological Science, 23 (10), 1200–1207.
78.
ZhouKevin ZhengNakamotoKent (2007), “How Do Enhanced and Unique Features Affect new Product Preference? The Moderating Role of Product Familiarity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 53–62.
79.
ZugalStefanPinggeraJakob (2014), “Low-Cost Eye-Trackers: Useful for Information Systems Research?” in International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 178., IliadisLazarosPapazoglouMichaelPohlKlaus, eds. Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
