This research examines how the unsystematic (vs. systematic) spatial arrangement of a set of alternatives affects consumers’ product choices. The key hypothesis is that an unsystematic product arrangement—in which an assortment consisting of several alternatives is arranged in an apparently arbitrary manner—causes greater perceptual disfluency, which in turn triggers more extensive exploratory product search, ultimately promoting the choice of unfamiliar products. This sequence of effects is particularly pronounced when consumers do not have a strong prior preference for specific alternatives in the assortment. Evidence from five studies, including a large-scale field experiment, provides support for this theorizing across various display formats and product domains. The findings advance our understanding of how the spatial arrangement of a product assortment influences consumer choice, and they shed light on the psychological mechanism that governs this effect.
AartsHenkVerplankenBasvan KnippenbergAd (1997), “Habit and Information Use in Travel Mode Choices,” Acta Psychologica, 96 (1), 1–14.
2.
AartsHenkVerplankenBasvan KnippenbergAd (1998), “Predicting Behavior From Actions in the Past: Repeated Decision Making or a Matter of Habit?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28 (15), 1355–74.
3.
AllirotXavierSaulaisLaureDisseEmmanuelRothHubertCazalCamilleLavilleMartine (2012), “Validation of a Buffet Meal Design in an Experimental Restaurant,” Appetite, 58 (3), 889–97.
4.
AlterAdam L. (2013), “The Benefits of Cognitive Disfluency,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 (6), 437–42.
5.
AlterAdam L.OppenheimerDaniel M. (2008), “Easy on the Mind, Easy on the Wallet: The Roles of Familiarity and Processing Fluency in Valuation Judgments,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (5), 985–90.
6.
AlterAdam L.OppenheimerDaniel M. (2009), “Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 (3), 219–35.
7.
AndersonRonald D.EngledowJack L.BeckerHelmut (1979), “Evaluating the Relationships Among Attitude Toward Business, Product Satisfaction, Experience, and Search Effort,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (3), 394–400.
8.
ArgoJennifer J.DahlDarren W.MoralesAndrea C. (2006), “Consumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 81–94.
9.
ArgoJennifer J.DahlDarren W.MoralesAndrea C. (2008), “Positive Consumer Contagion: Responses to Attractive Others in a Retail Context,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 690–701.
10.
BerlyneDaniel E. (1966), “Curiosity and Exploration,” Science, 153 (3731), 25–33.
11.
BrynjolfssonErikJeffrey HuYuRahmanMohammad S. (2013), “Competing in the Age of Omnichannel Retailing,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 54 (4), 23–29.
12.
BucherTamaraCollinsClareRolloMegan E.McCaffreyTracy A.VliegerNienke DeBendDaphne Van der, et al. (2016), “Nudging Consumers Towards Healthier Choices: A Systematic Review of Positional Influences on Food Choice,” British Journal of Nutrition, 115 (12), 2252–63.
13.
CardozoRichard N. (1965), “An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Expectation, and Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (3), 244–49.
14.
CarrEvan W.BradyTimothy F.WinkielmanPiotr (2017), “Are You Smiling, or Have I Seen You Before? Familiarity Makes Faces Look Happier,” Psychological Science, 28 (8), 1087–102.
15.
CastroIana A.MoralesAndrea C.NowlisStephen M. (2013), “The Influence of Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity on Consumer Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 118–33.
16.
ChandonPierreWesley HutchinsonJ.BradlowEric T.YoungScott H. (2009), “Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 1–17.
17.
CheckoskyStephen F.WhitlockDean (1973), “Effects of Pattern Goodness on Recognition Time in a Memory Search Task,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100 (2), 341–48.
18.
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.
19.
ChernevAlexanderBöckenholtUlfGoodmanJoseph (2015), “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333–58.
20.
ChristieJohnKleinRaymond (1995), “Familiarity and Attention: Does What We Know Affect What We Notice?” Memory & Cognition, 23 (5), 547–50.
21.
CorbettaMaurizioShulmanGordon L. (2002), “Control of Goal-Directed and Stimulus-Driven Attention in the Brain,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3 (3), 201–15.
22.
DengXiaoyanKahnBarbara E.Rao UnnavaH.LeeHyojin (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.
23.
DiehlKristin (2005), “When Two Rights Make a Wrong: Searching Too Much in Ordered Environments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (3), 313–22.
24.
DiehlKristinHerpenErica vanLambertonCait (2015), “Organizing Products with Complements Versus Substitutes: Effects on Store Preferences as a Function of Effort and Assortment Perceptions,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 1–18.
25.
DowningPaul E. (2000), “Interactions Between Visual Working Memory and Selective Attention,” Psychological Science, 11 (6), 467–73.
26.
DrèzeXavierHochStephen J.PurkMary E. (1994), “Shelf Management and Space Elasticity,” Journal of Retailing, 70 (4), 301–26.
27.
FearnbachS. NicoleThivelDavidMeyermannKarolKellerKathleen L. (2015), “Intake at a Single, Palatable Buffet Test Meal is Associated with Total Body Fat and Regional Fat Distribution in Children,” Appetite, 92, 233–39.
28.
FestingerLeon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
GrafLaura K.LandwehrJan R. (2015), “A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based Aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of Aesthetic Liking,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19 (4), 395–410.
30.
GrafLaura K.MayerStefanLandwehrJan R. (2018), “Measuring Processing Fluency: One Versus Five Items,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (3), 393–411.
31.
HäublGeraldTriftsValerie (2000), “Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids,” Marketing Science, 19 (1), 4–21.
32.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
33.
HayesAndrew F. (2015), “An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50 (1), 1–22.
34.
HendersonJohn M.HollingworthAndrew (1999), “High-Level Scene Perception,” Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243–71.
35.
HuberJoelWittinkDick R.FiedlerJohn A.MillerRichard (1993), “The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 105.
36.
HutchinsonJ. BenjaminTurk-BrowneNicholas B. (2012), “Memory-Guided Attention: Control from Multiple Memory Systems,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (12), 576–79.
37.
JaniszewskiChris (1998), “The Influence of Display Characteristics on Visual Exploratory Search Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 290–301.
38.
JaniszewskiChrisKuoAndrewTavassoliNader T. (2012), “The Influence of Selective Attention and Inattention to Products on Subsequent Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1258–74.
39.
KahnBarbara E.WansinkBrian (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 519–33.
40.
KhareAdwaitJeffrey InmanJ. (2006), “Habitual Behavior in American Eating Patterns: The Role of Meal Occasions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 567–75.
41.
KollerManuel (2016), “Robustlmm: An R Package for Robust Estimation of Linear Mixed-Effects Models,” Journal of STATISTICAL Software, 75 (6), 1–24.
42.
LabrooAparna A.DharRaviSchwarzNorbert (2008), “Of Frog Wines and Frowning Watches: Semantic Priming, Perceptual Fluency, and Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 819–31.
43.
LabrooAparna A.KimSara (2009), “The ‘Instrumentality’ Heuristic: Why Metacognitive Difficulty is Desirable During Goal Pursuit,” Psychological Science, 20 (1), 127–34.
44.
LabrooAparna A.PocheptsovaAnastasiya (2016), “Metacognition and Consumer Judgment: Fluency is Pleasant but Disfluency Ignites Interest,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 154–59.
45.
LeeAngela Y. (2001), “The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (10), 1255–66.
46.
MoeWendy W. (2003), “Buying, Searching, or Browsing: Differentiating Between Online Shoppers Using In-Store Navigational Clickstream,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (1/2), 29–39.
47.
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.
48.
MoralesAndreaKahnBarbara E.McAlisterLeighBroniarczykSusan M. (2005), “Perceptions of Assortment Variety: The Effects of Congruency Between Consumers’ Internal and Retailers’ External Organization,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (2), 159–69.
NedungadiPrakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 263–76.
51.
NortonMichael I.MochonDanielArielyDan (2012), “The IKEA Effect: When Labor Leads to Love,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 453–60.
52.
NovemskyNathanDharRaviSchwarzNorbertSimonsonItamar (2007), “Preference Fluency in Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 347–56.
53.
PetersenSteven E.PosnerMichael I. (2012), “The Attention System of the Human Brain: 20 Years After,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35 (1), 73–89.
54.
PocheptsovaAnastasiyaLabrooAparna A.DharRavi (2010), “Making Products Feel Special: When Metacognitive Difficulty Enhances Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1059–69.
55.
PosavacSteven S.SanbonmatsuDavid M.FazioRussell H. (1997), “Considering the Best Choice: Effects of the Salience and Accessibility of Alternatives on Attitude–Decision Consistency,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (2), 253–61.
56.
PosnerMichael I.KeeleSteven W. (1968), “On the Genesis of Abstract Ideas,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77 (3, Pt.1), 353–63.
57.
PosnerMichael I.PetersenSteven E. (1990), “The Attention System of the Human Brain,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13 (1), 25–42.
58.
PoynorCaitWoodStacy (2010), “Smart Subcategories: How Assortment Formats Influence Consumer Learning and Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (1), 159–75.
59.
ReberRolfSchwarzNorbertWinkielmanPiotr (2004), “Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.
60.
Reynolds-McIlnayRyannMorrinMaureenNordfältJens (2017), “How Product–Environment Brightness Contrast and Product Disarray Impact Consumer Choice in Retail Environments,” Journal of Retailing, 93 (3), 266–82.
61.
RyanRichard M. (1995), “Psychological Needs and the Facilitation of Integrative Processes,” Journal of Personality, 63 (3), 397–427.
62.
SchwarzNorbert (2004), “Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 332–48.
63.
SchwarzNorbertBlessHerbertStrackFritzKlumppGiselaRittenauer-SchatkaHelgaSimonsAnnette (1991), “Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 195–202.
64.
SeetharamanP.B. (2004), “Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach,” Marketing Science, 23 (2), 263–71.
65.
SelaAnerBergerJonah (2012), “Decision Quicksand: How Trivial Choices Suck Us In,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 360–70.
66.
SongHyunjinSchwarzNorbert (2008), “If It’s Hard to Read, It’s Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation,” Psychological Science, 19 (10), 986–88.
VerplankenBasWalkerIanDavisAdrianJurasekMichaela (2008), “Context Change and Travel Mode Choice: Combining the Habit Discontinuity and Self-Activation Hypotheses,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (2), 121–27.
69.
VerplankenBasWoodWendy (2006), “Interventions to Break and Create Consumer Habits,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25 (1), 90–103.
70.
WilcoxKeithSongSangyoung (2011), “Discrepant Fluency in Self-Customization,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (4), 729–40.
71.
WilsonRobert C.GeanaAndraWhiteJohn M.LudvigElliot A.CohenJonathan D. (2014), “Humans Use Directed and Random Exploration to Solve the Explore–Exploit Dilemma,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (6), 2074–81.
72.
WinkielmanPiotrHalberstadtJaminFazendeiroTedraCattySteve (2006), “Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind,” Psychological Science, 17 (9), 799–806.
73.
WoodWendyNealDavid T. (2007), “A New Look at Habits and the Habit–Goal Interface,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 843–63.
74.
WoodWendyNealDavid T. (2009), “The Habitual Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (4), 579–92.
75.
WoodWendyTamLeonaWittMelissa Guerrero (2005), “Changing Circumstances, Disrupting Habits,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (6), 918–33.
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.
