Rank lists vary in the number of items ranked on the list (e.g., top 5 vs. top 20 movies on IMDb), that is, the rank length. Across ten studies, including both field and laboratory experiments, the authors examine the influence of rank length on evaluations, willingness to pay, and choice. They document a novel rank length effect: The same ranked items elicit more positive judgments when the rank length is longer (vs. shorter), although the differences in judgments between the ranked items are smaller. This effect is driven both by consumers’ tendency to narrowly focus on the rank list and by the manner in which they map the rank list onto their mental number line. The rank length effect extends to willingness to pay, and choice. The authors explore three different kinds of choice contexts, discuss implications, and offer suggestions for future research.
AurierPhilippeJeanSylvieZaichkowskyJudith L. (2000), “Consideration Set Size and Familiarity with Usage Context,” ACR North American Advances, 27 (1), 307–13.
2.
AzemiYllkaOzuemWilsonWiidRiaHobsonAna (2022), “Luxury Fashion Brand Customers’ Perceptions of Mobile Marketing: Evidence of Multiple Communications and Marketing Channels,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102944.
3.
BastedoMichael N.BowmanNicholas A. (2010), “U.S. News & World Report College Rankings: Modeling Institutional Effects on Organizational Reputation,” American Journal of Education, 116 (2), 163–83.
4.
BerkovitsIlonaHancockGregory R.NevittJonathan (2000), “Bootstrap Resampling Approaches for Repeated Measures Designs: Relative Robustness to Sphericity and Normality Violations,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (6), 877–92.
5.
CaiHongbinChenYuyuFangHanming (2009), “Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment,” American Economic Review, 99 (3), 864–82.
6.
CaiFengyanShenHaoHuiMichael K. (2012), “The Effect of Location on Price Estimation: Understanding Number–Location and Number–Order Associations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (5), 718–24.
7.
CezarAsunurÖgütHulisi (2016), “Analyzing Conversion Rates in Online Hotel Booking: The Role of Customer Reviews, Recommendations and Rank Order in Search Listings,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28 (2), 286–304.
8.
DehaeneStanislas (1997), The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
9.
DehaeneStanislasDupouxEmmanuelMehlerJacques (1990), “Is Numerical Comparison Digital? Analogical and Symbolic Effects in Two-Digit Number Comparison,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16 (3), 626–41.
10.
EriksenCharles W.HakeHarold W. (1955), “Absolute Judgments as a Function of Stimulus Range and Number of Stimulus and Response Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49 (5), 323–32.
11.
FeeC. EdwardHadlockCharles J.PierceJoshua R. (2005), “Business School Rankings and Business School Deans: A Study of Nonprofit Governance,” Financial Management, 34 (1), 143–66.
12.
GhoseAnindyaIpeirotisPanagiotis G.LiBeibei (2014), “Examining the Impact of Ranking on Consumer Behavior and Search Engine Revenue,” Management Science, 60 (7), 1632–54.
13.
GriffithAmandaRaskKevin (2007), “The Influence of the U.S. News and World Report Collegiate Rankings on the Matriculation Decision of High-Ability Students: 1995–2004,” Economics of Education Review, 26 (2), 244–55.
14.
HamiltonRebecca W.RatnerRebecca K.ThompsonDebora V. (2011), “Outpacing Others: When Consumers Value Products Based on Relative Usage Frequency,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1079–94.
15.
IsaacMathew S.BroughAaron R.GraysonKent (2016), “Is Top 10 Better Than Top 9? The Role of Expectations in Consumer Response to Imprecise Rank Claims,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (3), 338–53.
16.
IsaacMathew S.SchindlerRobert M. (2014), “The Top-Ten Effect: Consumers’ Subjective Categorization of Ranked Lists,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1181–1202.
17.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–91.
18.
KaltonGrahamSchumanHoward (1982), “The Effect of the Question on Survey Responses: A Review,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 145 (1), 42–57.
19.
KardesFrank R.PosavacSteven S.GaffneyDonald R. (2022), “Omission Neglect and Consumer Judgment and Inference Based on Limited Evidence,” in APA Handbook of Consumer Psychology. APA.
20.
KimSaraLabrooAparna A. (2011), “From Inherent Value to Incentive Value: When and Why Pointless Effort Enhances Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4), 712–42.
21.
LeclercFranceHseeChristopher K.NunesJoseph C. (2005), “Narrow Focusing: Why the Relative Position of a Good in Its Category Matters More Than It Should,” Marketing Science, 24 (2), 194–205.
22.
LucaMichaelSmithJonathan (2013), “Salience in Quality Disclosure: Evidence from the U.S. News College Rankings,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22 (1), 58–77.
23.
MartinsLuis L. (2005), “A Model of the Effects of Reputational Rankings on Organizational Change,” Organization Science, 16 (6), 701–20.
24.
MeredithMarc (2004), “Why Do Universities Compete in the Ratings Game? An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings,” Research in Higher Education, 45 (5), 443–61.
25.
MonksJamesEhrenbergRonald (1999), “U.S. News & World Report's College Rankings: Why Do They Matter?” Change, 31 (6), 42–51.
26.
MooneyChristopher Z.DuvallRobert (1993), Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Sage.
27.
ParducciAllen (1968), “The Relativism of Absolute Judgments,” Scientific American, 219 (6), 84–93.
28.
ParducciAllen (1974), “Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequency Analysis,” in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 2, CarteretteEdward C.FriedmanMorton P., eds. Academic Press, 127–42.
29.
PinhasMichalPothosEmmanuel M.TzelgovJoseph (2013), “Zooming In and Out from the Mental Number Line: Evidence for a Number Range Effect,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39 (3), 972–6.
30.
PopeDevin G. (2009), “Reacting to Rankings: Evidence from ‘America’s Best Hospitals and Colleges’,” Journal of Health Economics, 28 (6), 1154–65.
31.
ScheibehenneBenjaminGreifenederRainerToddPeter M. (2010), “Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 409–25.
32.
SchwarzNorbertWyerRobert S.Jr. (1985), “Effects of Rank Ordering Stimuli on Magnitude Ratings of These and Other Stimuli,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21 (1), 30–46.
33.
SorensenAlan T. (2007), “Bestseller Lists and Product Variety,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 55 (4), 715–38.
34.
StevensStanley Smith (1946), “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement,” Science, 103 (2684), 677–80.
35.
TaoTaoWyerRobert S.Jr.ZhengYuhuang (2017), “The Role of Categorization and Scale Endpoint Comparisons in Numerical Information Processing: A Two-Process Model,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146 (3), 409–27.
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.
38.
WoodGuilhermeFischerMartin H. (2008), “Numbers, Space, and Action—From Finger Counting to the Mental Number Line and Beyond,” Cortex, 44 (4), 353–58.
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.
