A currently popular position among consumer advocates and many public policy makers is that more product information is better. A 3 (number of brands) × 3 (number of items of information per brand) factorial experiment which tested this contention revealed that, while consumers do feel more satisfied and less confused, they actually make poorer purchase decisions with more information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonLee K., TaylorJames R., and HollowayRobert J.“The Consumer and His Alternatives: An Experimental Approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (February 1966), 62–7.
2.
BettmanJames R.“Decision Net Models of Buyer Information Processing and Choice: Findings, Problems, and Prospects,” paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Workshop on Information Processing, University of Chicago, 1972.
3.
BroadbentDonald E.Decision and Stress.London: Academic Press, 1971.
4.
BymersGwen. “Seller-Buyer Communication: Point of View of a Family Economist,”Journal of Home Economics, 64 (February 1972), 59–63.
5.
CoxDonald F.Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior.Boston: Harvard University Press, 1967.
6.
CunninghamScott M.“Perceived Risk and Brand Loyalty,” in CoxDonald F., ed., Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior.Boston: Harvard University Press, 1967, 507–23.
7.
DriverMichael J., and StreufertSiegfried. “Integrative complexity: an approach to individuals and groups as information-processing systems,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (June 1969), 272–85.
8.
DudychaLinda W., and NaylorJames C.“Characteristics of the Human Inference Process in Complex Choice Behavior Situations,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1 (September 1966), 110–28.
9.
FriedmanMonroe P.“Consumer Confusion in the Selection of Supermarket Products,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 (December 1966), 529–34.
10.
HainesGeorge H.Jr.“Process Models of Consumer Decision Making,” paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Workshop in Information Processing, University of Chicago, 1972.
11.
HansenFlemming. “Consumer Choice Behavior: An Experimental Approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (November 1969), 436–43.
12.
JacobyJacob. “Consumer Reaction to Information Displays: Packaging and Advertising,” in DivitaSal, ed., Advertising and the Public Interest.Chicago: American Marketing Association, in press.
13.
JacobyJacob, and KaplanLeon B.“The Components of Perceived Risk,”Proceedings. Third Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1972, 382–93.
14.
KaplanLeon B., SzybilloGeorge J., and JacobyJacob. “The Components of Perceived Risk: A Cross-Validation,”Journal of Applied Psychology, in press.
15.
KauPaul, and HillLowell. “A Threshold Model of Purchasing Decisions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (August 1972), 264–70.
16.
MillerGeorge A.“The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information,”Psychological Review, 63 (March 1956), 81–97.
17.
OlsonJerry, and JacobyJacob. “Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process,”Proceedings. Third Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1972, 167–79.
18.
RoseliusTed. “Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods,”Journal of Marketing, 35 (January 1971), 56–61.
19.
TwedtDik Warren. “What Effect Will the ‘Fair Packaging and Labeling Act’ Have Upon Marketing Practices,”Journal of Marketing, 11 (April 1967), 58–9.
