The evolution of information and communication technology has enabled travelers to access abundant information and a wide range of available products/services that may satisfy their needs or wants. However, this phenomenon also poses a challenge to travelers who have to choose from an overwhelming collection of travel products. This situation, known as the paradox of choice, may have negative outcomes. This research tested the mechanism of relationships between choice set size and perceived responses to choice overload as affected by psychological distance. Results of multiple scenario-based experimental design studies indicated a negative influence of choice set size on the choice process (e.g., choice complexity/difficulty and task difficulty) in the context of tourism-related choices. This research demonstrated the moderating effects of hypothetical and social distances on the choice process. Therefore, it extended the theory of decision-making and provided important practical implications for tourism marketing.
AleshinloyeK. D.FuX.RibeiroM. A.WoosnamK. M.TasciA. D. A. (2020). The influence of place attachment on social distance: Examining mediating effects of emotional solidarity and the moderating role of interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 59(5), 828–849.
2.
ArielyD.LevavJ. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. The Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279–290.
3.
BackhausC.HeusslerT.CroceV. (2023). Planning horizon in international travel decision-making: The role of individual and cultural determinants. Journal of Travel Research, 62(2), 432–447.
4.
BasogluK. A.YooJ. J. E. (2015). Soon or later? The effect of temporal distance on travel decisions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32, S62–S75.
5.
BassoK.DuschitzC. D. C.GiacomazziC. M.SonegoM.RossiC. A. V.ReckD. (2019). Purchase decision and purchase delay of hedonic and utilitarian products in the face of time pressure and multiplicity of options. Revista de Gestão, 26(2), 112–125.
6.
BischoffC.ReutnerL.HansenJ. (2020). The snacking chameleon: Psychological proximity increases imitation of food intake independently of brand choice. Foods, 9(2), 228.
7.
BogahdusE. S. (1947). The measurement of social distance. In NcwcombT. M.HartleyE. L. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. S03–S07). Holt.
8.
BornemannT.HomburgC. (2011). Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 490–504.
9.
BottiS.IyengarS. S. (2006). The dark side of choice: When choice impairs social welfare. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 24–38.
10.
BrevesP.SchrammH. (2021). Bridging psychological distance: The impact of immersive media on distant and proximal environmental issues. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106606.
11.
ChenY.MahmassaniH. S.FreiA. (2018). Incorporating social media in travel and activity choice models: conceptual framework and exploratory analysis. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 22(2), 180–200.
12.
ChernevA. (2003a). Product assortment and individual decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 151–162.
13.
ChernevA. (2003b). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 170–183.
14.
ChernevA. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. The Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 50–59.
15.
ChernevA.BöckenholtU.GoodmanJ. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358.
16.
FasoloB.CarmeciF. A.MisuracaR. (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: When choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 213–228.
17.
GiesenJ. C. A. H.GierN.HavermansR. C. (2014). The paradox of the choice paradox. Appetite, 83, 352.
18.
GolmohammadiA.MattilaA. S.GauriD. K. (2020). Negative online reviews and consumers’ service consumption. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 116, 27–36.
19.
GoodmanJ. K.MalkocS. A. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of psychological distance on assortment size preferences. The Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751–768.
20.
GreifenederR.ScheibehenneB.KleberN. (2010). Less may be more when choosing is difficult: Choice complexity and too much choice. Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 45–50.
21.
GrinbergerA. Y.ShovalN. (2019). Spatiotemporal contingencies in tourists’ intradiurnal mobility patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 58(3), 512–530.
22.
GuoH.SongH.LiuY.XuK.ShenH. (2019). Social distance modulates the process of uncertain decision-making: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 701–714.
23.
HaynesG. A. (2009). Testing the boundaries of the choice overload phenomenon: The effect of number of options and time pressure on decision difficulty and satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 204–212.
24.
HeitmannM.LehmannD. R.HerrmannA. (2007). Choice goal attainment and decision and consumption satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 234–250.
25.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307–0919.
26.
HongJ.DesaiK. K. (2020). Variety-seeking behavior and information processing in choosing a vacation destination. Journal of Travel Research, 59(5), 850–863.
27.
HongY.PavlouP. A.ShiN.WangK. (2017). On the role of fairness and social distance in designing effective social referral systems. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 787–809.
28.
HuangL.XieY.ChenX. (2021). A review of functions of speculative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 728946.
29.
HuangN.BurtchG.HongY.PolmanE. (2016). Effects of multiple psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: A field study of online reviews. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), 474–482.
30.
IdsonL. C.MischelW. (2001). The personality of familiar and significant people: The lay perceiver as a social-cognitive theorist. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 585–596.
31.
IyengarS. S.LepperM. 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.
32.
JessupR. K.VeinottE. S.ToddP. M.BusemeyerJ. R. (2009). Leaving the store empty-handed: Testing explanations for the too-much-choice effect using decision field theory. Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 299–320.
33.
JiaY.OuyangJ.GuoQ. (2021). When rich pictorial information backfires: The interactive effects of pictures and psychological distance on evaluations of tourism products. Tourism Management, 85, 104315.
34.
JoH.ChungN.HleeS.KooC. (2022). Perceived affordances and regret in online travel agencies. Journal of Travel Research, 61(5), 1024–1042.
35.
KahnB.MooreW. L.GlazerR. (1987). Experiments in constrained choice. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 96–113.
36.
KahnB. E.LehmannD. R. (1991). Modeling choice among assortments. Journal of Retailing, 67(3), 274–299.
37.
KahnB. E.WansinkB. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 519–533.
38.
KarakayaliN. (2009). Social distance and affective orientations. Sociological Forum, 24, 538–562.
39.
KarlM.KockF.BauerA.RitchieB. W.AssafA. G. (2023). When the future is now: An Experimental Study on the role of future thinking and affective forecasting in accommodation decision-making. Journal of Travel Research, 62, 969–988.
40.
KasperH.BloemerJ.DriessenP. H. (2010). Coping with confusion: The case of the Dutch mobile phone market. Managing Service Quality, 20(2), 140–160.
41.
KimJ.KimP. B.KimJ. E. (2018). Impacts of temporal and gender difference on hotel selection process. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(6), 711–732.
42.
KimJ.KimP. B.KimJ. E.MagniniV. P. (2016). Application of construal-level theory to promotional strategies in the hotel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 55(3), 340–352.
43.
KimK.ZhangM.LiX. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations: Table 1. The Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706–713.
44.
KimS.JinY.ReberB. H. (2020). Assessing an organizational crisis at the construal level: how psychological distance impacts publics' crisis responses. Journal of Communication Management, 24(4), 319–337.
45.
KorhonenP. J.MaloP.PajalaT.RavajaN.SomervuoriO.WalleniusJ. (2018). Context matters: The impact of product type, emotional attachment and information overload on choice quality. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 270–279.
46.
LaranJ. (2010). Goal management in sequential choices: Consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 304–314.
47.
LibermanN.SagristanoM. D.TropeY. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523–534.
48.
LibermanN.TropeY.StephanE. (2007). Psychological distance. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353–381). Guildford Press.
49.
LiJ.SunY.LiM.LiH.FanW.ZhongY. (2020). Social distance modulates prosocial behaviors in the gain and loss contexts: An event-related potential (ERP) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 150, 83–91.
50.
LiviatanI.TropeY.LibermanN. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256–1269.
51.
MassaraF.SeverinoF. (2013). Psychological distance in the heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 108–129.
52.
MiaoL.MattilaA. S. (2013). The impact of other customers on customer experiences: A psychological distance perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(1), 77–99.
53.
MogilnerC.RudnickT.IyengarS. 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), 202–215.
54.
PanB.ZhangL.LawR. (2013). The complex matter of online hotel choice. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 74–83.
55.
ParkI. J.KimJ.JhangJ.KimS.ZhaoV. (2022). How more options decrease the compromise effect: Investigating boundary conditions for the compromise effect in travel decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 61(7), 1542–1558.
56.
ParkJ. Y.JangS. (. (2013). Confused by too many choices? Choice overload in tourism. Tourism Management, 35, 1–12.
57.
Peleg-KoriatI.Weimann-SaksD.HalperinE. (2020). The moderating role of psychological distance on the impact of malleability beliefs on public attitudes toward punishment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(7), 416–432.
58.
SchaffrathK.WentzelD.ErkinA. (2018). Purchasing for someone else in a b-to-b context: Joint effects of choice overload and accountability. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 25(1), 11–29.
59.
ScheibehenneB.GreifenederR.ToddP. M. (2009). What moderates the too-much-choice effect?Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 229–253.
60.
ScheibehenneB.GreifenederR.ToddP. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425.
61.
SelaA.BergerJ.LiuW. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. The Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941–951.
62.
SuL.ChengJ.HuangY. (2021). How do group size and group familiarity influence tourist satisfaction? The mediating role of perceived value. Journal of Travel Research, 60(8), 1821–1840.
63.
SuL.YangX.HuangY. (2022). Tourists’ goal-directed behaviors: The influences of goal disclosure, goal commitment, and temporal distance. Journal of Travel Research, 61(4), 940–960.
64.
TasciA. D. A.UsluA.StylidisD.WoosnamK. M. (2022). Place-oriented or people-oriented concepts for destination loyalty: Destination image and place attachment versus perceived distances and emotional solidarity. Journal of Travel Research, 61(2), 430–453.
65.
ThaiN. T.YukselU. (2017). Too many destinations to visit: Tourists’ dilemma?Annals of Tourism Research, 62, 38–53.
66.
ThomasM.TsaiC. I. (2012). Psychological distance and subjective experience: How distancing reduces the feeling of difficulty. The Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 324–340.
67.
TodorovA.GorenA.TropeY. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 473–482.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
70.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.
71.
WakslakC.TropeY. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 20(1), 52–58.
72.
WakslakC. J.TropeY.LibermanN.AlonyR. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(4), 641–653.
73.
WangF.FengY.WangZ. (2022). Inspiring desirability or ensuring feasibility: Destination image and psychological distance. International Journal of Tourism Research, 24(5), 667–676.
74.
WangH.ShenM.(Amy) SongY.PhauI. (2020). Do up-displayed eco-friendly products always perform better? The moderating role of psychological distance. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 114, 198–212.
75.
WangS.LehtoX. (2020). The interplay of travelers’ psychological distance, language abstraction, and message appeal type in social media advertising. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8), 1430–1446.
76.
WillemsenM. C.GrausM. P.KnijnenburgB. P. (2016). Understanding the role of latent feature diversification on choice difficulty and satisfaction. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 26(4), 347–389.
77.
WilliamsL. E.SteinR.GalgueraL. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. The Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123–1138.
78.
XuW.JinX. (2020). How social exclusion and temporal distance influence product choices: The role of coping strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(2), 351–370.
79.
YanD.SenguptaJ.HongJ. (2016). Why does psychological distance influence construal level? The role of processing mode: Table 1. The Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 598–613.
80.
ZeikeS.ChoiK. E.LindertL.PfaffH. (2019). Managers’ well-being in the digital era: Is it associated with perceived choice overload and pressure from digitalization? An exploratory study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(10), 1746.
81.
ZhengC.YuanL.BianX.WangH.HuangL. (2020). Management response to negative comments, psychological distance and product nature: A consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 54(10), 2551–2573.
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.
