In the age of the Internet and easy access to almost infinite information, the problem of information overload among consumers is bound to become of great importance to marketers. By means of simulations we show that this ‘tyranny of choice’ is avoidable. Consumers can neglect most product information and yet make good choices, so long as either there is no conflict among the product attributes or the attributes are unequally important. In these conditions, only one attribute is enough to select a good option - one within ten percent of the highest value possible. We conclude with marketing implications of these findings.
Baron, J. and Spranca, M. (1997) ‘Protected Values’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes70(1): 1–16.
2.
Barron, F.H. (1987) ‘Influence of Missing Attributes on Selecting a Best Multiattribute Alternative’, Decision Sciences18: 194–205.
3.
Barron, F.H. and Barrett, B.E. (1999) ‘Linear Inequalities and the Analysis of Multi-Attribute Value Matrices’, in J. Shanteau, B.A. Mellers and D.A. Schum (eds) Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards, pp. 211–226. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
4.
Barron, F.H. and Kleinmuntz, D.N. (1986) ‘Sensitivity in Value Loss of Linear Multi-attribute Value Models to Attribute Completeness’, in B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens and G. Sevon (eds) New Directions: Research in Decision Making, pp. 291–301. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5.
Beattie, J. and Baron J. (1991) ‘Investigating the Effect of Stimulus Range on Attribute Weight’, Journal of Experimental Psychology17(2): 571–585.
6.
Beattie, J., Baron, J., Hershey, J.C. and Spranca, M. (1994) ‘Determinants of Decision Attitude’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making7: 129–144.
7.
Bown, N.J., Read D. and Summers, B. (2003) ‘Lure of Choice’, Journal of Behavioural Decision Making16: 297–308.
8.
Boyer, R. and Savageau, D. (1981) Places Rated Almanac. New York: Rand McNally.
9.
Bröder, A. (2000) ‘Assessing the Empirical Validity of the “Take The Best” Heuristic as a Model of Human Probabilistic Inference’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26: 1332–1346.
10.
Curry, D.J. and Riesz, P.C. (1988) ‘Prices and Price/Quality Relationships: A Longitudinal Analysis’, Journal of Marketing52: 36–51.
11.
Dhar, R. (1996) ‘The Effect of Decision Strategy on Deciding to Defer Choice’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making9: 265–281.
12.
Edwards, W. and Barron F.H. (1994) ‘SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes60: 306–325.
13.
Fasolo, B., McClelland, G.H. and Lange, A.K. (2005) ‘The Effect of Site Design and Interattribute Correlations on Interactive Web-Based Decisions’, in C.P. Haugtvedt, K. Machleit and R. Yalch (eds) Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and Influencing Behavior in the Virtual World, pp. 325–342. Mahwak, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
14.
Fischer, G.W. (1995) ‘Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes62: 252–266.
15.
Gigerenzer, G. and Goldstein, D.G. (1996) ‘Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality’, Psychological Review103(4): 650–669.
16.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M. and the ABC Research Group (1999) Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Goldstein, D.G. and Gigerenzer, G. (2002) ‘Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic’, Psychological Review109: 75–90.
18.
Hertwig, R. and Todd, P.M. (2003) ‘More is Not Always Better: The Benefits of Cognitive Limits’, in D. Hardman and L. Macchi (eds) Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment And Decision Making, pp. 213–231.
19.
Chichester: Wiley. Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M. (2000) ‘When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology76: 995–1006.
20.
Jacoby, J., Speller, D.E. and Berning, C.K. (1974) ‘Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load: Replication and Extension’, Journal of Consumer Research1: 33–41.
21.
Jacoby, J., Speller, D.E. and Kohn, C.A. (1974) ‘Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load’, Journal of Marketing Research11: 63–69.
22.
Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H.(1993) Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Malhotra, N.K. (1982) ‘Information Load and Consumer Decision Making’, Journal of Consumer Research8: 419–430.
24.
McClelland, G.H. (1978) ‘Equal Versus Differential Weighting for Multiattribute Decisions: There Are No Free Lunches’, report no. 207 of the Center for Research on Judgment and Policy.
25.
Newell, B.R. and Shanks, D.R. (2003) ‘Take the Best or Look at the Rest? Factors Influencing “One-Reason” Decision Making’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition2: 53–65.
26.
Nowlis, S.M. and Simonson, I. (2000) ‘Sales Promotions and the Choice Context as Competing Influences on Consumer Decision Making’, Journal of Consumer Psychology9: 1–16.
27.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. and Johnson, E.J. (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Russo, J.E. (1974) ‘More Information Is Better: A Reevaluation of Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn’, Journal of Consumer Research4: 148–155.
29.
Saad, G. and Russo, J.E. (1996) ‘Stopping Criteria in Sequential Choice’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes66: 102–110.
30.
Schwartz, B. (2004) The Paradox of Choice. New York: Ecco.
31.
Shanteau, J. and Thomas, R.P. (2000) ‘Fast and Frugal Heuristics: What About Unfriendly Environments?’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences23: 762–763.
32.
Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992) ‘Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion’, Journal of Marketing Research29: 281–295.
33.
Stewart, T.R. and Ely, D.W. (1984) Range Sensitivity: A Necessary Condition and a Test for the Validity of Weights. Boulder, CO: National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
34.
Tversky, A. and Shafir, E. (1992) ‘Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision’, Psychological Science3: 358–361.
