This research challenges the notion that increased search effort results in greater satisfaction with the choice by examining the impact of alignability on search quantity and search outcomes. Options that vary along comparable dimensions are alignable, whereas options that vary along unique dimensions are nonalignable. The results of three studies demonstrate greater search among nonalignable than among alignable options. Satisfaction initially increases but then declines with further search among nonalignable options. Although choice difficulty influences search and satisfaction, the primary mechanism driving the inverted U-shaped relationship of satisfaction with search among nonalignable options is feature learning. This research demonstrates a paradox: People continue searching more options precisely when their further search is detrimental to their satisfaction, falling down the slippery slope of search.
ArnoldStephen J., OumTae H., and TigertDonald J., (1983), “Determining Attributes in Retail Patronage: Seasonal, Temporal, Regional, and International Comparisons,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(May), 149–57.
2.
BalversRonald, J., (1990), “Variability and the Duration of Search,”International Economic Review, 31(August), 747–51.
3.
BarsalouLawrence, W., (1985), “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(October), 629–54.
4.
BaumolWilliam J., and IdeEdward A., (1956), “Variety in Retailing,”Management Science, 3(1), 93–101.
5.
BlochPeter H., SherrellDaniel L., and RidgwayNancy M., (1986), “Consumer Search: An Extended Framework,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 119–26.
6.
BroniarczykSusan M., HoyerWayne D., and McAlisterLeigh, (1998), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35(May), 166–76.
7.
BulbulCenk, and MeyvisTom, (2006), “When Consumers Choose to Restrict Their Options: Anticipated Regret and Choice Set Size Preference,” working paper, Stern School of Business, New York University.
8.
CamererColin, (1995), “Individual Decision Making,” in Handbook of Experimental Economics, KagelJohn H., and RothAlvin E., eds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 587–703.
9.
CarlsonKurt, and BondSamuel, (2006), “Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context through Pre-Exposure to Attribute Levels,”Management Science, 52(March), 410–21.
10.
CarmonZiv, WertenbrochKlaus, and ZeelenbergMarcel, (2003), “Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 15–29.
11.
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(September), 170–83.
12.
ChernevAlexander, (2005), “Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31(March), 748–59.
13.
DiehlKristin, (2005), “When Two Rights Make a Wrong: Searching Too Much in Ordered Environments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42(August), 313–22.
14.
DiehlKristin, and PoynorCait, (2010), “Great Expectations?! Assortment Size, Expectations, and Satisfaction,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47(April), 312–22.
15.
FurseDavid H., PunjGirish N., and StewartDavid W., (1984), “A Typology of Individual Search Strategies Among Purchasers of New Automobiles,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10(March), 417–31.
16.
GourvilleJohn, and SomanDilip, (2005), “Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires,”Marketing Science, 24(Summer), 382–95.
17.
HoyerWayne, D., (1984), “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(December), 822–29.
18.
HuffmanCynthia, and KahnBarbara E., (1998), “Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion,”Journal of Retailing, 74(Winter), 491–513.
19.
IyengarSheena, and LepperMark, (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(December), 995–1006.
20.
JacobyJacob, (1984), “Perspectives on Information Overload/Reflections on the Information Overload Paradigm in Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 432–40.
21.
JacobyJacob, SpellerDonald, and KohnCarol, (1974), “Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Overload,”Journal of Marketing Research, 11(February), 63–69.
22.
JohnsonEric, MoeWendy, FaderPeter, BellmanSteven, and LohseGerald, (2004), “On the Depth and Dynamics of Online Search Behavior,”Management Science, 50(March), 299–308.
23.
JohnsonEric, and PayneJohn, (1985), “Effort and Accuracy in Choice,”Management Science, 31(April), 394–414.
24.
KahnBarbara, and LehmannDonald, (1991), “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,”Journal of Retailing, 67(Fall), 274–99.
25.
KeppelGeoffrey, (1991), Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, 3d ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
LindemannPatricia G., and MarkmanArthur B., (1996), “Alignability and Attribute Importance in Choice,” in The Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.San Diego: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 358–63.
27.
LuceMary Frances, BettmanJames, and PayneJohn, (1997), “Choice Processing in Emotionally Difficult Decisions,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384–405.
28.
MarkmanArthur, B., (1999), Knowledge Representation.London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
MarkmanArthur B., and MedinDouglas L., (1995), “Similarity and Alignment in Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(August), 117–30.
30.
MoorthySridhar, RatchfordBrian, and TalukdarDebabrata, (1997), “Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 23(March), 263–77.
31.
PayneJohn, (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(August), 366–87.
32.
PutsisWilliam P.Jr., and SrinivasanNarasimhan, (1994), “Buying or Just Browsing? The Duration of Purchase Deliberation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(August), 393–402.
33.
RatchfordBrian, T., (1982), “Cost Benefit Models for Explaining Consumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior,”Management Science, 28(February), 197–212.
34.
SchwartzBarry, WardAndres, MonterossoJohn, LyubomirskySonja, WhiteKatherine, and LehmanDarrin, (2002), “Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(November), 1178–97.
35.
ShuganSteven, (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7(September), 99–111.
36.
StiglerGeorge, (1961), “The Economics of Information,”Journal of Political Economy, 69(June), 213–25.
37.
TverskyAmos, and ShafirEldar, (1992), “Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,”Psychological Science, 3(6), 358–61.
38.
UrbanyJoel, (1986), “An Experimental Examination of the Economics of Information,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(September), 257–71.
39.
WeitzmanMartin, (1979), “Optimal Search for the Best Alternative,”Econometrica, 47(May), 641–54.
40.
ZhangShi, and FitzsimonsGavan J., (1999), “Choice Process Satisfaction: The Influence of Attribute Alignability and Option Limitation,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(March), 192–214.
41.
ZhangShi, and MarkmanArthur B., (2001), “Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13–27.
42.
ZwickRami, RapoportAmnon, LoAlison K.C., and MuthukrishnanA.V., (2003), “Consumer Sequential Search: Not Enough or Too Much?”Marketing Science, 22(Fall), 503–519.
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.
