A recent meta-analysis has found that an increase in the size of an assortment has no reliable impact on choice difficulty. Building on a fundamental property of cognition, the authors investigate the link between mental representation and the choice overload effect based on the size of the assortment. They propose that the mental representation of a large assortment changes the perceived similarity of the assortment and consequently affects the degree of choice difficulty. Specifically, when choosing from a large assortment, consumers with an abstract representation perceive the options in the assortment as being more similar and accordingly experience less choice difficulty than those with a concrete representation of the assortment. The authors discuss theoretical and practical implications of the findings.
AikenLeona S., and StephenG. West (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
2.
BaronReuben M., and DavidA. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–82.
3.
BottiSimona, and SheenaS. Iyengar (2004), “The Psychological Pleasure and Pain of Choosing: When People Prefer Choosing at the Cost of Subsequent Outcome Satisfaction,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (3), 312–26.
4.
BroniarczykSusan M., WayneD. Hoyer, and McAlisterLeigh (1998), “Consumer Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (May), 166–76.
5.
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 (2), 170–83.
6.
ChernevAlexander, BöckenholtUlf, and GoodmanJoseph (2010), “Commentary on Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, and Todd: Choice Overload: Is There Anything to It?”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 426–28.
7.
DharRavi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 215–31.
8.
DharRavi, and EuniceY. Kim (2007), “Seeing the Forest or the Trees: Implications of Construal Level Theory for Consumer Choice,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 96–100.
9.
FörsterJens (2009), “Relations Between Perceptual and Conceptual Scope: How Global Versus Local Processing Fits a Focus on Similarity Versus Dissimilarity,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (1), 88–111.
10.
FörsterJens, RonaldS. Friedman, and LibermanNira (2004), “Temporal Construal Effects on Abstract and Concrete Thinking: Consequences for Insight and Creative Cognition,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2), 177–89.
11.
FreitasAntonio L., GollwitzerPeter, and TropeYaacov (2004), “The Influence of Abstract and Concrete Mindsets on Anticipating and Guiding Others' Self-Regulatory Efforts,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (6), 739–52.
12.
FujitaKentaro, TropeYaacov, LibermanNira, and Levin-SagiMaya (2006), “Construal Levels and Self-Control,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 351–67.
13.
GourvilleJohn T., and SomanDilip (2005), “Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires,”Marketing Science, 24 (3), 382–95.
14.
HochStephen J., EricT. Bradlow, and WansinkBrian (1999), “The Variety of an Assortment,”Marketing Science, 18 (4), 527–46.
15.
HongJiewen, and AngelaY. Lee (2010), “Feeling Mixed but Not Torn: The Moderating Role of Construal Level in Mixed Emotions Appeals,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 456–72.
16.
IyengarSheena S., and MarkR. Lepper (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995–1006.
17.
IrwinJulie R., and GaryH. McClelland (2001), “Misleading Heuristics and Moderated Multiple Regression Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (February), 100–109.
18.
KahnBarbara E. (1998), “Dynamic Relationships with Customers: High-Variety Strategies,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (1), 45–53.
19.
KhanUzma, ZhuMeng, and KalraAjay (2011), “When Trade-Offs Matter: The Effect of Choice Construal on Context Effects,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (February), 62–71.
20.
KimKyeongheui, ZhangMeng, and LiXiuping (2008), “Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 706–713.
21.
LibermanNira, and FörsterJens (2006), “Inferences from Decision Difficulty,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42 (3), 290–301.
22.
LibermanNira, TropeYaacov, and StephanElena (2007), “Psychological Distance,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Vol. 2, ArieW. Kruglanski, and Tory HigginsE., eds. New York: Guilford Press, 353–81.
23.
LipowskiZbigniew J. (1970), “The Conflict of Buridan's Ass or Some Dilemmas of Affluence: The Theory of Attractive Stimulus Overload,”American Journal of Psychiatry, 127 (3), 49–55.
24.
LouviereJordan J., and GaryJ. Gaeth (1987), “Decomposing the Determinants of Retail Facility Choice Using the Method of Hierarchical Information Integration: A Supermarket Illustration,”Journal of Retailing, 63 (1), 25–48.
25.
LynchJohn G.Jr., and ThomasK. Srull (1982), “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 18–37.
26.
MishraArul (2009), “Influence of Contagious Versus Noncontagious Product Groupings on Consumer Preferences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1), 73–82.
27.
MullerDominique, CharlesM. Judd, and VincentY. Yzerbyt (2005), “When Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated,”Journal of Personality and Psychology, 89 (6), 852–63.
28.
NovemskyNathan, DharRavi, SchwarzNorbert, and SimonsonItamar (2007), “The Effect of Preference Fluency on Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (August), 347–57.
29.
SagiAdi, and FriedlandNehemia (2007), “The Cost of Richness: The Effect of the Size and Diversity of Decision Sets on Post-Decision Regret,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (4), 515–24.
30.
ScheibehenneBenjamin, GreifenederRainer, and PeterM. Todd (2010), “Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 409–425.
31.
SchwartzBarry (2004), The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.New York: Ecco.
32.
SchwartzBarry, WardAndrew, and MonterossoJohn (2002), “Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness is a Matter of Choice,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5), 1178–97.
33.
ShuganSteven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2), 99–111.
34.
TimmermansDanielle (1993), “The Impact of Task Complexity on Information Use in Multi-Attribute Decision Making,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6 (2), 95–111.
35.
TropeYaacov, and LibermanNina (2003), “Temporal Construal,”Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403–421.
36.
TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science, 211 (4481), 453–58.
37.
TyebjeeTyzoon T. (1979), “Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (3), 295–304.
38.
VallacherRobin R., and DanielM. Wegner (1989), “Levels of Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identification,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), 660–71.
39.
ZhaoXinshu, JohnG. LynchJr., and ChenQimei (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About Mediation Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 197–206.
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.
