PRODUCT ASSORTMENT Chapter for Handbook of Consumer Psychology Susan M. Broniarczyk University of Texas at Austin June 2006 Susan M. Broniarczyk is a Professor of Marketing at the McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, [email protected]. The helpful comments of Alex Chernev, Adam Duhachek, Joe Goodman, Jill Griffin and Wayne Hoyer are greatly appreciated.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PRODUCT ASSORTMENT
Chapter for Handbook of Consumer Psychology
Susan M. Broniarczyk
University of Texas at Austin
June 2006
Susan M. Broniarczyk is a Professor of Marketing at the McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, [email protected]. The helpful comments of Alex Chernev, Adam Duhachek, Joe Goodman, Jill Griffin and Wayne Hoyer are greatly appreciated.
development, and the individual difference variable of maximizer-satisficier. Consumer
assortment perceptions are shown to extend beyond the number of products offered and
also be affected by the composition of products in the assortment, heuristic cues, and the
format in which products are presented. Therefore, a smaller product set that is properly
composed and organized can lead to higher assortment perceptions than a larger product
set as well as facilitate choice. Assortments that were differentiated on nonalignable and
complementary attributes though were shown to lead to a higher cognitive load, greater
product expectations, and higher regret, and consequently, lower choice incidence. Two
37
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
individual consumer factors were then shown to be capable of mitigating these negative
decision-making consequences. Consumers with well-developed relative to less-
developed preferences were shown to have less difficulty processing large assortments,
higher levels of satisfaction with the choice process, higher incidence of choosing a large
compared to small assortment, and greater preference with their chosen option. Secondly,
consumers with exhibited satisficer relative to maximizer tendencies were shown to be
less suspectible to the negative psychological consequences of large assortments
experiencing higher satisfaction with the choice process and lower regret with product
choice.
_____________________ Insert Table 2 here
_____________________
Next we discuss some new directions being explored in assortment research, the
effects of assortment on consumption and well-being.
Assortment Effects on Consumption and Well-Being
Assortment research has begun to move beyond examining product choice and
address the later consumer-decision making stage of product consumption. The general
finding is that individuals consume greater quantities as assortment size increases. Rolls
et al. (1981) showed that the number of options in an assortment affected consumption
quantity with subjects consuming more yogurt when presented with three than one flavor
of yogurt.
Extending this research, Kahn and Wansink (2004) found that perceived
assortment mediates the effect of actual assortment on consumption. As previously
discussed, Kahn and Wansink (2004) showed that consumer perceptions of assortment
38
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
are influenced by information structure variables. Specifically, they demonstrated that
increasing the number of options increased perceived assortment more for organized and
asymmetric assortment structures. In Study 2, subjects were ostensibly recruited for a
study on television advertising and offered either 6 or 24 jelly bean options while they
waited. The assortment structure varied whether the display was randomly disorganized
or organized by flavor and color. Their results showed that as the assortment size
increased from 6 to 24 options, consumption quantity increased for organized assortments
(from 12.7 to 28.3) but not for disorganized assortments (22.2 and 22.6, respectively).
Increases in perceived assortment led subjects to anticipate higher enjoyment of
the items to be consumed and this desire led them to consume greater quantities. When
assortment size was made salient, subjects appeared to use the size of the assortment as
consumption norm to gauge how many items to consume. Providing corroborating
evidence in an experimental financial setting, Morrin et al. (2006) find that increases in
the number of mutual funds offered in 401(k) plans led to increases in the number of
funds investors placed in their investment portfolios.
The consequences of product assortments on consumer well-being is a topic of
growing commentary. Kahn and Wansink (2004) suggest that health practitioners should
be particularly cognizant of the effects of assortment size and structure on consumption
in the mounting battle with obesity. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that increasing
assortments may have negative consequences on consumer’s mental health. Schwartz
(2000, 2004) wonders if exploding product assortments are related to the rising
depression rates in the United States. Although assortments offer the lure of control over
product choice, the decision difficulty, lower satisfaction, and higher regret associated
39
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
with choice from assortments may make the ultimate lack of control self-evident and
contribute to depression.
Choice from a large assortment may also have a detrimental impact on subsequent
consumer choices and behavior. Baumeister and Vohs (2003) demonstrate how product
choice is ego-depleting and the energy expended in a current choice may leave a
consumer with less willpower for a subsequent task. As choosing from large assortments
is taxing, particularly for maximizers, this research suggests that maximizers may have
less self-control for a subsequent product task. Mick, Broniarczyk, and Haidt (2004)
speculate that choices from large assortments may cumulatively lead to a self-focus due
to the repeated creation and activation of one’s preferences. This self-focus may
diminish the quality of subsequent other-focused activities such as later social
interactions and altruistic behavior. In sum, initial evidence exists that broad assortments
increase product consumption and thought-provoking reflections ponder their psychic toll.
Summary and Future Directions
Product assortments are a complex phenomenon, alluring but wrought with choice
difficulty. Consumers find large assortments attractive for their process-related benefits
of stimulation, choice freedom, and informative value and for their choice-related
benefits of higher ideal product availability, ability to satisfy multiple needs in a single
location, potential for variety-seeking, and flexibility for uncertain future preferences.
However, the freedom and flexibility offered by assortments was shown to often backfire
on consumers when then subsequently encounter difficulty choosing a product from
within this assortment. Large relative to small assortments are associated with higher
cognitive loads, difficult trade-offs, small differences in relative option attractiveness,
40
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
and more foregone options upon choice. Consequently, large assortments were shown to
lead to a greater incidence of failure to obtain the best product, dissatisfaction with the
choice process and chosen product, higher regret with the chosen product, and a higher
likelihood of choice avoidant behavior.
A key question is to what extent consumers recognize the downsides of large
assortments for later choice. Even when product choice was made salient, the majority of
subjects were shown to still be drawn to larger relative to smaller assortments (Chernev
2006). The multi-dimensional nature of consumer assortment perceptions indicate that
consumers have some implicit recognition of the dual tension between the attractiveness
of assortments and subsequent difficulty of choosing a product from within the
assortment. The cognitive dimension of assortment perceptions appears to capture the
attractiveness of assortments being positively related to the number of unique options and
size of assortment display. The affective dimension of consumer assortment perceptions
appears to recognize the difficulty of choosing from large assortments being positively
related to ease of shopping, ease of locating a favorite product, and congruency with
shopping goals.
The pinnacle of assortment research is discovering how marketers can keep the
gain and reduce the pain associated with choosing from large assortments. Research on
consumer assortment perceptions suggests that product sets that are selectively comprised
of favorite and unique products and appropriately organized and displayed can lead a
choice set containing fewer products to be perceived as offering greater assortment than
another choice set containing more products and simultaneously facilitate consumer
choice.
41
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Limiting the number of products though may prove difficult in product categories
where consumer preferences are heterogeneous. In such cases, retailers should be
cognizant that increasing product sets by adding options differentiated on nonalignable
and complementary attributes will prove particularly taxing for consumer choice and may
lead to lower choice incidence, particularly for consumers with ill-defined preferences
and maximizer tendencies. Choosing from large assortments was shown to be easier if
the assortments were differentiated on alignable or noncomplementary attributes and
consumers possessed well-developed preferences or were willing to satisfice their
product choice.
Research Challenges
Designing experiments to compare the effect of a small versus large number of
product options would appear to be a straightforward task. However, there are a number
of complexities that an assortment researcher needs to appreciate. First, one needs to
determine the number of options that constitutes a small versus large assortment. As
evidence suggests that having 10 or more options alters the complexity of the choice task
(Maholtra 1982), one might argue that 10 or more options constitutes a large assortment.
Yet, by today’s marketplace standards, ten options is a small choice set. Moreover, such
an argument assumes that there is a threshold above which assortments become difficult
to process without any further effects of additional increases in the number of options.
That is, it assumes no difference between 10 versus 100 options. A serious limitation of
assortment research is that much of it has been conducted comparing only two levels of
option size. Future assortment research should consider manipulating at least 3 option
size levels to rule out calibration issues and to test for non-linear effects.
42
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
A second challenge for assortment research is determining the composition of
options within small versus large assortments. If a researcher is interested in isolating the
effect of assortment size on a dependent variable of interest, s/he would need to control
for or equate the option sets on a host of variables in order to rule out alternative
explanations. The option sets would need to be equated on number of attributes, number
of unique attributes, number of attribute levels, dispersion of attribute levels, and type of
attribute differentiation. Additionally, the options sets would need to be equated in terms
of attractiveness of options, trade-off difficulty, and relative difference in attractiveness
between options. Quite a challenge! Other researchers may feel that assortment is
interesting because of its natural correlation with many of these factors (i.e., large
assortments offer more attributes and attribute levels) and prefer testing with higher
ecological and lower internal validity. These researchers may determine the composition
of the smaller option set by including only the most attractive options or by randomly
drawing subsets of the options from the large option set to increase generalizability.
A third challenge of assortment research is the potential for option size to bias or
impede hypothesis testing. As was demonstrated in the information overload debate,
option size biased testing of choice accuracy, as the chance probability of selecting the
best brand was higher for a smaller compared to large assortment. Therefore, an
appropriate measure of choice accuracy is conditionalized on set size. Option size may
also impede the testing of satisfaction as a dependent variable. Satisfaction is based on
the difference between performance outcomes and expectations. But one can only equate
outcomes for options that are common to both small and large assortments. If a subject is
less satisfied with an option that is unique to the large assortment set, one will be
43
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
uncertain whether this is due to the product performing poorly (outcome-driven) or
because of high expectations.
Research Opportunities
Numerous assortment topics are avenues for future research. Decision aids that
provide tools to help consumers with ill-defined preferences navigate the selection of
product options from broad assortments would appear to be a commonsense intervention.
But nascent research on filters and recommendations suggest that decision aids may be a
double-edged sword. Morales et al. (2005) show that on-line mechanisms that filter the
assortment do decrease consumer confusion and facilitate choice, but do so at the expense
of lower assortment perceptions. Broniarczyk et al. (2005) found that recommendation
signage had the unexpected downside of heightening rather than alleviating the negative
affect consumers experience during choice. As the number of product options increased,
the likelihood that the recommendation was associated with a consumer’s initial product
inclination decreased, and the consumer now faced greater conflict trying to decide which
one to buy.
Other decision aids may have similar unintended negative consequences. For
instance, providing consumers with descriptions of product options to help determine the
product that best meets their needs is likely to further contribute to cognitive overload.
Additionally, product descriptions may cause a higher sense of attachment to foregone
alternatives, thereby leading to a higher sense of loss and discomfort following product
choice (Carmon et al. 2003). Additional research is warranted to identify decision aids
that assist consumers through the complexity of choosing among a large number of
options yet maintain high consumer perceptions of assortment.
44
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Future research should also examine the generalizability and boundary conditions
of extant assortment findings. Much of the assortment research to date has used hedonic
product categories where consumers are likely to be promotion-focused and attracted to
assortments. Limited research has examined the effect of assortment for prevention-focus
choices such as medical and financial decision-making. Botti and Iyengar (2006) suggest
that for emotion-laden decisions among negative options (e.g., choosing the best cancer
treatment), consumers are repelled, not attracted, by choice. They recommend the
inclusion of a default option and option to delegate choice to assist consumers making
prevention-focused choices.
Lastly, research examining the greater societal effects of vast assortments is a
promising avenue for future research. Kahn and Wansink’s (2004) result that perceived
assortment is positively related to consumption quantity has far-reaching consequences
for obesity, compulsive buying, and consumer debt. The intriguing effects of assortment
on consumer future decision-making orientations and well-being are relatively untested
and remain a fruitful area for inquiry and empirical validation.
Conclusion
Large assortments offer consumers numerous benefits, rendering them initially
attractive, but ultimately causing a multitude of negative decision-making consequences
when consumers face the daunting task of selecting a product from a vast array of options.
Consumer research has only recently begun to examine the moderating factors and the
extent of implications of product assortments. The challenge for consumer researchers is
to decide which of the many worthwhile future assortment directions to pursue first.
45
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
REFERENCES Anderson, Christopher J. (2003), “The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision
Avoidance Result From Reason and Emotion,” Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 139-167.
Arnold, Stephen J., Tae H. Oum and Douglas J. Tigert (1983), “Determining Attributes in
Retail Patronage: Seasonal, Temporal, Regional, and International Comparisons,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 149-157.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitchell Griffin (1994), Work And/Or Fun :
Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 644-656.
Baumeister, Roy and Katherine Vohs (2003), “Willpower, Choice, and Self-Control,” in
G. Loewenstein, D. Read, and R. Baumeister (eds.), Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.201-216.
Baumol, William J., and Edward A. Ide (1956), “Variety in Retailing,” Management Science, 3 (1), 93-101. Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960), Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity, New York: McGraw Hill. Boatwright, Peter and Joseph C. Nunes (2001), “Reducing Assortment: An Attribute-
Based Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (July), 50-63. Boatwright, Peter and Joseph C. Nunes (2004), “Correction to “Reducing Assortment: An
Attribute-Based Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (July). Botti, Simona and Sheena S. 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), 312-326.
Botti, Simona and Sheena S. Iyengar (2006), “The Dark Side of Choice: When Choice
Impairs Social Welfare,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25 (Spring 2006), 24-38.
Broniarczyk, Susan M., Wayne D. Hoyer, and Leigh McAlister (1998), "Consumers'
Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction," Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (May), 166-176
Broniarczyk, Susan M., Joseph K. Goodman, Jill G. Griffin, and Leigh McAlister (2005),
“Help or Hindrance? The Effect of RecommendationBest Seller Signage on Consumer Decision-Making from Large Product Assortments”, working paper, McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin.
46
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Carmon, Ziv., Klaus Wertenbroch, and Marcel Zeelenberg (2003), “Option Attachment:
When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 15-29.
Chernev, Alexander (2003a), “Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (July), 151-162. Chernev, Alexander (2003b), “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), 170-183.
Chernev, Alexander (2005), “Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 748-759. Chernev, Alexander (2006), “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice Among
Assortments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), forthcoming. Deci, Edward L. (1981), The Psychology of Self Determination, Lexington, MA: Heath. Dhar, Ravi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (September), 215-231. Dhar, Ravi and Stephen M. Nowlis (1999), “The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer
Choice Deferral,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (March), 369-384. Gourville, John and Dilip Soman (2005), “ Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and
Why Variety Backfires,” Marketing Science, (Summer), 24 (Summer), 382-395. Greenleaf, Eric A. and Donald R. Lehmann (1995), “Reasons for Substantial Delay in
Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September), 186-199.
Griffin, Jill G. and Susan M. Broniarczyk (2005), “Search Paradox: The Role of Feature
Alignability in the Rise and Fall of Satisfaction,” working paper, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin.
Hoch, Stephen, Eric T. Bradlow, and Brian Wansink (1999), “The Variety of an
Assortment,” Marketing Science 18 (4), 527-546. Hoch, Stephen, Eric T. Bradlow, and Brian Wansink (2002), “Rejoinder to “The Variety
of an Assortment: An Extension to the Attribute-Based Approach,” Marketing Science, 21 (3), 342-346.
47
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984), “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (December), 822-829.
Huffman, Cynthia and Barbara E. Kahn (1998), “Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or
Mass Confusion,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (Winter), 491-513. Inman, J. Jeffrey (2001), The Role of Sensory-Specific Satiety in Attribute-Level Variety
Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 105-120. Inman, J. Jeffrey and Marcel Zeelenberg (2002), “Regret in Repeat Purchase versus
Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability,“ Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 116-128.
Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), “When Choice is Demotivating: Can One desire Too Much of a Good Thing?,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (December), 995-1006.
Iyengar, Sheena S. Iyengar, Rachel E. Wells, and Barry Schwartz (2006), “Doing Better but Feeling Worse: Looking for the “Best” Job Undermines Satisfaction,” Psychological Science, 17 (February), 143-150.
Iyengar, Sheena S., Wei Jiang, and Gur Huberman (2004), “How Much Choice is Too
Much: Determinants of Individual Contribution in 401K Retirement Plans,” in Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, Olivia S. Mitchell and Steve Utkus, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83-97.
Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn (1974), “Brand Choice Behavior as
a Function of Information Load,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 63-69.
Jacoby, Jacob (1977), “Information Load and Decision Quality: Some Contested Issues,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 569-573. Kahn, Barbara E. and Donald R. Lehmann (1991), “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,” Journal of Retailing, 67 (Fall), 274-299. Kahn, Barbara E. and Brian Wansink (2004), “Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 519-533. Keller, Kevin Lane and Richard Staelin (1987), Effects of Quality and Quantity of
Information on Decision Effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 200-213.
Kreps, David M. (1979), “A Representation Theorem for Preference for Flexibility,”
Econometrica, 47 (May), 565-577.
48
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Langer , Ellen J. and Judith Rodin (1976), “The Effects of Choice and Enhanced Personal
Responsibility for the Aged: A Field Experiment in an Institutional Setting,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,” 34 (2), 191-198.
Lehmann, Donald R. (1998), “Consumer Reactions to Variety: Too Much of a Good
Thing?,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (1), 62-65. Levy, Michael and Barton A. Weitz (2001), Retailing Management, Boston, Mass.:
Irwin/McGraw Hill, 4th edition. Loewenstein, George (1987), “Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption,”
The Economic Journal, 97 (September), 666-684. Luce, Mary Frances (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-
Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 409-433.
Lurie, Nicholas H. (2004), “Decision Making in Information-Rich Environments: The
Role of Information Structure,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 473-486.
Malholtra, Naresh K. (1982), “Information Load and Consumer Decision Making,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 419-430. March, James G. (1978), “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of
Choice,” Bell Journal of Economics, 587-608. Markman, Arthur B.and Douglas L. Medin (1995), “Similarity and Alignment in
Choice,”Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63 (2), 117-130. McAlister, Leigh (1982), “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking
Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 141-150. McAlister, Leigh and Edgar Pessemier (1982), “Variety-Seeking Behavior: An
Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 311-322.
Mick, David Glen, Susan M. Broniarczyk, and Jonathan Haidt (2004), “Choose, Choose,
Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose: Emerging and Prospective Research on the Deleterious Effects of Living in Consumer Hyperxhoice,” Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 207-211.
Morales, Andrea, Barbara E. Kahn, Leigh McAlister, and Susan M. Broniarczyk (2005),
“Perceptions of Assortment Variety: The Effects of Congruency Between
49
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Consumers’ Internal and Retailers’ External Organization,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (2), 159-169.
Morrin, Maureen, Susan Broniarczyk, Jeff Inman, and John Broussard (2006),
“Decomposing the 1/n Heuristic: The Moderating Effect of Fund Assortment Size,” working paper, Marketing Department, Rutgers University at Camden.
Mottola, Gary R. and Stephen P. Utkus (2003), “Can There Be Too Much Choice in a
Retirement Savings Plan,” The Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, June 2003.
Oliver, Richard L. (1993), “Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction
Response,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 418-430. Payne, John W. (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision
Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387.
Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson (1993), The Adaptive Decision
Maker, New York: Cambridge University Press. Prelec, Drazen, Birger Wernerfelt, and Florian Zettelmeyer (1997), “The Role of
Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 118-125.
Read, Daniel and George Loewenstein (1995), “Diversification Bias: Explaining the
Discrepancy in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separate Choices,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1 (March), 34-49.
Reibstein, David J., Stuart A. Youngblood, and Howard L. Fromkin (1975), “Number of
Choices and Perceived Decision Freedom as a Determinant of Satisfaction and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (4), 434-437.
Rolls, Barbara J., Edward A. Rowe, Edmund T. Rolls, Breda Kindston, Angela Megson,
and Rachel Gunary (1981), “Variety in a Meal Enhances Food Intake in Man,” Physiology and Behavior, 26 (February), 215-221.
Salganik, M. William (2004), “Too Many Choices?”, The Baltimore Sun, June 27. Schwartz, Barry (2004), The Paradox of Choice, New York, NY: Harper Collins
Publishers, Inc. Schwartz, Barry (2000), “Self-Determination: The Tyranny of Freedom,” American
Psychologist, 55 (January), 79-88.
50
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
Schwartz, Barry, Andrew Ward, John Monterosso, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Katherine White, and Darrin R. Lehman (2002), “Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is A Matter of Choice,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (November), 1178-1197.
Shannon, Claude Elwood (1949), “The Mathematical Theory of Communication,” in The
Mathematical Theory of Communication, ed. Claude Elwood Shannon and Warren Weaver, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 29-125.
Shugan, Steven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7
(September), 99-111. Simon, Herbert A. (1956), “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment,
Psychological Review, 63, 129-138. Simonson, Itamar (1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety
Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (May), 150-162. Simonson, Itamar (1992), “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on
Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 1-14. Summers, John O. (1974), “Less Information is Better?,” Journal of Marketing Research,
11 (November), 467-468. Taylor, Shelley E. and Jonathan D. Brown (1988), “Illusion and Well-Being: A Social-
Psychological Perspective on Mental Health,” Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Tsiros, Michael and Vikas Mittal (2000), “Regret: A Model of Its Antecedents and
Consequences in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 401-417.
Van Herpen, Erica and Rik Pieters (2002), “The Variety of an Assortment: An Extension
to the Attribute-Based Approach,” Marketing Science, 21 (3), 331-341. Van Trijp, Hans C.M., Wayne D. Hoyer, and J. Jeffrey Inman (1996), “Why Switch?
Product Category-Level Explanations for True Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (August), 281-292.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (2003), Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-
Webster Publisher, 11th edition. Wilkie, William L. (1974), “Analysis of Effects of Information Load,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 11 (November), 462-466.
51
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
TABLE 1 Benefits and Negative Consequences of Assortment
Benefits of Assortment
Process-Related Benefits Stimulation and Shopping Pleasure • Positive Anticipation of Choosing • Freedom of Choice • Opportunity to Learn About Product Category • Attract Consumers to Shelf Display
Choice-Related Benefits Increases Probability of Finding Ideal Product • Increases Probability of Finding Multiple
Products to Accommodate Multiple Users • Opportunity for Variety-Seeking • Flexibility for Uncertain Preferences Negative Consequences of Assortment
Lower Choice Accuracy Increases Difficulty Locating Preferred Product on Shelf
• Increases Cognitive Information Load, which is a positive function of:
o # of Alternatives o Similarity in Relative Attractiveness of
Alternatives o # of Attributes and Attribute Levels o Uniform Attribute Distribution and Low
Attribute Importance • Increases Likelihood of Non-Compensatory
Processing
Lower Decision Satisfaction Increases Decision Difficulty and Consumer Confusion
Greater Product Regret Increases # of Foregone Alternatives
Greater Choice Avoidance Increases Likelihood of Choosing Status Quo Option
• Increases Likelihood of Deferring Choice
♦ •
♦ •
♦ •
♦ •
♦ •
♦ •
♦ •
52
Handbook of Consumer Psychology Product Assortment
53
TABLE 2 Assortment Moderating Factors
Assortment Perceptions • Assortment perceptions are positively related to # of products offered. However,
assortment perceptions are not one-to-one function of # of products offered. Smaller product sets may be perceived as offering greater assortment than larger product sets.
• Holding # of products constant, assortment perceptions can be increased by:
o Offering more preferred products o Offering more unique attributes and alternatives o Offering more variability on important attributes o Increasing size of product display o Organizing product display congruent with consumers’ internal category
representations and/or shopping goals Assortment Attribute Type • Assortments differentiated on alignable (vs. non-alignable) attributes exhibit a lower
incidence of choice avoidance. • Assortments differentiated on non-complementary (vs. complementary) attributes
exhibit a lower incidence of choice avoidance. Consumer Preference Development • When choosing from large assortments, consumers with well-developed (vs. less-
well developed) preferences: o Encounter less decision difficulty o Engage in more alternative-based search for preferred alternative o Exhibit higher levels of decision satisfaction o Exhibit higher levels of product satisfaction and lower levels of product regret o Exhibit lower levels of choice deferral
Consumer Maximizer-Satisficer Tendency • When choosing from large assortments, consumers who possess satisficer (vs.
maximizer) tendencies: o Engage in less extensive decision-making o Exhibit higher levels of decision satisfaction o Exhibit lower levels of product regret