IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v28y2017i4d10.1007_s11002-017-9440-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel C. Brannon

    (University of Northern Colorado)

  • Brandon W. Soltwisch

    (University of Northern Colorado)

Abstract

Past studies have largely focused on how maximizers versus satisficers choose among multiple products within a given consideration set. By contrast, our research focuses on how and why maximizers evaluate an individual product based on a salient characteristic—the number of features that it has. Across two studies, we find that maximizers evaluate products more favorably than satisficers when they have many features (i.e., they are “feature-rich”), but not when they have few features (i.e., they are “feature-poor”). Further, we outline the process underlying this effect: Maximizers are more likely than satisficers to perceive feature-rich (vs. feature-poor) products as a means of signaling status to others. We additionally identify a boundary condition supporting this proposed theoretical process. Specifically, we demonstrate that when maximizers no longer perceive feature-rich products as status signals, they do not evaluate them more favorably than satisficers.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel C. Brannon & Brandon W. Soltwisch, 2017. "If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 651-662, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11002-017-9440-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-017-9440-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-017-9440-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-017-9440-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peracchio, Laura A & Tybout, Alice M, 1996. "The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(3), pages 177-192, December.
    2. Silvia Bellezza & Francesca Gino & Anat Keinan, 2014. "The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 35-54.
    3. Ali Besharat & Daniel Ladik & François Carrillat, 2014. "Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-91, March.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:342-350 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:164-175 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:364-370 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Tilottama Chowdhury & S. Ratneshwar & Praggyan Mohanty, 2009. "The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 155-167, June.
    9. François Carrillat & Daniel Ladik & Renaud Legoux, 2011. "When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 283-296, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katyal, Kanupriya & Dawra, Jagrook & Soni, Nitin, 2022. "The posh, the paradoxical and the phony: Are there individual differences between consumers of luxury, masstige and counterfeit brands?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 191-204.
    2. Kurata, Hisashi, 2019. "Is the information of customer types and preferences to personal selling worth the investment in innovative technology? A modeling approach," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 371-379.
    3. Ana Alina Tudoran, 2022. "A machine learning approach to identifying decision-making styles for managing customer relationships," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 351-374, March.
    4. Brandon William Soltwisch, 2021. "When the Quest for the Best Pays Off: How Maximising Entrepreneurs Improve Performance by Creating Entrepreneurial and Market Oriented Businesses," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 30(2), pages 223-248, September.
    5. Xia, Lan & Bechwati, Nada Nasr, 2021. "Maximizing what? The effect of maximizing mindset on the evaluation of product bundles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 314-325.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michail D. Kokkoris, 2018. "When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 73-85, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:126-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Misuraca, Raffaella & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Nathan N. Cheek & Barry Schwartz, 2016. "On the meaning and measurement of maximization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(2), pages 126-146, March.
    5. Ana Alina Tudoran, 2022. "A machine learning approach to identifying decision-making styles for managing customer relationships," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 351-374, March.
    6. Harris, Patricia & Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca & Hand, Chris, 2021. "Multichannel shopping: The effect of decision making style on shopper journey configuration and satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    7. Dean C. H. Wilkie & Lester W. Johnson & Wynne W. Chin, 2018. "Does the type of attribute matter? Examining whether underlying factors explain product attribute preference," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(4), pages 305-321, July.
    8. Jenni Sipilä & Sascha Alavi & Laura Marie Edinger-Schons & Sabrina Dörfer & Christian Schmitz, 2021. "Corporate social responsibility in luxury contexts: potential pitfalls and how to overcome them," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 280-303, March.
    9. Gao, Xin & De Hooge, Ilona E. & Fischer, Arnout R.H., 2022. "Something underneath? Using a within-subjects design to examine schema congruity theory at an individual level," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    10. Gerrath, Maximilian H.E.E. & Biraglia, Alessandro, 2021. "How less congruent new products drive brand engagement: The role of curiosity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 13-24.
    11. Sara Kim & Rocky Peng Chen & Ke Zhang, 2016. "Anthropomorphized Helpers Undermine Autonomy and Enjoyment in Computer Games," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(2), pages 282-302.
    12. Ali Besharat & Daniel Ladik & François Carrillat, 2014. "Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-91, March.
    13. Mittal, Banwari, 2016. "The maximizing consumer wants even more choices: How consumers cope with the marketplace of overchoice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 361-370.
    14. FeCheng Ma & Farhan Khan & Kashif Ullah Khan & Si XiangYun, 2021. "Investigating the Impact of Information Technology, Absorptive Capacity, and Dynamic Capabilities on Firm Performance: An Empirical Study," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    15. Nosheena Yasir & Nasir Mahmood & Hafiz Shakir Mehmood & Osama Rashid & An Liren, 2021. "The Integrated Role of Personal Values and Theory of Planned Behavior to Form a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Mia M. Vainio & Daiva Daukantaitė, 2016. "Grit and Different Aspects of Well-Being: Direct and Indirect Relationships via Sense of Coherence and Authenticity," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 2119-2147, October.
    17. Yu Ding & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Dominique M. Hanssens & Kamel Jedidi & John G. Lynch & Donald R. Lehmann, 2020. "The past, present, and future of measurement and methods in marketing analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 175-186, September.
    18. Lefroy, Kathryn & Tsarenko, Yelena, 2014. "Dependence and effectiveness in the nonprofit-corporate alliance: The mediating effect of objectives achievement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1959-1966.
    19. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    20. Anxin Xu & Chenwen Wei & Manhua Zheng & Lili Sun & Decong Tang, 2022. "Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    21. Alessia Acampora & Michele Preziosi & Maria Claudia Lucchetti & Roberto Merli, 2022. "The Role of Hotel Environmental Communication and Guests’ Environmental Concern in Determining Guests’ Behavioral Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:28:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11002-017-9440-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.