IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v188y2021icp46-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting choice-averse and choice-loving behaviors in a field experiment with actual shoppers

Author

Listed:
  • Ong, David

Abstract

A large body of chiefly laboratory research has attempted to demonstrate that people can exhibit choice-averse behavior from cognitive overload when faced with many options. However, meta-analyses of these studies, which are generally of one or two product lines, reveal conflicting results. Findings of choice-averse behavior are balanced by findings of choice-loving behavior. Unexplored is the possibility that many consumers may purchase to reveal their tastes for unfamiliar products, rather than attempt to forecast their tastes before purchase. I model such ‘sampling-search’ behavior and predict that the purchases of unfamiliar consumers increase with the available number of varieties for popular/mainstream product lines and decrease for niche product lines. To test these predictions, I develop a measure of popularity based on a survey of 1,440 shoppers for their preferences over 24 product lines with 339 varieties at a large supermarket in China. 35,694 shoppers were video recorded after the varieties they faced on shelves were randomly reduced. As found in the meta-studies, choice-averse behavior was balanced by choice-loving behavior. However, as predicted, the probability of choice-loving behavior increases with the number of available varieties for popular product lines, whereas choice-averse behavior increases with available varieties for niche product lines. These findings suggest that increasing the number of varieties has predictable opposing effects on sales, depending upon the popularity of the product line, and opens the possibility of reconciling apparently conflicting prior results.

Suggested Citation

  • Ong, David, 2021. "Predicting choice-averse and choice-loving behaviors in a field experiment with actual shoppers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 46-71.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:188:y:2021:i:c:p:46-71
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268121001888
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.05.002?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lin Liu & Anthony Dukes, 2016. "Consumer Search with Limited Product Evaluation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 32-55, March.
    2. Bertrand, Marianne & Karlan, Dean S. & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Shafir, Eldar & Zinman, Jonathan, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Center Discussion Papers 28441, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    3. Alexander Chernev & Ulf Böckenholt & Joseph Goodman, 2010. "Commentary on Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, and Todd Choice Overload: Is There Anything to It?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 426-428, October.
    4. Nagler, Matthew G., 2015. "Trading off the benefits and costs of choice: Evidence from Australian elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Dmitri Kuksov & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2010. "When More Alternatives Lead to Less Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 507-524, 05-06.
    6. Jonathan D. Ketcham & Claudio Lucarelli & Christopher A. Powers, 2015. "Paying Attention or Paying Too Much in Medicare Part D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 204-233, January.
    7. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2009. "Product Variety and Endogenous Pricing with Evaluation Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1338-1346, August.
    8. Bart J. Bronnenberg & Jean-Pierre H. Dube & Matthew Gentzkow, 2012. "The Evolution of Brand Preferences: Evidence from Consumer Migration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2472-2508, October.
    9. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    10. Emir Kamenica, 2008. "Contextual Inference in Markets: On the Informational Content of Product Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2127-2149, December.
    11. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    12. Monic Sun, 2012. "How Does the Variance of Product Ratings Matter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 696-707, April.
    13. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    14. Iyengar, Sheena S. & Kamenica, Emir, 2010. "Choice proliferation, simplicity seeking, and asset allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 530-539, August.
    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. Charles Hugh Wilkie, Dean & Mirzaei, Abas & Pham, Ngoc & Johnson, Lester W., 2022. "Reassessing product line breadth effectiveness: The role of heterogeneity, moderation, and cumulative effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 434-447.

    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. David Ong, 2021. "Choice averse behavior and sampling risk: a field experiment with actual shoppers," Framed Field Experiments 00547, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    3. David Goldreich & Hanna Hałaburda, 2013. "When Smaller Menus Are Better: Variability in Menu-Setting Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2518-2535, November.
    4. Jason T. Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2009. "Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program," NBER Working Papers 14759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Mason, Richard, 2019. "Digital enrollment architecture and retirement savings decisions: Evidence from the field," Other publications TiSEM 58639618-e34e-4b5c-8c8c-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Mikhalishchev, Sergei, 2023. "Optimal menu when agents make mistakes," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 25-33.
    7. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Choi, James J. & Haisley, Emily & Kurkoski, Jennifer & Massey, Cade, 2017. "Small cues change savings choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 378-395.
    9. Gerasimou, Georgios & Papi, Mauro, 2018. "Duopolistic competition with choice-overloaded consumers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 330-353.
    10. Drew Fudenberg, 2006. "Advancing Beyond Advances in Behavioral Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 694-711, September.
    11. Fabrice Le Lec & Marianne Lumeau & Benoît Tarroux, 2016. "Choice or information overload ?," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2016-07, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    12. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Smits, Joeri & Sun, Qigang, 2020. "Contract structure, time preference, and technology adoption," GLO Discussion Paper Series 633, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Ekström, Mathias, 2021. "The (un)compromise effect: How suggested alternatives can promote active choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    14. Mark Dean & Dilip Ravindran & Jorg Stoye, 2022. "A Better Test of Choice Overload," Papers 2212.03931, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    15. Jun Li & Serguei Netessine, 2020. "Higher Market Thickness Reduces Matching Rate in Online Platforms: Evidence from a Quasiexperiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 271-289, January.
    16. Benjamin M. Marx & Lesley J. Turner, 2019. "Student Loan Choice Overload," NBER Working Papers 25905, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Nagler, Matthew G., 2015. "Trading off the benefits and costs of choice: Evidence from Australian elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Marx, Benjamin M. & Turner, Lesley J., 2020. "Paralysis by analysis? Effects of information on student loan take-up," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    19. Ericson, Keith M. Marzilli & Starc, Amanda, 2016. "How product standardization affects choice: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 71-85.
    20. Fernando Branco & Monic Sun & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2016. "Too Much Information? Information Provision and Search Costs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 605-618, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Field experiment; Choice overload; Choice-aversion; Consumer search;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jeborg:v:188:y:2021:i:c:p:46-71. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.