IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v19y2000i1p4-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald Häubl

    (Faculty of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2R6)

  • Valerie Trifts

    (Faculty of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2R6)

Abstract

Despite the explosive growth of electronic commerce and the rapidly increasing number of consumers who use interactive media (such as the World Wide Web) for prepurchase information search and online shopping, very little is known about how consumers make purchase decisions in such settings. A unique characteristic of online shopping environments is that they allow vendors to create retail interfaces with highly interactive features. One desirable form of interactivity from a consumer perspective is the implementation of sophisticated tools to assist shoppers in their purchase decisions by customizing the electronic shopping environment to their individual preferences. The availability of such tools, which we refer to as for consumers, may lead to a transformation of the way in which shoppers search for product information and make purchase decisions. The primary objective of this paper is to investigate the nature of the effects that interactive decision aids may have on consumer decision making in online shopping environments. While making purchase decisions, consumers are often unable to evaluate all available alternatives in great depth and, thus, tend to use two-stage processes to reach their decisions. At the first stage, consumers typically screen a large set of available products and identify a subset of the most promising alternatives. Subsequently, they evaluate the latter in more depth, perform relative comparisons across products on important attributes, and make a purchase decision. Given the different tasks to be performed in such a two-stage process, interactive tools that provide support to consumers in the following respects are particularly valuable: (1) the initial screening of available products to determine which ones are worth considering further, and (2) the in-depth comparison of selected products before making the actual purchase decision. This paper examines the effects of two decision aids, each designed to assist consumers in performing one of the above tasks, on purchase decision making in an online store. The first interactive tool, a (RA), allows consumers to more efficiently screen the (potentially very large) set of alternatives available in an online shopping environment. Based on self-explicated information about a consumer's own utility function (attribute importance weights and minimum acceptable attribute levels), the RA generates a personalized list of recommended alternatives. The second decision aid, a (CM), is designed to help consumers make in-depth comparisons among selected alternatives. The CM allows consumers to organize attribute information about multiple products in an alternatives × attributes matrix and to have alternatives sorted by any attribute. Based on theoretical and empirical work in marketing, judgment and decision making, psychology, and decision support systems, we develop a set of hypotheses pertaining to the effects of these two decision aids on various aspects of consumer decision making. In particular, we focus on how use of the RA and CM affects consumers' search for product information, the size and quality of their consideration sets, and the quality of their purchase decisions in an online shopping environment. A controlled experiment using a simulated online store was conducted to test the hypotheses. The results indicate that both interactive decision aids have a substantial impact on consumer decision making. As predicted, use of the RA reduces consumers' search effort for product information, decreases the size but increases the quality of their consideration sets, and improves the quality of their purchase decisions. Use of the CM also leads to a decrease in the size but an increase in the quality of consumers' consideration sets, and has a favorable effect on some indicators of decision quality. In sum, our findings suggest that interactive tools designed to assist consumers in the initial screening of available alternatives and to facilitate in-depth comparisons among selected alternatives in an online shopping environment may have strong favorable effects on both the quality the efficiency of purchase decisions—shoppers can make much while expending substantially . This suggests that interactive decision aids have the potential to drastically transform the way in which consumers search for product information and make purchase decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:19:y:2000:i:1:p:4-21
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.19.1.4.15178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.1.4.15178
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.19.1.4.15178?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Keller, Kevin Lane & Staelin, Richard, 1989. "Assessing Biases in Measuring Decision Effectiveness and Information Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(4), pages 504-508, March.
    3. Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. "Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(3), pages 263-276, December.
    4. Fred M. Feinberg & Joel Huber, 1996. "A Theory of Cutoff Formation Under Imperfect Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 65-84, January.
    5. Todd, Peter & Benbasat, Izak, 1994. "The Influence of Decision Aids on Choice Strategies: An Experimental Analysis of the Role of Cognitive Effort," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 36-74, October.
    6. Moorthy, Sridhar & Ratchford, Brian T & Talukdar, Debabrata, 1997. "Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(4), pages 263-277, March.
    7. Brian T. Ratchford & Narasimhan Srinivasan, 1993. "An Empirical Investigation of Returns to Search," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 73-87.
    8. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    9. Keller, Kevin Lane & Staelin, Richard, 1987. "Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 200-213, September.
    10. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    11. J. Yannis Bakos, 1997. "Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic Marketplaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(12), pages 1676-1692, December.
    12. Michael H. Zack, 1993. "Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 207-239, September.
    13. Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 1988. "Information displays and preference reversals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Ariely, Dan, 2000. "Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers' Decision Making and Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 233-248, September.
    15. Stephen J. Hoch & David A. Schkade, 1996. "A Psychological Approach to Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 51-64, January.
    16. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. "The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
    17. Singh, Daniele Thomassin & Ginzberg, Michael J., 1996. "An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Process Monitoring on Computer-Mediated Decision-Making Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 156-169, August.
    18. Muthukrishnan, A V, 1995. "Decision Ambiguity and Incumbent Brand Advantage," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(1), pages 98-109, June.
    19. George M. Kasper, 1996. "A Theory of Decision Support System Design for User Calibration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 215-232, June.
    20. Bettman, James R. & Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W., 1990. "A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 111-139, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alan L. Montgomery & Kartik Hosanagar & Ramayya Krishnan & Karen B. Clay, 2004. "Designing a Better Shopbot," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 189-206, February.
    2. Anocha Aribarg & Thomas Otter & Daniel Zantedeschi & Greg M. Allenby & Taylor Bentley & David J. Curry & Marc Dotson & Ty Henderson & Elisabeth Honka & Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi & Stephan Seiler & X, 2018. "Advancing Non-compensatory Choice Models in Marketing," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 82-92, March.
    3. Adam Sanjurjo, 2015. "Search, Memory, and Choice Error: An Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2009. "Product Variety and Endogenous Pricing with Evaluation Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1338-1346, August.
    5. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    6. Lior Fink & Daniele Papismedov, 2023. "On the Same Page? What Users Benefit from a Desktop View on Mobile Devices," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 423-441, June.
    7. Yan, Huan & Chang, En-Chung & Chou, Ting-Jui & Tang, Xiaofei, 2015. "The over-categorization effect: How the number of categorizations influences shoppers' perceptions of variety and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 631-638.
    8. S. Iglesias-Parro & A. Ortega & E. De la Fuente & I. Martín, 2001. "Context Variables as Cognitive Effort Modulators in Decision Making Using an Alternative-Based Processing Strategy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 311-323, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E., 2003. "Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 203-214, July.
    11. Choudhary, Vidyanand & Currim, Imran & Dewan, Sanjeev & Jeliazkov, Ivan & Mintz, Ofer & Turner, John, 2017. "Evaluation Set Size and Purchase: Evidence from a Product Search Engine," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 16-31.
    12. Francisco Silva & Samir Mamadehussene, 2020. "The Equivalence Between Sequential and Simultaneous Firm Decisions," Documentos de Trabajo 541, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    13. Fernando Branco & Monic Sun & J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2012. "Optimal Search for Product Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2037-2056, November.
    14. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    15. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    16. Xitong Li & Jörn Grahl & Oliver Hinz, 2022. "How Do Recommender Systems Lead to Consumer Purchases? A Causal Mediation Analysis of a Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 620-637, June.
    17. Shuk Ying Ho & David Bodoff & Kar Yan Tam, 2011. "Timing of Adaptive Web Personalization and Its Effects on Online Consumer Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 660-679, September.
    18. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    19. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    20. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, 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:inm:ormksc:v:19:y:2000:i:1:p:4-21. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.