IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnlaaa/v2014y2014i1n569054.html

Choice Overload, Satisficing Behavior, and Price Distribution in a Time Allocation Model

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Álvarez
  • José-Manuel Rey
  • Raúl G. Sanchis

Abstract

Recent psychological research indicates that consumers that search exhaustively for the best option of a market product—known as maximizers—eventually feel worse than consumers who just look for something good enough—called satisficers. We formulate a time allocation model to explore the relationship between different distributions of prices of the product and the satisficing behavior and the related welfare of the consumer. We show numerically that, as the number of options becomes large, the maximizing behavior produces less and less welfare and eventually leads to choice paralysis—these are effects of choice overload—whereas satisficing conducts entail higher levels of satisfaction and do not end up in paralysis. For different price distributions, we provide consistent evidence that maximizers are better off for a low number of options, whereas satisficers are better off for a sufficiently large number of options. We also show how the optimal satisficing behavior is affected when the underlying price distribution varies. We provide evidence that the mean and the dispersion of a symmetric distribution of prices—but not the shape of the distribution—condition the satisficing behavior of consumers. We also show that this need not be the case for asymmetric distributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Álvarez & José-Manuel Rey & Raúl G. Sanchis, 2014. "Choice Overload, Satisficing Behavior, and Price Distribution in a Time Allocation Model," Abstract and Applied Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2014(1).
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnlaaa:v:2014:y:2014:i:1:n:569054
    DOI: 10.1155/2014/569054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/569054
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2014/569054?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Francisco Álvarez & José-Manuel Rey & Raúl G. Sanchis, 2016. "Pricing Strategy versus Heterogeneous Shopping Behavior under Market Price Dispersion," Abstract and Applied Analysis, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-8, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Adriana Manolică & Andreea-Sînziana Guță & Teodora Roman & Lorin Mircea Dragăn, 2021. "Is Consumer Overchoice a Reason for Decision Paralysis?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, May.

    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. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:344038 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    4. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    5. Kameng Nip & Zhenbo Wang & Zizhuo Wang, 2021. "Assortment Optimization under a Single Transition Choice Model," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2122-2142, July.
    6. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    7. Aydinli, Aylin & Gu, Yangjie & Pham, Michel Tuan, 2017. "An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 746-760.
    8. Andreas Hefti & Shuo Liu & Armin Schmutzler, 2022. "Preferences, Confusion and Competition," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(645), pages 1852-1881.
    9. Kim, Jikyung (Jeanne) & Kim, Sanghwa & Choi, Jeonghye, 2020. "Purchase now and consume later: Do online and offline environments drive online social interactions and sales?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 274-285.
    10. Zhang, Cong & Pan, Siyu & Zhao, Yanhui, 2024. "More is not always better: Examining the drivers of livestream sales from an information overload perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    11. Graafland, Johan, 2023. "Economic freedom and life satisfaction: A moderated mediation model with individual autonomy and national culture," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. Friesen, Lana & Earl, Peter E., 2015. "Multipart tariffs and bounded rationality: An experimental analysis of mobile phone plan choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 239-253.
    13. Brühl, Johanna & Smith, Grant & Visser, Martine, 2019. "Simple is good: Redesigning utility bills to reduce complexity and increase understanding," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Andrew E. Reed & Joseph A. Mikels & Corinna E. Lockenhoff, 2012. "Choosing with confidence: Self-efficacy and preferences for choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 173-180, March.
    15. Ahani, Ali & Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Yadegaridehkordi, Elaheh & Sanzogni, Louis & Tarik, A. Rashid & Knox, Kathy & Samad, Sarminah & Ibrahim, Othman, 2019. "Revealing customers’ satisfaction and preferences through online review analysis: The case of Canary Islands hotels," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 331-343.
    16. Yasmin Olteanu, 2018. "Theoretical Concepts," Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance, in: Access to Justice in Microfinance, chapter 0, pages 9-53, Palgrave Macmillan.
    17. 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.
    18. Thai, Nguyen T. & Yuksel, Ulku, 2017. "Too many destinations to visit: Tourists’ dilemma?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 38-53.
    19. Isabel Kaluza & Guido Voigt & Knut Haase & Antonia Dietze, 2024. "Control of Online-Appointment Systems When the Booking Status Signals Quality of Service," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 397-432, September.
    20. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Li, Tongzhe & McCluskey, Jill J. & Messer, Kent D., 2018. "Ignorance Is Bliss? Experimental Evidence on Wine Produced from Grapes Irrigated with Recycled Water," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 100-110.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jnlaaa:v:2014:y:2014:i:1:n:569054. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/4058 .

    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.