Despite the voluminous evidence in support of the paradoxical finding that providing individuals with more options can be detrimental to choice, the question of whether and when large assortments impede choice remains open. Even though extant research has identified a variety of antecedents and consequences of choice overload, the findings of the individual studies fail to come together into a cohesive understanding of when large assortments can benefit choice and when they can be detrimental to choice. In a meta‐analysis of 99 observations (N = 7202) reported by prior research, we identify four key factors—choice set complexity, decision task difficulty, preference uncertainty, and decision goal—that moderate the impact of assortment size on choice overload. We further show that each of these four factors has a reliable and significant impact on choice overload, whereby higher levels of decision task difficulty, greater choice set complexity, higher preference uncertainty, and a more prominent, effort‐minimizing goal facilitate choice overload. We also find that four of the measures of choice overload used in prior research—satisfaction/confidence, regret, choice deferral, and switching likelihood—are equally powerful measures of choice overload and can be used interchangeably. Finally, we document that when moderating variables are taken into account the overall effect of assortment size on choice overload is significant—a finding counter to the data reported by prior meta‐analytic research.

Corporate social responsibility is commonly viewed solely as a tool for enhancing company reputations and engendering goodwill among customers. In contrast, this research shows that the impact of corporate social responsibility can extend beyond public relations and customer goodwill to influence the way consumers evaluate a company's products. Specifically, this research documents that acts of social goodwill-even when they are unrelated to the company's core business, as in the case of charitable giving-can alter product perceptions, such that products of companies engaged in prosocial activities are perceived as performing better. More important, the data show that inferences drawn from a company's prosocial actions are strong enough to alter the product evaluations even when consumers can directly observe and experience the product. The data further show that this effect is a function of the moral undertone of the company's motivation for engaging in socially responsible behavior and is attenuated when consumers believe that the company's behavior is driven by self-interest rather than by benevolence. By documenting that social goodwill can benefit consumer perceptions of product performance, these findings show that doing good can indeed translate into doing well.

Contrary to the common wisdom that more choice is always better, selections made from large assortments can lead to weaker preferences. Building on the extant literature, this research identifies ideal point availability as a key factor moderating the impact of assortment on choice. It is proposed that, in the case of large assortments, ideal point availability can simplify choice, leading to a stronger preference for the selected alternative. In contrast, for choices made from smaller assortments, ideal point availability is proposed to have the opposite effect, leading to weaker preferences. Data obtained from four experiments lend support for the theory and the empirical predictions advanced in this article.

This research advances the notion that product evaluations are a function of the compatibility of consumers' goals with the attributes describing choice alternatives. Building on the concept of self-regulation, it is argued that attribute evaluations are moderated by individuals' goal orientation and, specifically, that attributes compatible with individuals' regulatory orientation tend to be overweighted in choice. This proposition is tested by examining the impact of goal orientation on consumer preferences in 3 different contexts: (a) hedonic versus utilitarian attributes, (b) performance versus reliability attributes, and (c) attractive versus unattractive (good vs. bad) attributes. The data show that prevention-focused individuals are more likely to overweight (in relative terms) utilitarian, reliability-related, and unattractive attributes than promotion-focused consumers, who are more likely to place relatively more weight on hedonic, performance-related, and attractive attributes. Considered together, these findings support the proposition that attributes compatible with individuals' goal orientation tend to be overweighted in choice.

How do consumers evaluate combinations of items representing conflicting goals? In this research, the authors examine how consumers form value judgments of combinations of options representing health and indulgence goals, focusing on how people estimate the calorie content of such options. The authors show that when evaluating combinations of healthy (virtue) and indulgent (vice) options, consumers tend to systematically underestimate the combined calorie content, such that they end up averaging rather than adding the calories contained in the vice and the virtue. The authors attribute this bias to the qualitative nature of people's information processing, which stems from their tendency to categorize food items according to a good/bad dichotomy into virtues and vices. The authors document this averaging bias in a series of four empirical studies that investigate the underlying mechanism and identify boundary conditions.