No abstract

The Internet and social media have increased the number of organizations and individuals asking consumers to sign petitions against transgressing brands. This raises a question as to whether such increases in requests to sign a petition to support a boycott positively or negatively impact on consumer willingness to enact anti-consumption. Via experiments, this study investigates the effect that choice overload has on consumers signing a petition in support of a boycott call. The findings establish that individuals who need to make a choice from numerous boycott calls (i.e., large choice-sets) are less likely to sign a petition to support a boycott than individuals making a similar choice from a small number of boycott calls (i.e., small choice-sets). The study further introduces a mediator that explains this effect. Compared with individuals facing a small choice-set, those facing numerous options are more likely to experience the small-agent rationalization, and thus, are less likely to sign the petition to support a boycott. The small-agent rationalization (SAR) relates to one's acceptance of inequity in the world as well as perceptions of their own powerlessness. The study establishes the role of choice overload in boycott literature and empirically tests SAR as the process mechanism.Theoretical, practical, and policy implications are discussed. K E Y W O R D Santi-consumption, boycott, choice overload, inequity, petition, powerlessness, sign a petition, small-agent rationalization

Purpose This research aims to investigates whether and why choice overload (CO) occurs when people select a vacation destination. Design/methodology/approach This is a two-group (large choice-set vs small choice-set) between-subject factorial design. Dependent variables representing CO-effects are post-choice satisfaction and regret. Choice confusion and choice uncertainty are mediators. Findings Relative to people choosing from a small destination portfolio, people who choose from a large portfolio are less satisfied and more regretful about their choice. Choosing from a large choice-set confuses people, which then makes them less certain about their choice, and subsequently, have less satisfaction and more regret about their decision. Practical implications A critical consideration is essential when providing a number of destination choices to tourists. A few destinations should be offered in a travel portfolio. If the number of destination offers must remain large, travel agents should cluster these offers based on a market segmentation analysis to ease the decision-making process for travellers. Originality/value The findings add to evidence of CO-effects to the current literature of travel destination choice, and contribute to CO literature by showing evidence of CO-effects in complex service contexts, especially in holiday destination choices. This study is the first to provide evidence of CO-effects at the early stages of the travel destination decision-making process; it uses hypothetical destinations to avoid potential confounds associated with real destinations; and it measures CO-effects via post-choice satisfaction and regret. In addition, while the only available study on CO in tourism (Park and Jang, 2013) does not explain why CO-effects occur, this research provides and explains the psychological underlying process of the CO phenomenon in destination choice-making.

No abstract

No abstract