Boundaries of Constructive Choice: On the Accessibility of Maximize Accuracy and Minimize Effort Goals

Abstract

The impact of decision difficulty on search behavior depends on the relative accessibility of maximize accuracy and minimize effort goals in memory. The default assumption, derived from constructive choice theory, is that maximize accuracy and minimize effort goals are both accessible. Thus, the two goals compete to influence a decision process. When this is the case, an increase in decision difficulty discourages search and the opportunity to make an accurate decision suffers. The alternative assumption, derived from goal systems theory, is that maximize accuracy and minimize effort goals can be differentially accessible. When one of these goals is more accessible, decision difficulty signals poor goal progress and reduces goal pursuit. That is, when a maximize accuracy (minimize effort) goal is more accessible, decision difficulty reduces (increases) search. Six studies show that goal systems theory holds when a maximize accuracy or minimize effort goal is more accessible, that is, is deliberately pursued. The results have implications for how decision difficulty influences information search, satisficing, and choice quality.

Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales

“…Additionally, researchers may modify the wording of scale items to better align with specific researcher intentions. This can be seen with our opening example of Affonso et al (2021) and their simple modification to the wording of the improvised decision difficulty scale to customize it to the product categories used (e.g., car or vacation package).…”

“…Minor wording changes are likely to occur and even be essential, and it is quite possible that the fit assessment discussed previously would help identify items that might need wording changes. Simple wording changes may be needed to appropriately relate the scale to the current context (e.g., Affonso et al, 2021 modification of the decision difficulty scale to reflect the specific product categories used in their studies). Although this example is perhaps of the simplest form, similar changes may be necessary when adapting an existing measure from a related field outside of marketing.…”

“…However, Raghunathan and Chandrasekaran shortened the length of this scale and modified the item wording, which we refer to as "modified, validated" usage. Our final example of scale deployment is drawn from Affonso et al (2021), who deployed a scale to measure decision difficulty (Laroche et al, 2005). As with the political ideology scale, this scale was never empirically validated through scale development procedures.…”

“…As with the political ideology scale, this scale was never empirically validated through scale development procedures. Additionally, Affonso et al (2021) modified the wording of this scale, which we label as "modified, improvised" usage. Thus, in our third and fourth examples, the scales used were both modified, but one of these scales was validated, whereas the other was improvised.…”

Validation of the information processing theory of consumer choice: evidence from travel search engine clickstream data

“…The explosive growth in online shopping, projected to surpass $6tn worldwide by 2024 (Statista, 2021a), is accompanied by intense research interest in online shopping behavior, in general (Statista, 2021b), and purchase at product search engines, in particular (Kim and Kim, 2004; Choudhary et al , 2017; Hollebeek et al , 2018; Shen et al , 2018; Bhatnagar et al , 2019). An emerging relatively new area of research, within this larger literature, is examining theoretical and managerial aspects of consumers’ search and purchase decisions through the lens of the revered information processing theory of consumer choice (Payne, 1976; Bettman, 1979; Affonso et al , 2021), most recently in online point-of-purchase settings (Mintz et al , 2013; Currim et al , 2015; Gilbride et al , 2016).…”