Great Expectations?! Assortment Size, Expectations, and Satisfaction

Abstract

Recent research challenges the idea that greater choice is always desirable, showing that larger assortments can increase choice deferral and switching. The current research demonstrates that even when consumers make a purchase, the same item may generate lower satisfaction when chosen from a larger rather than a smaller assortment. The authors explain this effect in terms of an expectation-disconfirmation mechanism. When assortments are small, consumers have low expectations about their ability to match their preferences. As assortment sizes increase, so do consumers’ expectations of the degree of preference match they can achieve. Subsequently, consumers may experience greater negative expectation disconfirmation or less positive expectation disconfirmation when a chosen item comes from a larger rather than a smaller set. Either less positive or more negative disconfirmation leads to lower choice satisfaction. The results from three studies support this expectation-based process and establish this mechanism in addition to alternative explanations, such as choice overload.

Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload

“…The attractiveness of the second-best, nonchosen alternative is also likely to be greater in larger assortments, which might lead to more counterfactual thinking and regret concerning what was not chosen. Large assortments may also increase expectations, and if the available options are all very similar, these expectations may not be met (Diehl and Poynor 2007;Schwartz 2000). Together, these processes may decrease the decision maker's satisfaction with the finally chosen option.…”

“…These proposed effects of extensive assortments include a decrease in the motivation to choose, to commit to a choice, or to make any choice at all (Iyengar, Huberman, and Jiang 2004;Iyengar and Lepper 2000); a decrease in preference strength and satisfaction with the chosen option (Chernev 2003b;Iyengar and Lepper 2000); and an increase in negative emotions, including disappointment and regret (Schwartz 2000). These phenomena have been selectively referred to as "choice overload" (Diehl and Poynor 2007;Iyengar and Lepper 2000;Mogilner, Rudnick, and Iyengar 2008), "overchoice effect" (Gourville and Soman 2005), "the problem of too much choice" (Fasolo, McClelland, and Todd 2007), "the tyranny of choice" (Schwartz 2000), or "too-much-choice effect" (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, and Todd 2009); an increasing number of products to choose from is sometimes termed "consumer hyperchoice" (Mick, Broniarczyk, and Haidt 2004). Common to all these accounts is the notion of adverse consequences due to an increase in the number of options to choose from.…”

Paying Attention or Paying Too Much in Medicare Part D

“…A leading challenge to this view is the hypothesis that facing more options impairs decision making through a set of phenomena known as "choice overload" (Diehl and Poynor 2010;Iyengar and Lepper 2000), "status quo bias" (Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988), "inertia" (Dube, Hitsch, and Rossi 2010) and "the paradox of choice" in which "more is less" (Schwartz 2004). Each of these terms carries somewhat different connotations and is ascribed to various underlying economic and psychological causes.…”

Having Versus Consuming: Failure to Estimate Usage Frequency Makes Consumers Prefer Multi-Feature Products

“…This result is consistent with our finding that a focus on usage, which is related to feasibility, decreases the demand for many features. Taking this a step further, it is possible that estimating usage could also result in a demand for smaller assortments, perhaps attenuating choice overload (e.g., Diehl and Poynor 2010;Goodman et al 2013;Iyengar and Lepper 2000).…”