Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose: Emerging and Prospective Research
on the Deleterious Effects of Living in Consumer Hyperchoice
Author(s): David Glen Mick, Susan M. Broniarczyk, Jonathan Haidt
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 2, Ethical Issues in Business: Perspectives
from the Business Academic Community (Jun., 2004), pp. 207-211
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123247 .
Accessed: 26/04/2012 16:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org
Choose,
Choose:
Choose,
Choose,
Choose,
Choose,
Choose,
and Prospective
Research
Consumer
increasing
amount
The
today's
amount
of
ideology
choice
of
is an
there
an
amidst
buying,
the
across
washed
economies
developed
and
consumption
have
the
ever
that hyperchoice
example,
confuses
ever-increasing
and
people
increases
regret, that hyperchoice is initially attractive but ultimately
unsatisfying, and that hyperchoice is psychologically drain
Future
ing.
research
may
hyperchoice
the degrading
including
why
is then
have
discussed,
of moral
including
effects
toxic
other
how
and
on
people,
and behavior.
emotions
today's
developed
amount
of
amount
of new
Introduction
now
spans the world,
Consumption
ideology
an
consumer
of
choice. But in
imperative
including
David Mick
([email protected]) is the Roben Hill Carter
Professor ofMarketing at theMclntire School of Commerce,
University
of Virginia,
and
quality
technology,
of
information
processing,
who
product
in materialism,
Susan
life.
([email protected]),
was
interests
and
Virginia
when
this article was
written;
she
brand
choice
choice,
is a Professor
?M
r*
emotions
and positive
not
of
of
as much
contribute
to
of
quality
thought or hoped for. This proposition
seemed heretical a few decades ago, but
scattered.
Much
work
Ues
the
influences
Marketing at theMcCombs College of Business Adminis
tration, University of Texas at Austin. Jon Haidt
([email protected]) is an Associate Professor of Psychology
at the University of Virginia, specializing in the study of
moral
may
and
indirect,
partial,
to
ahead
comprehend
views
the Visiting Talbott's Professor at the University
ever-increasing
might have
no longer
1999; Mick,
1997; Sch
(Loewenstein,
wartz, 2004).
anecdotal
and introspective
evidence
Although
seem
to
this
relevant
support
proposition,
are
from
and
field
empirical
findings
laboratory
Broniarczyk
consumer
studies
assortment,
an
the consumer
activities of
Moreover,
hyperchoice.
an
holiday gift, replacing out
ordering
obligatory
dated telecommunication
and indulging
technology,
a 25
in a new pair of fashionable
in
between
shoes,
at
store
minute
the grocery
for $104 of weekly
stop
sustenance,
research
buying
amidst
time (Linder, 1971; Schor,
of discretionary
1999;
1976; Toffler,
1970). Taken
Scitovsky,
together,
these conditions make up the context of consumer
life as once
with
this ever-increasing
economies,
occurs
products, brands, and brand exten
amount of
sions, in the midst of an ever-increasing
amount
other daily demands and an ever-decreasing
an
purchase
Broniarczyk
Jonathan Haidt
amidst
options,
ever-increasing
an
amount
amount
of dis
of stress, amidst
ever-decreasing
reviews
time. This brief essay
research
cretionary
suggesting,
for
of
Susan M.
Hyperchoice
consumer
of
imperative
In
globe.
David Glen Mick
in
Effects of Living
Deleterious
ABSTRACT.
Emerging
on the
of hyperchoice.
that
prior research
noxious
potentiaUy
This brief essay over
is germane
to hyper
information
conditions,
overload,
including
time
and sequential
stress, decision
elaboration,
It then discusses prospective
choices.
research for
whether
examining
choice
extend further,
pects
character.
psychology.
Journal of Business Ethics 52: 207-211,2004.
? 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.
of
human
the
perhaps
psychology,
effects
of
degrading
including
hyper
key as
moral
208
David
Selected
literature
prior
et al.
Glen Mick
to
actuaUy
select
and
an
purchase
In a foUow
option.
extensive
One
of
the
streams
earUest
consumer
of
research
was the information
to hyperchoice
over
pertinent
load paradigm of the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Jacoby,
1977; Malhotra,
1984; Wilkie,
1974). This stream
was
concerned
laudably
whether,
when,
loaded by product
with
public
poUcy
consumers
how
and
information.
can
condition
over
and more
load was
as a multiplicative
function
operationaUzed
amount of product
attributes and alternative
of
the
infor
re
avaflable for a single decision. Empirical
the information
showed
that increasing
load
above a threshold led to choice processes based on
lower quality
rules, which
produced
simplifying
mation
sults
outcomes
choice
(i.e.,
a normative
to
relative
one
where
or more
were
options
standard
unmistakably
superior in terms of the given features and benefits for
over
the price charged). AdditionaUy,
information
load had detrimental
effects on consumers'
psycho
and
confusion
increased
including
as
as
lower
satisfaction.
weU
decision
strain,
cognitive
and weU-developed
Another
research
pertinent
stream concerns
which
would
time-stress,
Ukely
states,
logical
exacerbate
the
mation
consequences
as
overload,
are
maker
sumer
are
choice
of
chaUenged.
of time-stress
effects
disadvantageous
resources
the
further
from
observed
the
infor
decision
the
Indeed,
during
and
unambiguous
con
robust.
to prior
research
(Ariely and Zakay,
According
et
reduces infor
time-stress
al., 1993),
2001; Payne
reduces the range of
mation
search and processing;
alternatives
considered;
bolsters
information;
valuation of negative
sen alternative;
provokes
increases
strategies;
satory
ment
choice
and
increases
dimensions
and
information
the probability
and
strategies;
the cho
filtration
of non-compen
encourages
poor
judg
evaluation.
types of research are also on the rise that look
at the subjective
of
consequences
closely
and
overload.
information
(2000)
Lepper
Iyengar
in lab and
choices of jams and chocolates
compared
New
more
the options were as many as 30
settings, where
or as few as six, holding
the number
of product
that
for
attributes constant. They
found,
example,
field
who
subjects
condition
booth
set
encountered
were more
up
the
in
a maU,
tered the Umited-options
attracted
condition
extensive-options
those
who
encoun
were more
lower satisfaction
reported
to
their choices,
compared
in the limited-options
Based
condition.
subsequently
regret over
participants
on additional
data and analyses, the authors argue that
are due in part to participants
in the
more
condition
extensive-options
feeling
responsible
results
these
so much
free
for their choices, apparently because
was
to
dom of choice
them.
presented
Very recent research by Schwartz et al. (2002) and
et al. (2003) also supports aspects of Iyengar
and Lepper's work. These scholars have demonstrated
that people who continuaUy or momentarily
strive to
Carmon
the very best option for themselves and who
think elaborately while
doing so, report lower self
esteem, lower life satisfaction, and less comfort and
satisfaction with their product choices. These authors
choose
note
that while
the maximizers
likely
are intensely
seem to select
who
in their decision making
are objectively
and normatively
that
options
superior
to
and their comprehensive
standards
their
(due
high
search and choice processes),
they are likely none
cognitive
the selected options
theless to subjectively experience
as inferior. A prime underlying
cause of these results,
to the authors,
is the anticipated
and
according
over
that
regret
might
foregone options
experienced
have been
superior
to the one
chosen.
of consumer
research,
preceding
of
research, has focused on the process and outcomes
a single choice. Aspects
of consumer
hyperchoice
can certainly be evoked
in a lone decision
context,
and
time
when
information
overload
especiaUy
indeed most
The
stress are operative. Yet,
it is the study of multiple
that may be most
and sequential choices
applicable
to consumer
most
In a
and
needed.
hyperchoice,
and
very recent and informative
study, Jason Riis
an initial
that foUowing
Norbert
Schwarz
found
a subsequent difficult deci
(easy) decision,
for
sion was more
(less) likely to result in preferences
difficult
status
quo
and
risk-averse
Their
to the related product
whereas
options
process more
than those encountering
the limited-options
condi
tion, but they also reported that the process was more
difficult. Interestingly,
those in the extensive-options
issues of
be
Information
up study, participants encountering
reported that they enjoyed the choice
results
options
(personal
that
com
repeated
imply
munication).
strenuous. The most
choices can be psychologicaUy
comes
of this prospect,
direct evidence
however,
and Vohs
from recent work by Baumeister
(2003).
Living
in Consumer Hyperchoice
a series
complete
They had half of their participants
across different
classes
of binary choices
product
in
the
control
conditions
both
studies
of
(participants
In
simply reported their usage of the same products).
a foUow-up
it was
task, with a new experimenter,
found that the participants who had made numerous
choices
exhibited
the control
a significantly
lower ability than
to persist at an unsolvable
puzzle
group
(study one) or to force
to keep drinking a
results
two). These
themselves
(study
bad-tasting
beverage
confirm in amore dramatic fashion how the making
and sequential consumer
choices drains
of multiple
psychological
energy, as seen through
and wiUpower.
self-regulation
The paragraphs
above
review
decrements
selected
in
literature
that each bear partly upon the topic of consumer
In sum, they suggest that the kinds of
hyperchoice.
see increasingly
in everyday
choice conditions we
are quite capable of
life in developed
economies
enticing consumer attention, but they are also likely
and error
stress, simplifying
confusion,
decision
and
prone
processes,
regret, dissatisfaction,
conditions
aspects of hyperchoice
fatigue. Other
into research designs,
have yet to be incorporated
to faciUtate
such as budget
constraints
and other complicating
facets of daily decision options,
including correlated,
irrelevant, and trivial attributes. But perhaps more
the carry-over
effects of consumer
significantly,
to subsequent
non-choice
tasks have
to
and
be
theorized
only just begun
explored. Prior
on
the
of
writings
expansion
capitalism, technology,
and materialism
1976;
(e.g., Linder, 1971; Scitovsky,
intimated
that hyper
Toiler,
1970) have variously
hyperchoice
likely affects vital realms of human well-being
choice
and,
perhaps
too,
moral
development.
However,
recent writings
have developed
this general
further
1997; Schor, 1999;
proposition
(e.g., Mick,
to
research
devoted
Schwartz,
2004),
empirical
testing it remains to be undertaken.
thoroughly
while
to-now mentioned,
including such diverse situations
as consumers making
financial decisions
related to
investment purchases and managers making
selections
among vendors of office suppUes and equipment.
One
the most
of
choice
attentional
Prospective
can relate
As iUustrated above, consumer hyperchoice
to a single choice within
a given product
category
choices across
(e.g., flat screen televisions) or multiple
categories
store). At
probably
or department
(e.g., in a super market
the same time, consumer
hyperchoice
has many more contexts than we have up
effects of hyper
or
of mindfulness
problematic
be a diminishment
could
control.
as
is as demanding
to
then it is Ukely
make people
If hyperchoice
prior studies imply,
selective in
lazier, more miserly,
sloppier, and more
their watching,
and
thinking,
Ustening
during
tasks (e.g., reading a financial
ensuing non-choice
a work
report or bank statement; conversing with
friend, or child).
acerbic effect could be judgmentaUsm.
If
must
face repeated
situations where
they
coUeague,
Another
people
evaluate
and choose products and brands, even when
are moderately
to weU
utUities
preference
their
formed, then it is possible in subsequent non-choice
situations
that people wiU display
less openness
in
for assessment
overaU, and perhaps a quickness
If so, this is not salutary for social har
particular.
tolerance
for diversity, moral
and
reflection,
mony,
so on. Note
to predict
it is plausible
the
though,
that requires
effort
opposite.
Repeated
choosing
could conceivably
and
effort
encourage
thought in a
non-choice
subsequent
task.
also foment
may
Similarly,
hyperchoice
impa
tience and inciviUty. When
in
conditions
of
placed
fast and complicated
of
choices, with
uncertainty
outcomes
and
yet
to
commitments
tives, it is not hard to envision
in
non-choice
subsequent
interest
may
and
pro-social
Why
chosen
alterna
that people might
tasks
less courtesy.
reduce wiUingness
with
more
act
self
In paraUel, hyperchoice
to engage in altruistic and
behaviors.
would
emerge? There
explanation.
any or several of these effects possibly
is probably more than one reasonable
Two
or
at a given
operative
occur in stages before
wiU manifest
research
209
more
time
casual
forces
may
be
these forces may
the effects hypothesized
above
themselves.
and/or
As we
have hinted
at, the
include (a) ego-depletion
may potentiaUy
affect
(fatigue and loss of wiUpower),
(b) negative
an
and
elevation
of
self-focus
(e.g., irritab?ity),
(c)
(how one sees or defines oneself).
mediators
the energy explanation
based on Bau
Certainly,
meister's work
is highly
relevant. People get tired
and even
exhausted
from harried
and mentaUy
chaUenging
events.
Various
research
streams
(e.g.,
210
David
Glen Mick
chronic fatigue syndrome)
have
sleep deprivation,
outcomes
breeds
shown that fatigue
many negative
in life, including poor listening, more worries, more
less hope, less creativity, and so forth.
rigidity,
for some of the hyperchoice
explanation
effects posited above relates to feeUngs of exaspera
tion and grumpiness.
is just
Perhaps hyperchoice
Another
plain distasteful for many
not consciously.
If so,
negative
ism,
me
outcomes
behavioral
and
impatience,
Another
people, at least visceraUy, if
there could read?y appear
such as judgmental
rudeness.
is
explanation
or
self-focus
a "me-me
If hyperchoice
is about the repeated
as people
sift and
of personal preferences
trade
through options
requiring multiple
effect.'"
activation
winnow
then it
offs, especiaUy in the context of time-stress,
would make
be less
logical sense that people would
or humanitarian
in a social interaction
other-focused
to altruism might
Obstacles
foUowing
hyperchoice.
include both the flooding
of one's awareness with
in helping
and the reduction
one's own concerns,
behavior
that has
been
manipulations
experimental
and Darley,
to
observed
result
of time pressure
from
(Latane
1970).
plausible effects and processes might also be
moderated
factors. These
by a number of person-level
traits such as need for cogni
include psychological
in decision
differences
tion, maximizer/satisficer
tolerance
for
materialistic
values,
ambiguity,
making,
such as neuroticism.
and personality
characteristics
These
A
variety
necessary
tential
to
of
paradigms
explore
these
of
and methods
issues
complex
wiU
and
be
et al.
It is possible that the deleterious
effects of hyper
or
are
choice
and
short-lived,
individuaUy temporary
states of
that people readily return to more positive
moral
character.
and demonstrating
theorizing
increasingly
terns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
consumer
hyperchoice.
implications
in the field
Interviews,
surveys, and observations
retail
and
within
around
locations) will be
(e.g.,
designs wiU also be crucial,
helpful. Experimental
as
and nature of
the number
such
factors
varying
to
effects from heavy exposure
long-term
negative
even
more
but
funda
television.
EquaUy relevant
the anthropologist
Brad Shore (1996) argues
mental,
are due to the fact that brains
that cultural differences
and models
that
pools of metaphors
develop within
are used to approach a broad range of situations. For
modern American
culture he proposes a foundational
of modularity,
metaphor
to aU situations wherein
the
courses
hamburger,
of
a
on
spouse
?
omists
incivility)).
long
service.
dating
of
contend
would
the
freedom,
consumer
From
American
contemporary
that
the
profusion,
can
choice
eventuaUy
results
and
underscore
and moral
a
reach
landscape
of
imperative
that casts an ominous
systemic height
the psychological
structural
shadow
over
of millions
of
lives.
authors
interrupt
and
(impatience
features
If ongoing
research reveals effects
and prospective
as we have suggested above, what
of hyperchoice
and
the implications
be? Many
philosophers
might
and perhaps a few intrepid econ
social scientists
Tenbrunsel
before
coUege
computer
condition
inescapable
life.
The
participant wiU wait
experimental
a
conversation
subsequent
ing
toppings
or
education,
a
on
e.g.,
insights, it is a short step to realizing how
in the form of con
in the extreme,
modularity
sumer hyperchoice,
has become
the elemental
and
Ann
an
an approach
to choose
Shore's
for example, with
direct self-report
accomplished,
a
scales (e.g., empathy for other people). However,
or
measures
unrelated
of
supposedly
variety
implicit
how
is expected
wants,
in a
a
indicates
which
one
one
items
specific
Acknowledgements
could
tasks (post experiment)
and reliable
(e.g., wiUingness
cause (altruism),
community
worthy
pat
on a daily
in enduring ways. For example,
basis shape the mind
studies researchers such as Shrum et al. (1998)
have found compeUing
evidence for cumulative
and
the amount of time available, and the
the choices,
the
constraints.
existence
of budget
Assessing
be
effects
of hyperchoice
might
experimental
prove more
insightful
to volunteer
for a
how
media
how
po
are
scientists
social
However,
draft
and
Pat Murphy,
thank Betsy Moore,
on a prior
comments
for helpful
the
also appreciate
this article. They
of
insightful
versity
from participants
suggestions
Dame's
conference
of Notre
on
2003)
attendees
Winter
December
"Ethical
at
Issues
the University
Marketing
2003).
Camp
in Business"
at the Uni
(November
and from
Annual
of Tilburg's
Netherlands,
(The
in Consumer Hyperchoice
Living
Schwartz, B.: 2004, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is
References
Less
Ariely, D. and D. Zakay: 2001, 'ATimely Account of the
Role of Duration in Decision Making', Act Psychologica
(108), 187-207.
R.
Baumeister,
and
and K.
Baumeister
Vohs:
in G.
Self-Control',
2003,
Time
(eds.),
and
Choice,
'WiUpower,
D. Read
Loewenstein,
and R.
Economic
Decision:
and
Psychological Perspectives on IntertemporalChoice (RusseU
Sage Foundation, New York), pp. 201-216.
Carmon,
and M.
K. Wertenbroch
Z.,
Attachment:
When
Makes
Deliberating
Consumer
Re
Feel
Like
Losing', Journal of
Choosing
search 30(1), 15-29.
S. S. and M.
R.
'When
2000,
Lepper:
B.
M.
andj.
The
1970,
Darley:
Unresponsive
By
stander (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice HaU).
Linder, S.: 1971, The Harried Leisure Class (Columbia
New
Press,
University
G.:
Loewenstein,
of
Social
Insurance,
N.:
Overload
Better?',
Always
(7), National
on
'Reflections
in Consumer
Paradigm
D.
R.
D.
G.:
1997,
Academy
the
Information
Decision
Making',
into
Journey
Rarely
that
Questions
Spiritual
ing Researchers
A
for Byzantium:
'Searching
in
Ask',
S.
U.K.).
'The
L. J., R.
S. Wyer,
Jr.
Eects
of Television
Perceptions:
The
and T.
C.
O'Guinn:
A.:
1970,
Future
Shock
Social
to
Procedures
Priming
Processes',
Investigate
Psychological
sumer Research
447-458.
24(4),
Toffler,
1998,
on
Consumption
of
Use
of Con
Journal
(Random
House,
New
York).
Wilkie, W. L.: 1974, 'Analysis of Effects of Information
Load', Journal ofMarketing Research 11 (November),
462-466.
Mclntire
School
E-mail:
Hall,
[email protected]
Broniarczyk
McCombs College of Business Administration,
Market
A.
of Commerce?Monroe
University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
University
of Texas,
Austin, TX 78712,
M.
USA
Illuminations
Ireland), pp.
23-34.
Jonathan Haidt
J.,
J. R.
Bettman
and
Adaptive Decision Maker
E.
J. Johnson:
1993,
(Cambridge University
The
Press,
U.K.).
Cambridge,
B.:
1999,
The
We
Don't
Need
Schor,J.
What
of Choice',
Susan M.
Personal
Brown,
Doherty and B. Clarke (eds.), Marketing
Spectacular (University of Ulster, Northern
Payne,
'Maximizing
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(5), 1178
1197.
Scitovsky, T.: 1976, The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of
Human Satisfaction (Oxford University Press, Oxford,
Journal of Consumer Research 10 (March), 436-440.
Mick,
2002,
Is a Matter
Happiness
Satisficing:
S. Lyubomirsky,
Lehman:
David Glen Mick
Choice
1-8.
pp.
1984,
Versus
and
York).
J. Monterosso,
York).
'IsMore
1999,
Social Security Brief, October
Malhotra,
White
New
York).
Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good
Thing?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
79(6), 995-1006.
Jacoby, J.: 1977, 'Information Load and Decision Quality:
Some Contested Issues', Journal ofMarketing Research 14
(November), 569-573.
Latane,
K.
Shrum,
is
Choice
Schwartz,
(HarperCoUins,
B., A. Ward,
Shore, B.: 1996, Culture inMind: Cognition, Culture, and
the Problem ofMeaning (Oxford University Press, New
2003,
Zeelenberg:
'Option
Iyengar,
211
Overspent
(Perenial,
American:
New
Why
York).
We
Want
Psychology
Department?Gilmer
Hall,
University of Virginia,
P.O. Box 400400
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400,
USA