Simple Decision Aids and Consumer Decision Making |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Business, University of Connecticut, United States;2. College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong;1. Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA;2. McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA;3. Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA;4. Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal;1. Department of Economics and Marketing, IULM University, Via Carlo Bo’ 1, 20143 Milano, Italy;2. Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari, Via Muroni 25, 07100 Sassari, Italy;3. Department of Psychology, City College, City University of New York, 138th Street and Convent Avenue, New York, NY 10031, USA;1. University of Texas at San Antonio, College of Business, 4.01.08 B, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249-0631, United States;2. Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, United States;1. Babson College, 213 Malloy Hall, Babson Park, MA 02457, United States;2. Babson College, 215 Malloy Hall, Babson Park, MA 02457, United States;3. California Polytechnic State University, One Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | To help consumers deal with increasing amounts of information, many online retailers offer simple decision aids, such as the ability to sort on a particular attribute or eliminate undesired alternatives. The authors propose that consumers use simple decision aids as substitutes for cognitive effort, potentially with adverse consequences for decision making. An experimental study shows that providing unrestricted sorting increases decision quality only when choice conflict is low; beyond a certain point, greater use of the decision aid is associated with declines in decision quality. A second study shows that that allowing consumers to sort alternatives only one time enhances decision quality and, when choice conflict is high, reduces decision effort. A third study shows that providing elimination as well as sorting tools helps mitigate the negative effects of simple decision aids. Although the availability of sorting alone hurts decision quality when choice conflict is high, decision quality under choice conflict is improved when both sorting and elimination tools are provided. Implications for retail practice are discussed. |
| |
| Keywords: | Simple decision aids Sorting Elimination Choice conflict Decision making |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
