Upload
iris-van-hees
View
1.483
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ABSTRACT: Presenting choice wisely is increasingly important in the retail sector because choice is expanding. Many choices are of little importance and are made in a matter of seconds when the customer is confronted with the assortment. Therefore, in store presentation can have great influence on the amount of mental energy people expend in deciding, whether or not they decide and what product is chosen. In the western world choice is perceived as desirable and there are various pressures for more choice. Preference for choice is however not only related strongly to culture, but also to personality, involvement and context among others. The amount of variety offered profoundly affects peoples purchasing behavior by fostering indecision especially when customers are unsure about their preferences. Assortment size also affects decision confidence and post-purchase satisfaction. Presenting choice can be most effectively done when products are organized according to the consumer’s decision tree, thereby forming the customer’s choice set and limiting the amount of choices consciously made. This paper presents two empirical studies in addition to the extensive literature review. The first study explores similarities and differences in Dutch and American attitudes toward choice in retailers through an application of the tripartite attitude theory. It shows that Dutch more often than Americans find that there is too much choice and feel less benefitted by having choice. Furthermore, it provides support for the assumption that reactions to choice are based on largely the same perceptions and believes. The second research furthers the cross-cultural comparison by analyzing assortment evaluations, indecision and choice satisfaction in more detail. For the American sample many results from previous research were duplicated. The Dutch sample, however, gives reason to believe Dutch reactions to choice are fundamentally different and more negative. Further investigations of Dutch perceptions of and reactions to choice showed that Dutch experience many of the benefits and drawbacks of choice found by American research. Furthermore, it provides insight into presentation effects in retailers, stressing the importance of appropriate assortments and assortment organization.
Citation preview
An EMBS master’s thesis, by R.T.I. van Hees. Submitted May 24, 2012, at the University of León, Spain, to professors I. Trevisan, S. Ganassali, R. Wagner and C. Rodriguez-Santos.
CONSU MER CHOICE Variety in the Retail Setting
i
Source cover figure: HSBC (2012). Expat 2011 rating of local stores and
markets. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://expatexplorer.hsbc.com/#/countries.
This master’s thesis was written as part of the European Master in Business Studies
(EMBS) program in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the following
academic degrees:
− Università Degli Studi de Trento: “Laurea Magistrale - CLASSE LM77
Lauree Magistrali in Scienze Economico-Aziendali”
− Université de Savoie: “Master en Droit Economie Gestion”
− Universität Kassel: “Master of Arts”
− Universidad de León: “Master Universitario Europeo en Dirección de
Empresas”.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
database or retrieval system, or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
of the author.
Correspondence concerning this paper can be sent by e-mail to Iris van Hees at
ii
Abstract
Presenting choice wisely is increasingly important in the retail sector because
choice is expanding. Many choices are of little importance and are made in a matter
of seconds when the customer is confronted with the assortment. Therefore, in store
presentation can have great influence on the amount of mental energy people expend
in deciding, whether or not they decide and what product is chosen. In the western
world choice is perceived as desirable and there are various pressures for more
choice. Preference for choice is however not only related strongly to culture, but also
to personality, involvement and context among others. The amount of variety
offered profoundly affects peoples purchasing behavior by fostering indecision
especially when customers are unsure about their preferences. Assortment size also
affects decision confidence and post-purchase satisfaction. Presenting choice can be
most effectively done when products are organized according to the consumer’s
decision tree, thereby forming the customer’s choice set and limiting the amount of
choices consciously made.
This paper presents two empirical studies in addition to the extensive
literature review. The first study explores similarities and differences in Dutch and
American attitudes toward choice in retailers through an application of the tripartite
attitude theory. It shows that Dutch more often than Americans find that there is too
much choice and feel less benefitted by having choice. Furthermore, it provides
support for the assumption that reactions to choice are based on largely the same
perceptions and believes. The second research furthers the cross-cultural comparison
by analyzing assortment evaluations, indecision and choice satisfaction in more
detail. For the American sample many results from previous research were
duplicated. The Dutch sample, however, gives reason to believe Dutch reactions to
choice are fundamentally different and more negative. Further investigations of
Dutch perceptions of and reactions to choice showed that Dutch experience many of
the benefits and drawbacks of choice found by American research. Furthermore, it
provides insight into presentation effects in retailers, stressing the importance of
appropriate assortments and assortment organization.
Keywords: choice, retail, assortment planning, variety growth, consumer
psychology, purchasing decisions, excessive choice, retail marketing, shelf
management
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Types of new products. ................................................................... 17 Table 2: Choice exposure styles. ................................................................... 30 Table 3: Distribution for ‘liking’ of the amount of choice in stores. .............. 66 Table 4: The believed benefits of having choice in stores.............................. 68 Table 5: Amount of respondents that did, did not and did not but
indicated reason to complain. ............................................................ 70 Table 6: Benefits associated to choice........................................................... 89 Table 7: Extent to which negative feelings were experienced. ....................... 91 Table 8: Cross-tabulation of liking and given reason .................................... IV
Table 9:Cross-tabulation of whether there was perceived benefit and reason given. ...................................................................................... V
Table 10: Cross-tabulation of whether the respondent complained and given reason or mediator. .................................................................. VI
Table 11: Relationship between attitude components. .................................. VII Table 12: Relationship between attitude components for Dutch
respondents. ................................................................................... VIII Table 13: Relationship between attitude components for American
respondents. ...................................................................................... IX
Table 14: Recalled product type by nationality. ........................................ XVII Table 15: Recalled product type by gender. .............................................. XVII Table 16: Age of the memory by product type. ......................................... XVII Table 17: Age of the memory and decision difficulty for Dutch. .............. XVIII Table 18: Importance to choose right by nationality. ................................ XVIII Table 19: Importance to choose right by product type. ............................. XVIII Table 20: Product knowledge and nationality ............................................ XIX
Table 21: Product Knowledge and Importance. ......................................... XIX
Table 22: Assortment Evaluation and Nationality ........................................ XX
Table 23: Assortment evaluation and satisfaction with choice ...................... XX
Table 24: Assortment evaluation and satisfaction with choice by nationality. ....................................................................................... XX
Table 25: Assortment evaluation and knowledge ....................................... XXI Table 26: Assortment evaluation and product knowledge by nationality. ... XXI Table 27: Assortment evaluation and decision importance. ....................... XXII Table 28: Assortment evaluation and decision importance by nationality. . XXII Table 29: Decision ease and remembered assortment size. ....................... XXIII Table 30: Decision ease and Choice set size for Americans. ................... XXIV
Table 31: Decision importance and decision ease. .................................. XXIV
Table 32: Product knowledge and decision ease. ...................................... XXV
Table 33: Decision ease by nationality. ..................................................... XXV
Table 34: Satisfaction with the made choice and decision ease by nationality. .................................................................................. XXVI
iv
Table 35: Satisfaction with the made choice and considering purchase deferral by nationality. ................................................................ XXVI
Table 36: Satisfaction with the made choice and considering postponing the decision by nationality.......................................................... XXVII
Table 37: Satisfaction with choice and product knowledge. ................... XXVII Table 38: Satisfaction with choice and choice importance by nationality.XXVIII Table 39: Ability to express identity by acceptance little variety basic
goods. ......................................................................................... XXIX
Table 40: Choice identity and self-expression. ........................................ XXIX
Table 41: Benefits associated to choice by gender. ................................... XXX
Table 42: Assortment evaluation and appropriateness categorization. ..... XXXI Table 43: Assortment evaluation and exceeding variety expectations...... XXXI Table 44: Assortment evaluation and product availability. ..................... XXXII Table 45: Assortment evaluation and special offers. .............................. XXXII Table 46: Assortment evaluation and increased expectations. ............... XXXIII Table 47: Difficulties deciding and self-efficacy. .................................. XXXIII Table 48: Drawbacks to deciding factor loadings by gender. ................. XXXIV
Table 49: Decision difficulty and process satisfaction. .......................... XXXIV
Table 50: Satisfaction made choice and positive surprise. ..................... XXXIV
Table 51: Positive surprise and increased expectations. ......................... XXXV
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Value added as percentage of GDP in 2010 and share of total
businesses enterprises in 2008 in the retail and wholesale sector for selected EU countries. ................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Concentration ratio's in the European retail sector in 2004/2005. .......................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Countries of operations of five major international retailers. .......... 11 Figure 4: Number of countries with physical and online store presence
for selected fashion retailers in 2010. ................................................ 13 Figure 5: Online retail sales as share of total national sales in 2011. ............. 13 Figure 6: Online purchases and the percentage of households that have
Internet access in Europe and Turkey. ............................................... 14 Figure 7: Per capita sales area (in m2) in 2010. ............................................. 21 Figure 8: Number of products offered by the average grocer per category
in 2004. ............................................................................................. 24 Figure 9: Assortment depth; number of items sold by Aldi by category
by country. ........................................................................................ 25 Figure 10: Relationship between perceived variety and likelihood of
purchase. ........................................................................................... 41 Figure 11: Variety and decisions; relationships identified in the literature
review. .............................................................................................. 54 Figure 12: Pareto chart of reasons for liking/disliking the amount of
choice in stores. ................................................................................ 67 Figure 13: Pareto chart of believed benefits of choice. .................................. 69 Figure 14: Number of stores per 1,000 inhabitants in 2007 for selected
countries .............................................................................................II Figure 15: Share of grocery sales by format in Europe, 2000 vs 2004. .......... III
vi
List of Abbreviations
EU – European Union
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GfK – Growth for Knowledge
ICT – Information and Communication Technology
p - Probability
POPAI – Point-Of-Purchase Advertising Institute
PPP – Purchasing Power Parity
SD – Standard Deviation
SE – Standard Error
SKU – Stock Keeping Unit
UHT – Ultra High Temperature
UK – the United Kingdom
US/USA – United States/United States of America
vii
Table of Content
Abstract ii
List of Tables iii
List of Figures v
List of Abbreviations vi
Table of Content vii
Preface x
Introduction 1
1. Research Question 1
2. Preliminary Definitions 2
3. Research Methodology 3
1. Industry Introduction 5
1. Sales, GDP and Industry Structure 5
2. National Industry Developments 8
3. Globalization 10
4. Online Ret@il 12
2. Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 17
1. Categorizing new products 17
2. Product and Brand Variety 18
3. Global Assortment Sizes 20
4. Store Formats and Assortments 22
5. Assortment Depth 24
3. Consumer Demand for Variety 26
1. Sides to Variety 26
2. Exposing Oneself to Choice 29
3. Maximizers and Satisficers 31
4. Making Purchasing Decisions 32
1. The Purchase Decision 32
2. Involvement, Information Search and Decision Novelty 33
viii
3. In-store Decisions 34
4. In-Store Decisions and Heuristics 36
5. Purchasing from Variety 38
1. Product Choice and Variety 38
2. Chance of Purchase and Variety 39
3. Chance of Purchase, Trade-offs and Preference Uncertainty 41
4. Memory and Time 43
5. Knowledge and Articulated Preferences 45
6. Customization and Personalization 47
6. Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction 50
1. Post-Purchase Satisfaction 50
2. Opportunity Costs and Escalation of Expectations 51
3. Regret and Responsibility 52
7. Choice Moderation by Retailers 55
1. The Retailers and Variety 55
2. Presentation Effects 57
3. Other Moderating Policies 59
8. Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 62
1. Study Design 62
2. Analysis Procedure 62
3. Sampling Procedure and Sample 65
4. Results 65
5. Discussion of Results and Methodology 73
9. Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 75
1. Study Design 75
2. The Instrument 76
3. Sampling Procedure and Sample 78
4. Analysis Procedure Cross-Cultural Study 78
5. Recalled Choices 79
6. Results Cross-Cultural Comparison 82
7. Discussion on Cross-Cultural Findings 86
8. Analysis Procedure Study of Dutch Respondents 87
ix
9. Specific Results for Dutch Respondents 88
10. Discussion of Dutch Results 93
11. Discussion of the Methodology 95
Conclusion, Recommendations, Discussion and Future Outlook 97
References 100
Appendix A: Legend figure 6 I
Appendix B: Additional Industry Data II
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information IV
Appendix D: Study 2; Questionnaire American Respondents X
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents XII
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural ComparisonXVII
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch RespondentsXXIX
Personal Affirmation in Lieu of Oath 1
x
Preface
The classes on marketing and product innovation during the EMBS-program
made me wonder what free competition and the expansion of product alternatives
mean for the everyday consumer. To some extent consumers and their experiences
seem to have been marginalized by an academic and corporate discourse focused on
profit and sales as the main criteria for market success. The underlying and
widespread assumption is that optimized profits in competitive markets imply needs
being served in the best feasible manner. Thus, the consumers’ reaction to this
competitive approach and expansion of choice is reduced to the product they choose
to spend their money on and the amount of money that is spent. However, though
this reasoning makes sense within economic theory, in practice consumer reactions
are much more complex.
Some of the problematic of the ongoing boom of choice were brought to my
attention by the virtue of TED.com, a nonprofit initiative that I have to thank for
providing much inspiration over the years. From amongst their many contributors
I’d like to make a special note of two speakers, namely Barry Schwartz and Sheena
Iyengar from whom I borrowed some ideas with which I started this research. Most
striking was that though we need choice to be free, not all choice increases freedom,
and the availability of many choices may in fact decrease happiness and overall
well-being.
Fortunately, some retailers pick up on their clients’ confusion, and other
negative reactions to choice such as indecision, and attempt to reduce this by
organizing and limiting their assortments. A theoretical framework is still missing
and much of the existing knowledge has been developed inside big retail chains and
is therefore not available to their smaller competitors. This master thesis is my
contribution to both the development of a framework and increasing awareness of
the costs of choice, including time, confusion and decreased satisfaction, as well as
increasing knowledge on when and how having much choice is beneficial.
Moreover, this thesis investigates to what extent these negative effects are culturally
bound. For this surveys were spread among both Americans and Dutch revealing
some interesting similarities but more strikingly revealing profound differences. This
text should not only be helpful to retailers, but also for marketers, students and the
general public alike.
xi
I would like to thank Melanie van der Lee for her explanation of the
workings of grocery store shelf management, a task she has carried out
professionally for many years for one of the Netherlands largest grocery chains. I
would like to thank everyone who took the time to help me with the pre-testing as
well as the respondents of my questionnaires and the two panel bureaus. Finally, I
would like to thank my parents and friends who took the time to discuss my ideas
with me and my tutors Michael Gierczak and José Luis Vazquez.
León, Spain, May 24th, 2012,
Iris van Hees
Introduction 1
Introduction
1. Research Question
Whichever the form of the increase in variety, the amount of product
alternatives is profoundly interlinked with the free market responding to consumers,
as well as the globalization of demand and supply. Primarily, one may attribute this
increase in variety as a logical, expected and desired effect of the market economy
which promotes innovation and caters to the buyer’s needs. Therefore, it follows that
with this increase in choice people are able to find products that better fit their wants
and needs, will overall be getting more satisfied, and the market will, with time,
reach an optimum. However, there are some indications that this increase in choice
is taking its toll, especially when it comes to the satisfaction with the purchased
goods and services and the general consumer well-being. Therefore, consumer
reactions to the increase of choice are important to investigate, especially now that
the Internet vastly expands the amount of alternative products available to
consumers, and marketers are more and more introducing products for only limited
periods of time.
The main question of this paper is: ‘To what extent is the amount of choice
offered by Western retailers to non-professional customers desirable?’ This
question is sub-divided as follows:
-How pervasive is choice in retailing to non-professional consumers?
-How does the amount of choice affect customers?
-What are industry best-practices when it comes to presenting choice?
-To what extent are the responses to choice similar in the USA and the
Netherlands?
The first sub question, ‘How pervasive is choice in retailing to non-
professional consumers?’ is answered in chapters one and two. Here the history of
retail over the past 200 years is discussed as well as the progression of the amount of
choices offered by retailers. The second sub question, ‘How does the amount of
choice affect customers?’ is discussed theoretically in chapter three to six. The
discussion covers why consumers may or may not want choice, how retail
purchasing decisions are made and how choices and their outcomes are affected by
the amount and sort of alternatives available. Then chapter seven gives an overview
Introduction 2
of known industry best-practices in an attempt to answer the third sub question,
‘What are industry best-practices when it comes to presenting choice?’
Following this theoretical framework, own research is presented as an
answer to the fourth sub-question: ‘To what extent are the responses to choice
similar in the USA and the Netherlands?’ First a look is taken at the general attitude
towards choice, followed by an investigation of assortment satisfaction, satisfaction
with made purchasing decisions and the occurrence of indecision. The final research
focus is an investigation into Dutch perceptions of and reactions to choice, focusing
on associated benefits and drawbacks as well as in-store assortment presentation.
The paper concludes with recommendations for retailers and marketers as well as
suggestions for future research and a general future outlook.
2. Preliminary Definitions
In the context of this thesis retailer refers to a company that is: “primarily
involved in the activity of purchasing products from other organizations with the
intent to resell those goods to private households, generally without transformation,
and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise” (Zentes, Morschett,
Schramm-Klein, 2011, p.1). Retailing covers all consumer products such as food,
apparel, consumer goods, financial services, leisure, etc. There are many different
retail formats, which can be split in store and non-store (IMAP, 2010). Here the
focus is on store formats and to lesser extent online stores. Non-store retailers such
as catalogues, door-to-door, telephone and direct response television are excluded.
The recommendations of this paper are equally applicable to companies that sell
their own products directly to consumers, for example through factory outlets, as
long as their target group and store formats are similar.
A non-professional customer is whoever has the possibility to choose from
the product assortment of the store, for personal consumption, regardless of whether
or not a purchase is made.
Choosing or making a decision in the context of this thesis, will be defined
as a response to a situation in which alternative courses of action are under
consideration and
“the decision maker can form expectations concerning future events
and outcomes following from each course of action, expectations that can be
Introduction 3
described in terms of degrees of belief or probabilities. (…). The
consequences associated with the possible outcomes can be assessed on an
evaluative continuum determined by current goals and personal values.”
(Hastie & Dawes, 2009, p.24).
Finally, product alternatives are those products that by the customer are
seen as substitutes and therefore fall in the same product category. More alternatives
implying more choice and fewer alternatives providing less choice. There are
various ways to measure assortment variety within a product category. To measure
assortment depth, one can look at the number of Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) it
contains. Alternatively, to measure variety one can look at the attribute variety (see
van Herpen & Pieters, 2002, for a detailed mathematical description) also referred to
as assortment entropy (Fasolo, Hertwig, Huber & Ludwig, 2009). Attribute variety
calculations primarily rely on the amount of aspects on which products can vary and
the amount of different attributes they can take. For example, when three shirts are
offered there is more variety when they do not only differ in color but also in size.
These shirts additionally present more variety if instead of there being two colors
there are three. Here the perception of customers is crucial to determine which
product aspects do and do not create variety, for example if the stich size in these
shirts differ by .1mm very few customers, not to say none, will notice. As products
become less and less objectively different from each other some consumers may
cease to count them as possible choices. Based on this reasoning, groups of two
products can be placed on a continuum of the amount of choice they present.
Products that differ little on few attributes present little choice and products that
differ widely on many attributes present much choice. Research suggests that
attribute based variety calculations correspond better to perceived variety than SKU
based measures, however these calculations are more costly and rely more heavily
on the researcher’s judgment.
3. Research Methodology
This thesis is based on three distinct approaches to research. The first half is
based on literature research. This is followed by chapter seven which in part is based
on literature research, in part on an in depth interview and for the remainder on the
Introduction 4
stories of various professionals in the retail field. The last part of this thesis is based
on the qualitative and quantitative analysis of two surveys.
The literature research is primarily based on publications in research journals
and by specialized marketing research companies. If multiple researches were found
that covered the topic preference was given to the most recent publication. When
looking at global data special emphasis was placed on both Europe, and specifically
the Netherlands, and the USA. Next to these sources also some books from the
university library, newspaper articles and conference talks were used. For some of
the data presented primarily in the earlier chapters the Eurostat and UNData
databases were used.
Next to the literature research chapter seven on the presentation of choice by
retailers is additionally based on an in depth interview with a manager in charge off
category presentation of a large Dutch grocery retailer who has worked together
closely with the research department there. The interview took place December 28,
2011. The retailer wants to remain unnamed. For this chapter also the experiences of
some other retail professionals were used, taken mainly from thematic forums.
The final part of this thesis resents the results of two surveys which were
developed using the presented literature and tackle various questions. The combined
sample size is over 570, including both Dutch and Americans, recruited both through
the author’s personal network as well as online panels. All quantitative analyses
were carried out using either Microsoft Excel 2010 or SPSS 17.0. For more detailed
information regarding the methodology, please see the studies’ respective
methodology sections.
The recommendations and conclusions chapter that concludes this thesis is
based on all research presented, and as said before aims to provide practitioners with
a more profound understanding of the problematic as well as concrete tools to
counteract possible downsides of choice.
Industry Introduction 5
1. Industry Introduction
Before discussing how consumers are affected by the increasing amount of
choice in Western countries, it is important to have established that consumers are
faced with increasing amounts of product alternatives, and before that we need to
have an image of the retail industry and its development. Therefore, this chapter
provides an introduction to the global retail industry, with a special focus on the
USA and Europe.
As covered in the general introduction, the retail industry is comprised of
those individuals and companies that sell finished products to the consumers, and the
sector can be subdivided in food, soft (clothing) and hard goods (IMAP, 2010).
Although in some cases the manufacturer is also the retailer, typically product
distribution is carried out by specialized companies. Products are either sold directly
from the manufacturer to the retailer, or through wholesalers. Often specialized
services such as storage, transportation and ICT are outsourced. The industry is labor
intensive and has a moderate to use of capital (Michigan State University, 2012).
Retail competition is mainly price based, but also location, assortment, store lay-out
and reputation matter.
1. Sales, GDP and Industry Structure
In 2009 global retail sales were 13.9 trillion dollars, compared to 7 trillion in
2000 (IMAP, 2010; Deloitte, 2002). However, total retail sales are closely related to
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), because personal incomes minus saving rate and
plus lending, are spent in retail, insurance, services, rent, water, electricity, gas and
investments. In Europe retail spending was between 27 to 40% of private spending
in 2009, in Russia as much as 60%, and in the US approximately 50 to 55% (GfK,
GeoMarketing, 2010; the Office of Consumer Affairs, 2011). The amount of this
which was spent on food differs between countries, and to some extent reflects
welfare. According to Lasserre (2007) in Western European countries spending on
food was between 30 and 40% of total retail spending in 2003, in the US this share
was lower (27%) and in Asian countries this was higher (46% in Japan and 59% in
China).
Industry Introduction 6
Due to the close relationship between retail sales and GDP the added value
of the industry as a percentage of GDP is a better measure of its size. The value
added by the retail industry (including wholesale, restaurants and hotels is on
average 15.7% of GDP (own calculations based on 2010 data of 207 countries
retrieved from UNData). The added value of wholesale, retail, restaurants and hotels
over GDP has shown a constant drop since the 1970’s, being 16.2% in 1970, 16.1%
in 1980, 15.8% in 1990, and 15.7% in 2000 (based on data from 183, 183, 214 and
209 countries respectively). In 2010, the lowest contributions of retail to GDP was in
oil producing countries, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with 4 to 5%, and
the highest in islands and city states such as Monaco and islands such as Barbados
with 35 to 39%.
Figure 1: Value added as percentage of GDP in 2010 and share of total businesses enterprises in 2008 in the retail and wholesale sector for selected EU countries.
Source: Calculated based on Eurostat and United Nations data (UNData).
On average 14.5% of European GDP is added value from the wholesale and
retail industry. This is 1.2% lower than the world average. The relative GDP
importance of the wholesale and retail sectors in various European countries, as
visualized in figure 1, is spread between 8.8% in Norway and 18.6% in Portugal.
Also the amount of enterprises active in the retail or wholesale industry relative to
the total amount of enterprises differed widely between the countries. In some, such
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%
Bel
gium
Bul
gari
aC
zech
Rep
ubli
cG
erm
any
Est
onia
Spai
nIt
aly
Cyp
rus
Lat
via
Lit
huan
iaL
uxem
bour
gH
unga
ryth
e N
ethe
rlan
dsA
ustr
iaP
ortu
gal
Rom
ania
Slo
veni
aS
lova
kia
Finl
and
Sw
eden
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Nor
way
% o
f to
tal e
nter
pris
es
% o
f G
DP
retail enterprises wholesale enterprises total value added
Industry Introduction 7
as Slovakia, Germany and Finland there were relatively few, while in Bulgaria and
Romania there were relatively many. On average 22.4% of European enterprises are
retailers or wholesalers.
Comparing the GDP contribution to the amount of companies in the sector
shows that especially in Bulgaria and Romania retail firms on average contribute
relatively little, a finding supported by Wrigley and Lowe (2010) who analyzed
concentration of the European retail markets (see figure 2). Data from Nielsen
(2010a) shows 5-firm concentration ratios of 97% in Australia, 95% in New
Zeeland, 76% in Hong Kong, 57% in Taiwan, 32% in Korea and 9% in China.
Globally the top 250 retailers had a market share of slightly more than 27% in 2009
(Deloitte, 2009), showing that few decision makers have an influence over the daily
shopping experience and consumption habits of a large part of the global population,
though their reach differs greatly from country to country.
Figure 2: Concentration ratio's in the European retail sector in 2004/2005.
Source: Wrigly and Lowe (2010).
In the retail industry there increasingly is a divide between very small and
very large companies, a trend that will be discussed in more detail later this chapter.
While, as said before, the largest companies have large market shares the majority of
registered retailers is very small. Data from Haskel, Jarmin, Motohashi and Sadun
(2007) shows that the majority of enterprises in the retail sector had only one
establishment in 2002 (95% of firms in Japan and the US and 94% of firms in the
UK). The size of companies with more than one establishment varies more widely
Industry Introduction 8
cross countries. In Japan firms with more than one establishment on average have 7,
in the UK 8 and in the US 13. This indicates that the US retailers are much more
consolidated than their Japanese and English counterparts. This difference in chain
size and concentration can largely be explained through recent sector developments
that have also driven the globalization of the sector, and will be elaborated upon
shortly.
2. National Industry Developments
Over the last two centuries the manner in which people purchase their food,
beverages and other supplies in the Western world has changed drastically (see
Wrigley & Lowe, 2002 for an extensive discussion of the changing retail structures).
Previously almost always separate retailers, such as vegetable stores, butchers,
bakers, milkmen and grocers, merged into new store formats such as department
stores, super- and hypermarkets under the influence of growing urban middle
classes, rising ownership of cars, fridges and freezers and mass production
(Mooijman, 2004; Wraigley & Lowe, 2002; Seth & Randall, 2001; Tat Keh & Park,
1997).
For this format change the invention of the ‘self-service’ supermarket in the
1937 was crucial (Wrigley & Lowe, 2002). Self-service is slowly spreading from
Western markets such as the US, where approximately 85% of sales are self-service,
to Asia (53%) and countries such as India (6%; Nielsen, 2010a). Furthermore, other
aspects of modern retailing have emerged after 1900, such as pre-packaged foods,
window displays, advertising, and clear, fixed pricing (Alexander & Akehurst,
1998). Also the automation of payments, both through the introduction of barcodes
as well as checks and electronic payment methods, and the automation of stock
keeping and supply chain management have allowed for an increase in labor
productivity and the creation of economies of scale.
This increase in store size is also known as the retail life cycle. The retail life
cycle relates store type to maturity of the economy, and to maturity of the retail
sector in particular (Zentes, Morschett & Schramm-Klein, 2011). As time progresses
the store formats become larger and larger offering more and more alternatives, both
in depth and breadth, two assortment aspects that are explained in the next chapter.
The point where stores become smaller again seems to not have been reached yet.
Industry Introduction 9
The increase in store size was paralleled by a dramatic decrease in the
amount of grocers per citizen from the start of the 1900 to now, which is logical as
larger stores need a larger customer base to be sustainable. Data from Haskel,
Jarmin, Motohashi and Sadun (2007) shows that in 1997 there were approximately
11 stores per 1000 inhabitants in Japan, 5 stores per 1000 inhabitants in the UK and
4 stores per 1000 inhabitants in the US. Comparing this to their data of 2002, and
data from Euromonitor (2009) of 2007 shows a negative trend (see Appendix A for
statistics for 2007 for a wide selection of countries). This trend is undoubtedly
influenced by the rise of modern store formats such as that of Walmart who’s stores
are only viable with a minimum customer base of 150,000 (Lasserre, 2007).
Data from the Netherlands shows that this is not just a recent trend. Where at
the start of the nineteenth century there was one grocer for each 200 people in 2001
there was on average 1 grocer per 850 people, and by 2005 1 for each 1,000 (Betje
Boerhave, 2011). Although many of the smallest villages have found local stores
disappearing, and distances to stores increasing this decrease in stores per
inhabitants did not lead to fewer stores being available to most people. Because
towns and cities grew and the range that consumers could easily travel increased as
well. People were often faced with both more and larger stores, especially in cities
serving as regional retail centers (Mooijman, 2004). Thus, as the stores became
bigger, most consumers found that the amount of stores at which they could buy a
product increased.
The growth in store size was combined with the rise of chain stores.
Modernized larger retailers gained a competitive advantage over less modernized
smaller firms, and mainly in the 1980’s and 1990’s independent grocers started
disappearing while chains gained market share (Wrigly and Lowe, 2010). In the
Netherlands which in 1990 still had over 60,000 independent grocers in 2010 only
around 20,000 were left (Deloitte, 2011). And as 35.3% of independent grocers with
a turn-over below 75,000 euros per week indicated in July that year to expect to go
out of business within the next five years this trend is likely to continue. At the same
time large chains report no such fears and the largest three holdings (each owning
multiple retail firms) now have an 85.7% market share. Also the three main
discounters do well, with a combined market share of 19%.
Concentration led to a power shift from manufacturers to distributor chains
(Wrigly and Lowe, 2010). In the same 1980’s to 1990’s period the ICT revolution
Industry Introduction 10
allowed for more buyer-driven supply chains and retailers introduced lean methods
of supply chain management. These developments allowed retailers, such as Tesco,
to reduce stock days from 45 in 1978 to around 15 from the 1990’s onward.
3. Globalization
Retail globalization has a long history; the first ‘modern’ retailers to
internationalize were luxury, specialty and department stores, which between 1880
and 1945 opened stores in cosmopolitan cities (Alexander, 1997). Furthermore,
between 1960 and 1974 many leading Western European retailers started to look to
other countries for growth and invested both in neighboring countries as well as the
USA. In this period Carrefour expanded to Spain, and Ahold to the USA. Then, after
a period of downturn and economic shocks, not only did the Western European
retailers restart international investments between 1983 and 1989, but also the
Japanese started investing in both markets.
Real retail globalization started in the 1990’s, with those retailers that had
concentrated, automated and introduced lean systems (consisting mainly of Western
European and American firms) exporting their expertise to countries in which
retailers had not yet done so (Wrigly & Lowe, 2010; Alexander, 1997). They thereby
mainly focused on countries in their own region as a consequence of the
development of regional trade blocks such as the NAFTA, the European Single
Market and the opening up of Eastern European and Asian countries. For example,
the number of retail establishments in Eastern Europe owned by Western European
firms increased from 28 in 1991, to 1,800 in 2002 (Igan & Suzuki, 2011).
Figure 3, shows how some leading retailers have expanded internationally
over the last decades. As their success relies mainly on their competitive advantages
outlined before, this globalization has put a firm stamp on the retail industry, by
concentrating retailers and modernizing the business models to include ICT and new
forms of supply chain management. Moreover, internationalization has enlarged and
homogenized store formats, presentation, management and product selections. This
effect is especially strong in those countries that do not have ‘modernized’ retail
sector. Of course, this process of change takes time, and thus the largest
Westernization and preference for larger store formats can be observed in countries
Industry Introduction 11
such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, and to a lesser extent in
countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Russia (Igan & Suzuki, 2011).
Figure 3: Countries of operations of five major international retailers.
Source: IGD (2009).
The top 250 largest global retailers are still actively internationalizing,
though as shown in figure 3 Ahold has reduced the amount of countries drastically.
The international share of sales of the largest retailers has steadily increased from
near zero in the early 1990’s, to 22.2% in 2009 (Deloitte, 2011). However, the
industry remains less globalized than for example consumer products, hospitality,
telecommunications and entertainment (Deloitte, 2009).
Overall, American retailers, though leading in sales revenue, are less
globalized then their European counterparts. In 1999 four of the USA’s ten largest
retailers only operated in the domestic market, and the other six had foreign sales
ranging between 0.5 and 18.4% (Ashfaq, n.d.). The average was 11.1% of foreign
sales for those of six top 10 US retailers that were internationally active. A number
that, when taking the top 10 US retailers regardless of their foreign activity, drops to
7.6% of foreign sales over total sales. In 2011 only two of the top 10 American
retailers did not have foreign sales (Schulz, 2011). The average part of foreign sales
was 16.7% for the whole top 10, and 19.6% when only taking into account the 8
internationally active ones. This increase was for a large part due to the increase in
international activities of Walmart, the largest retailer in the world, which increased
foreign sales from 13.9% to 27.1% by 2011.
Industry Introduction 12
The top European retailers in 1999 had a larger share of international sales,
for example the French Carrefour had 37.7% foreign sales, ITM Enterprises SA.
36%, the German MetroAG 40% and the Dutch company Ahold 76.4% (Ashfaq,
n.d.). Also in 2009 European retailers where more globalized than their American
counterparts with more than one-third of sales revenue came from foreign operations
(Deloitte, 2011). This difference likely originates from the fact that European
companies have smaller home markets and can easily internationalize due to the
European Single Market.
4. Online Ret@il
The latest big development in the retail industry has been the rise of online
selling. During the dot-com bubble in the late 1990’s many solely-online retailers
appeared (Wrigley & Lowe, 2010). However, these online retailers did not initially
cause the market disruption that was expected by many. Instead, e-commerce
became dominated by the online channels of traditional retailers, referred to now as
the ‘bricks and clicks’ model (see figure 4 for some examples from the fashion retail
sector). Also many online stores made alliances with mortar and brick stores as they
found that having a physical store boosts their online sales.
Though not growing as fast as originally expected, online retailing has
obtained a large market share. By 2009 global online sales were 348.6 billion US
Dollars, 2.5% of global retail sales (IMAP, 2010). Of these 22.6% were electronics,
other often sold items include books, fashion, airline tickets and software. The
online market is however not limited to these. For example in the UK online grocery
shopping is rather developed with 19% of adults having used the service in 2009.
The largest e-commerce market is the US with 37.2% of online sales. In the
US approximately 7% of sales revenue was earned through online channels. Second
largest are UK e-commerce sales, constituting ⅓d of total e-commerce sales in
Europe (Alisson, 2011). As can be seen in figure 5 the UK is also the country with
the highest relative share of online sales, followed by Germany and most of
Northern Europe.
Industry Introduction 13
Figure 4: Number of countries with physical and online store presence for selected fashion retailers in 2010.
Source: Cushman and Wakefield (2011).
Figure 5: Online retail sales as share of total national sales in 2011.
Source: Redrawn from the Center for Retail Research (n.d.)
Not only has e-commerce grown rapidly over the last two decades, it also has
a large, 16.1%, predicted growth rate for 2012 (IMAP, 2010). Forrester (2012)
predicts sales growth rates of 11 to 12% in mature e-commerce countries such as
1,3%
3,1% 3,5%
5,1%
6,9% 7,3%8,2% 8,0%
8,7% 9,0%
12,0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Number of countries with physical store
Num
ber
of c
ount
ries
with
onl
ine
deli
very
Industry Introduction 14
Japan, South Korea and Australia, a 25% growth in China and 57% in India between
2011 and 2016.
In 2008 an overwhelming majority of Internet users in South Korea (99%),
UK (97%), Germany (97%), Japan (97%) and the US (94%) had experience with
online retail (Achille, 2008). Within Europe, especially countries in the west and
north, such as the Netherlands, the UK, and Sweden are predicted to have large
shares, approximately 80%, of their population, including those without Internet
access, shop online by 2015 (Alison, 2011). In southern European countries, such as
Italy, Spain and Greece, this percentage will be substantially lower, around 50%.
Logically, there is a strong relationship between Internet access and experience with
online retail, which is demonstrated in figure 6.
Figure 6: Online purchases and the percentage of households that have Internet access in Europe and Turkey.
Note: see Appendix A for a legend to the country abbreviations.
Source: Cushman and Wakefield (2011).
When comparing Europe as a whole to Internet shopping in other continents,
Nielsen (2010b) found that Internet shopping is more or less equally popular in all
countries. Approximately 84% of connected users have some experience with online
% of households with Internet access
% o
f ho
useh
olds
mak
ing
an o
nlin
e
Purc
hase
in th
e pa
st 1
2 m
onth
s
Industry Introduction 15
retailers. The exception to this is the Middle East, Africa and the Pakistan where
relatively many (50%) Internet users have not yet bought items online.
For consumers, retailers and manufacturers alike the rise of online retail has
made decisions more complex. For retailers and manufacturers multi-channeling has
become increasingly important strategically, as a balance needs to be found between
the offer in physical stores and that in online channels (IBM, 2002). In 2008 61%
researched products online but purchased it in a store, and 56% researched products
in the store and bought it online (Gaffney, 2009).
With the rise of online retailing it has become impossible for consumers to
inform themselves about all options available to them (IMAP, 2010). The
assortments of online stores are often more category specific and thus relatively deep
and lesser known brands are more dominant. When a consumer decides to use the
Internet as shopping channel almost instantly many more stores come available to
him or her. In 2010 close to one-third of European online shoppers made purchases
online outside of their home country. Similarly, in the US, over 25% purchased
items from retailers based outside of the US thorough online channels. This share
was one-third Among US consumers aged 18–24. However, language barriers
persist and delivery is sometimes geographically limited.
Consumers that do not purchase online are often influenced by information
on the Internet as they read customer reviews and look up customer ratings. In the
first quarter of 2010 in Europe 19% of those with Internet access use these sources
of information at least once a month and 46% of Internet users feel these ratings help
them reach decisions (Western Europe Technographics Survey Q1 2010 as cited by
IMAP, 2010). Reviews were consulted most frequently for consumer electronics,
cars and software (Nielsen, 2010b). During the early stages of the Internet
consumers started generating content on rating and review sites and feedback portals
have been created. These were later followed by discussion forums, consumer blogs,
Micro-community sites, audio and video blogs and what have become known as
‘social media’ such as Facebook and Twitter. The latest development in this area is
the increased availability of these sources of information within the traditional
retailers as mobile phone Internet connections continue improving and special apps
are designed.
In conclusion, the retail industry is of great economic importance in almost
all countries, and comprises many companies in each country. Though the majority
Industry Introduction 16
of companies in the industry are small there are also many large players that have
gained dominance over their supply chains. Over the past two centuries the industry
has seen many changes, such as the rise of self-service, the introduction of ICT
systems, the concentration and globalization of its companies and the rise of online
retailing. The globalization of retailers has had as main drivers the retailers need for
growth opportunities and the export of best practices, and the latter has had a great
influence on countries with less developed internal retail markets, such as Eastern
Europe.
From the consumer’s perspective there has been an increase in store size, and
the effects of urbanization and more widespread personal means of transportation
have been that more stores have become available to most. This is especially true
with the rise of e-retailing, which provides everyone with an Internet connection
access to more retailers than are present in their village or region. Keeping this first
image of the retail industry and its development in mind the following chapter will
discuss what changes have increased product variety and how much choice
consumers are faced with. The latter will be done through an examination of store
sizes, formats and assortments sizes.
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 17
2. Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice
1. Categorizing new products
The previous chapter has described the changes in the retail industry,
however also the products that are sold have fundamentally changed over the last
century. All increase in variety has originated from the introduction of ‘new’
products. According to Tat Keh and Park (1997) new products can be categorized as
shown in table 1. Based on this framework, for the purpose of this paper three
sources of product variety are discussed in more depth, namely supplier variety,
product variety and branding.
Source: Tat Keh & Park (1997).
Firstly, product origin variety has expanded for products due to
improvements in transportation and increasing international trade. To illustrate this
Table 1: Types of new products.
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 18
consider that in 1989 the US imported many goods, such as agricultural products,
from an average of 12 different supplying countries (Mostashari, 2010). In 2007
these same products were imported from an average of 16 different countries. This is
a measure for product variety as instead of offering only French red wine, also
Brazilian, Spanish and South-African red wine are now available. Similar increase in
variety was demonstrated by Broda and Weinstein (2004), who found that while in
1972 products were imported into the US from an average of 31.4 different
suppliers, by 1997 this had increased to 42.7 suppliers. A trend they also found for
European countries as well as Hong Kong, Mexico, the former Soviet Union,
Singapore, Taiwan and Brazil. Data on Europe shows that the same trend continued
during the 1995 to 2007 period as well (Jubiläumsfonds der Österreichischen
Nationalbank, 2009, as cited in Foster, Poeschl, & Stehrer, 2008).
A striking feature of this trend is that the goods that importers source from
the fewest countries (petroleum and other fuel oils, coal, and wheat) are all generic
goods (Broda Weinstein, 2004). Similarly goods that are sourced from many
countries (e.g., medicines, specialized industrial machinery, and motor vehicle parts)
are likely to be quite differentiated when it comes to producing countries. This is
possibly due to their lesser relationship to natural resources and increasing
importance of human capital and intellectual property rights.
This trend of increasing supplier variety, paradoxically, was probably
possible only thanks to suppliers increasing their production levels through
consolidation and economies of scale (Philpott, 2007; Howard, 2006). Thus, while to
the consumer more supplier variety became available, increasingly large and few
globalized producers were supplying. The same goes for the retailers. Due to
urbanization and increased consumer mobility, consumers are able to go to more
different stores. However, the same chains are present in many towns, and more
recently have an increasingly global presence, reducing the total variety of retailers
(Wrigley & Lowe, 2002). Most recently, Internet retailing has made many more
stores and products available to consumers all around the world.
2. Product and Brand Variety
Secondly, over the past years variety in (available) products has expanded.
Broadly, these products can be split into three general groups: those that are
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 19
modified, those that are newly available and those that are newly invented. Milk is a
product of which the diversity has increased over the past 100 years through product
modification, as it developed from a product that was sold from door-to-door to a
grocery store item. Not only can one now buy (cow) ‘milk’, but one chooses
between whole, semi skimmed, skimmed, a specific % of fat, organic, flavored,
pasteurized, sterilized, ultra high temperature (UHT), evaporated, condensed,
filtered, dried, homogenized and, if lucky, the original untreated (or ‘raw’) milk.
Furthermore, the product has also been modified by changing the containers. One
can buy milk in differently sized and shaped containers, containers that can be made
of a variety of materials, such as carton, plastic and glass, to be opened in a variety
of manners. Product innovation may well go beyond functional satiation and move
products from being necessity to luxury goods (Baudisch, 2006).
Other sources of increasing product variety are new inventions, creating not
only variety in existing product categories, but at times add product categories as
well. All consumer electronics, including light bulbs and telephones have been
developed over the last 200 years (Acton, 1994; Boyer, 2001). Also many
consumables are relatively new such as energy drinks as well as many cleaning and
personal hygienic products (Rouse, 2010; Holmes, 2001; Romanowski, 1998). New
introductions are often produced for little more than a year, creating an ever
changing stream of new products (Swartz, 2004).
Finally, there are newly available products. For example previously localized
products have spread across the globe. Food and other perishable products are a
good example as they could spread only after the revolution in freight. Since then
the markets have been flooded with foreign foods such as bananas and rice.
Furthermore, this combined with evolving production methods has made it possible
for various seasonal fruits and vegetables, such as grapes, strawberries, sweet
peppers and tomatoes to be in ready supply all throughout the year. Especially
globalized retailers benefit from this as they can use their local procurement
networks to purchase local specialties cheaply.
Branding has been another source of variety. Brands can introduce
differences that were not perceived before. Often this is achieved by associating the
brand with characteristics that objectively have little or no relationship to the
product. How brands introduce the perception of variety is most easily shown when
looking at how products from one manufacturer are rebranded and sold as
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 20
alternatives, such as for example the Albert Heijn and Etos1 private brand shampoo.
Brands can also exaggerate the existing differences, as happens for example with
flour, sugar or milk. At other times brands can mask variety, as products from
various producers or products that are adapted to local tastes are sold under the same
name. A good example of this is coca cola which does not quite taste the same
everywhere.
3. Global Assortment Sizes
The various mechanisms in which new products become available together
resulted in 5,694 new grocery store items and 10,558 new varieties in 1988 (Borin,
Farris & Freeland, 1994). In 1998 20,000 grocery store items were released of which
11,000 food products (Nestle, 2002; Garg, Jones & Sheedy, 1999). Of these
introductions 1,200 (6%) were new products or line as well as brand extensions, the
rest products had existed before but had yet not been locally available.
With the introduction of 20,000 new products a year stores have almost
limitless possibilities for assortment growth (as most stores have assortments of less
than 4,000 items). And to accommodate these new products retailers have grown
assortments over the past decades. To get an impression of how much choice has
expanded for the average consumer we consider the assortment size of a grocer.
According to Garg, Jones and Sheedy (1999) and Nestle (2002) while the average
US grocery store carried an average of 9,000 items in 1974, in 1980 this had risen to
15,000 and by 1997 the average store sold as many as 30,000 items. According to
firstresearch.com (2005) the average US grocery store carried 40,000 different
items, in 2008 the average number of items had risen to almost 47,000 (Minesota
Grocers Association, 2011). Thus assortment sizes more than trebled over the course
of the past three decades.
Not in all countries have such large levels of assortment been reached
(Nielsen, 2010c). In fact, grocery stores in the US on average have the largest
assortments. In China, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina the average store carries only a
little over one third of the items in their US counterparts (approximately 11,000),
and European countries such as France and the UK are in the middle (with stores on
average carrying 15,000 and 20,000 SKUs respectively).
1 Both brands are owned by Ahold
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 21
This does not mean that all stores have such large assortments. When looking
at retailers in the USA Bishop (2010) found that half of them had between 2,000 and
3,500 items in their assortment in 2009. 20% had less than 2,000 items and only
23% of the stores had more than 4,001 items. Unfortunately, the amount of countries
for which data on the average amount of SKUs in stores is available is very limited.
Therefore, to quantify the amount of choice offered to people in various countries
some researchers have used sales area as a proxy for the size of the assortments, as
the more products one sells the more space is needed (Hunneman, 2011; Arnold,
Ruth & Tigert, 1981). Sales area per capita is however no more than a proxy as
presentation method and the size of items displayed impacts the sales area per capita
greatly.
Figure 7: Per capita sales area (in m2) in 2010.
Source: adapted from Jahn & Müller (2011).
The US has the world’s largest sales area per capita, with an average of 3.86
m2 of retail space per inhabitant in 2008 (Hill, 2009). India, on the other hand, with
0.19 m2 per capita, may well have the lowest sales area per capita, while
simultaneously many Indians work in retail (Khanna, 2008). Data for Europe can be
found in figure 7, where ‘Northern EU’ includes Norway, Sweden, Finland and
Denmark, and ‘Eastern EU’ Slovenia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Poland,
Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia. Austria and the Netherlands have
relatively many square meters per capita, while Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria and
Romania have relatively few.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 22
Comparing this data on the retail area per capita in 2010 as reported by Jahn
and Müller (2011) to the purchasing power per capita in thousands for 2010 as
reported by the International Monetary Fund (2011), we find that the two are
moderately correlated (r(32) = .55, p < .001). People that can spend more also tend
to have more store space, and thus most likely more choice. Furthermore, both retail
sales area and purchasing power have increased over the last two decades, reflecting
the growth in the amount of available product alternatives.
Eurostat provides more insight in the sales area by providing data on the total
sales area per store size category for 2007. This data shows that within Europe small
stores are especially frequent in Portugal, Austria, France, Spain and Greece, with
70-90% of all sales area in stores less than 120 m2 and 90-95% under 399 m2 (own
calculations). In Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands stores
with a size up to 399 m2 own between 70-90% of all sales area and also larger
formats are frequent. The UK has most large format sales area, with under 55% of
sales area in stores smaller than 399 m2, and 16% in stores of more than 10,000 m2.
In Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania,
Slovakia and Estonia, there is a dual preference with 45% of total sales area
belonging to stores less than 120 m2 and 46% in stores between 1,000 and 2,500 m2.
This situation is much different from for example that of India, where 96% of its 12
million small retailers are smaller than 47 m2 (Khanna, 2008).
4. Store Formats and Assortments
Assortment size can be split in breadth, the amount of categories, and depth,
the amount of different items per category (Zentes, Mirschett &Schramm-Klein,
2011). Stores with deep assortments are called specialty stores, while stores with
broad assortments are diversified. Stores such as book stores, audio visual stores, pet
stores, vegetable stores, butchers, bike stores, home improvement stores and clothing
stores are specialty stores, while hypermarkets and department stores fall in the
diversified category. This split between specialty and diversified stores should be
treated as a continuum. Globally category mitigation is an increasing trend, with
retailers’ positioning themselves as specialist in a few categories, while also having
a couple of other shallow categories to their assortment. Furthermore, for example
department stores have both deep and broad assortments, while a small news stand
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 23
or a convenience store has relatively little breadth and little depth. In 2009 in Europe
79% of retail companies using store formats were specialized (own calculations
based on Eurostat data). This percentage was higher for continental Western Europe
(between 84 and 94%) and much lower for Eastern Europe, where on average only
55% was specialized.
Assortment breadth and size together determine store format (detailed
explanations of each store format can be found in Zentes, Mirschett & Schramm-
Klein, 2011). When looking at the US and Western Europe, department stores have
by large the broadest assortments, namely around 100,000 often subdivided in five
or more broad product categories. The second largest assortments are found in
hypermarkets which carry between 50 and 80,000 items (Levy & Weitz, 2009). Off-
price and ‘do it yourself’ stores on average carry 50,000 items, and home
improvement stores and category specialists carry between 20 to 40,000 items.
Discount stores carry 30,000 items, and drug stores 10 to 20,000. Conventional
supermarkets have around 10,000-15,000 items, and specialty stores which offer the
most service have on average 5,000 items. Hard discounters are the smallest with on
average 1,000 SKUs. Off-price and drug stores have the least space per item, while
home improvement stores have the most.
For grocery sales Lassere (2007) found that while in the USA hypermarkets
are more than four times as popular as supermarkets and convenience stores and
almost twice as popular as discounters. This situation is much different in other
countries. Research by Igan and Suzuki (2011) shows that in most European
countries three grocery store formats dominate, namely hypermarkets, supermarkets
and discounters (see Appendix B, figure 15). These formats widely differ on their
assortment sizes and in 2004 the most popular were supermarkets with an average
market share of 40%, and least popular discounters with a market share below 10%
in many markets. Hypermarkets were popular in countries such as France, Germany
and the Czech Republic. Discounters were mainly popular in Germany and the
countries around it, such as Austria, Hungary, Belgium and Denmark. Also
convenience stores are popular in Germany.
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 24
5. Assortment Depth
However, all this tells us relatively little about how many product
alternatives a customer is faced with when making a purchase. To answer this
question we turn to assortment depth. Fasolo, Hertwig, Huber and Ludwig (2009)
examined differences in assortment sizes between one large and one small
supermarket in Germany. For the twelve identified common categories they found
that the large grocer always offered more choice than the smaller one. Where the
large store on average offered 54 varieties the small one offered only 7. On average
there were 8.6 times more options available in the large store. The difference was
smallest for toast, where the large grocer offered nine varieties and the small one six,
and largest for butter, where the small one had one variety and the large one 20. The
most extensive assortments were found for yogurt (210 and 26 varieties
respectively) and jam (138 and 13 varieties respectively). They found that large
assortments had more attribute levels (not more attributes) and were able to maintain
product difference by offering larger attribute ranges.
A cross -cultural analysis of assortment depth was made by Einarsson
(2007), who analyzed the amount of products offered by grocers in various
countries. Higher amounts of choice were found in France and Finland than in for
example Norway (see figure 8). These data however are highly unrepresentative, as
all countries have many different store formats, which in turn differ on the
assortments offered. Also the amount of variety within each category is influenced
by the local popularity of the category. Furthermore, what one may count as variety,
another observer may not, such as Rubens apples, six pre-packaged Rubens apples
and 1 kilogram pre-packaged Rubens apples.
Figure 8: Number of products offered by the average grocer per category in 2004.
Based on: Einarsson (2007).
0
100
200
300
Diary Meat Beverages Cold cuts Average
Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden France
Sources of Variety and the Prevalence of Choice 25
There is some cross-cultural data available when it comes to the hard-
discounter Aldi (Nielsen, 2007). Assortment depth in these stores is highest in
Austria and in the south of Germany, while being lower in Denmark, France and the
Netherlands (see figure 9).
Figure 9: Assortment depth; number of items sold by Aldi by category by country.
Source: redrawn from Nielsen (2007).
It can be concluded that over the past decades the assortments offered to
consumers have expanded as many new products have and continue to enter the
markets. Approximations based on grocery stores show that the amount of products
on offer has increased with more than 50% over the last decade, and the rise of the
almost unlimited online assortments only add to this. Choice is especially abundant
in the US and Western Europe. The country with the largest stores in Europe is the
UK and also in Eastern Europe large formats have been increasingly popular. Within
Europe the largest preference for small stores can be found in Southern Europe.
Nowadays consumers are confronted with thousands of articles in most store formats
and in large grocers even tens of thousands. The amount of choice is however hard
to quantify, and the importance of category definitions when assessing choice can be
seen clearly when comparing the amount of products per category of the Aldi data
discussed before with those of Einarsson (2007).
For now this concludes the discussion of retailers as we lay our focus on the
customers, and specifically how and where they make purchasing decisions.
Furthermore, the effects of variety during and after the purchase are explored with
the objective to form a culturally sensitive model of the interactions between variety
and purchase satisfaction.
8,3
5,2 5,3
8,7
6,75,3
6,7 6,6
0
2
4
6
8
10
Consumer Demand for Variety 26
3. Consumer Demand for Variety
1. Sides to Variety
In chapter two it has been detailed how choice has extended over the last 200
years. Furthermore, some data was provided on store size preference. This chapter
will explain why diversity is often wanted by consumers and thus provides reasons
for why stores have different assortment sizes from country to country.
When choices are repeated two opposite tendencies manifest themselves as
consumers ask themselves whether to stick with the favorite or to vary (Fishbach,
Ratner & Zhang, 2011). Variety seeking is especially dominant in products
consumed for hedonic reasons. Choosing variation is often internally motivated by
(expected) satiation, the need for new stimuli and to avoid having a boring image in
favor of an interesting and unique one. Furthermore, when consumers are new to a
product category they may try to get more familiar and knowledgeable through trial.
On the opposite side, however, consumers also seek stability and consistency and are
motivated to demonstrate loyalty. This is especially strong when during the initial
choice the consumer believes he has made some form of commitment. The extent to
which consumers pursue variety seeking or commitment strategies is dependent on
amongst others their expected satiation and cues in the purchasing environment.
A reason for variety is that even though people may have stable preferences,
or even be brand dependent, different people prefer a different brand. Godin (2003)
relates the existence of specific product preferences to product class diversity. He
asserts that product categories that have ‘otakus’, a Japanese term referring to people
obsessed with a specific product comparable to connoisseurs, become more diverse.
This is because otakus do not only try out as many different varieties as possible, but
also tell their friends about it effectively increasing product class involvement.
Furthermore, they encourage people to express strong brand and product
preferences, and increase the importance of choice.
Whether or not people try to establish uniqueness or stability choosing is
related to identity. Chernev (2004) reports that an individual’s preference for product
choice is positively related to the extent to which this choice is perceived to affect
identity. Moreover, preference for choice is higher when self-image is centered on
the notions of autonomy and independence. The relationship between demand for
Consumer Demand for Variety 27
choice and identity increases in importance when decisions are communicated to
others (Ratner and Kahn, 2002).
In Western cultures having choice, of which the freedom to control
individual purchasing is a core pillar, is highly valued (Schwartz, 2004). Research in
healthcare shows that 95.6% of the 823 respondents found having choices extremely
important and 30.3% thought that making choices was extremely important (Leotti,
Iyengar & Ochsner, 2010). In agreement with this, another research shows that both
animals and humans display a preference for choice over non-choice even when
outcomes in both situations are the same, and making the second choice will require
extra effort. Also choosing between more alternatives is reported to be more
enjoyable and attractive than choosing between a more limited set (Iyengar &
Lepper, 2000). Furthermore, neuroscience has shown that results that are obtained
through choice are more gratifying than rewards that did not involve choice.
Research has demonstrated a direct link between freedom, or better said its
opposite namely confinement, and variety seeking. Levav and Zhu (2009)
demonstrated that customers in aisles with less width seek more diversity than
customers in broader aisles. Furthermore, they are more likely to choose lesser
known brands. This difference in variety seeking was associated to the extent to
which they felt physically confined. In fact, the aisle width does not need to be
changed to create this felt confinement. Primers, such as questions about the aisle
width, are sufficient to increase variety seeking. It is important to notice that aisle
width had no effect on peoples expressed mood.
Preference for choice in part reflects the general belief that more choice leads
people to do better. This belief primarily relies on the logic that as the amount of
alternatives increases, it is likely that some of the added alternatives are closer to the
optimal solution than the alternatives in the original set were (Chernev, 2004). There
is some research suggesting that there are limits to the amount of choice people find
attractive. Arunachalam, Henneberry, Lusk and Norwood (2009) found that when
American students were asked whether they’d like to choose from a set of 24 types
of soda or a set of six containing a random selection of the larger set, 42% of the 45
students indicated to prefer choosing from the smaller set. In addition whether or not
people like and do better on tasks involving choice depends on culture and does not
directly transfer to cultures in which group decision making, and decision making by
authorities are preferred (Iyengar, 2010). For example, Japanese children perform
Consumer Demand for Variety 28
better when their mothers have chosen for them, while American children perform
better when choosing themselves.
An additional cultural source for different perceptions of choice is exposure
to communism (Iyengar, 2010). For example elderly Eastern Europeans often
associated choice with fear, as they had gotten used to not having any choice and
had to adapt relatively quickly to the amount of choice offered in modern market
economies. Although the development of most European countries, including
Western Russia, was very similar for many centuries this changed when communism
gained popularity. Communism, with its radically different production scheme relied
much less on consumer demand to pull the market. And though there was marketing
under these systems as well, they were much more product type rather than brand
focused.
As all skills are learned through culture, people that come from cultures that
promoted the availability of few or no brand alternatives may now experience more
difficulties discerning differences between various products and may therefore have
more problems determining their preference as well as experience more trouble
deciding on what to purchase. For example Iyengar (2010) found that many
Russians did not perceive any difference between different types of soda when they
were offered Coca Cola, Coca Cola Diet, Sprite, Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, Pepsi Diet and
Mountain Dew. Rather they perceived this choice as ‘soda’ or ‘no soda’. When
offered the choice between these seven sodas, orange juice and water this was
perceived as three alternatives, namely juice, water or soda. Americans on the other
hand perceive each type of soda as a separate alternative. This is just one example of
how the perception of variety varies and shows how “the value of choice depends on
our ability to perceive differences between the options” (ibid. 11:47-11:55). A study
from Boyd and Bahn (2009) shows that ability to perceive variety indeed is related
to assortment preference. Those who perceive little variety prefer assortments that
offer less choice and those that perceive much variety prefer assortments offering
more choice. When choosing right becomes more important this difference in
preference becomes more pronounced.
Fisher (1984) suggests that consumer preferences may diverge as societies
become more affluent. As not having anything becomes less and less of a concern,
people shift their attention to address satiation, thereby generating preference for
choice. This is supported by our earlier finding of the positive relationship between
Consumer Demand for Variety 29
the amount of choice in retail stores and purchasing power. Moreover, people that
are faced with more choice have more chance to develop articulated preferences.
And as more concrete preferences leads to increased preference for choice (in an
experiment by Chernev, 2004, that will be discussed in more detail later) in demand
driven economies a self-reinforcing cycle could drive choice to expand.
Consumer demand for variety varies per country, consumer group, person,
and product category. A study by Rozin, Fischler, Shields and Masson (2006) of the
opinions of over 6,000 respondents shows that preference even within the western
world differs substantially. In France, Germany and Switzerland approximately 30%
of the population prefers choosing from 50 flavors of ice cream over choosing from
10. In Italy and the UK this percentage is higher (39 and 44 respectively). In the US
the preference for the larger assortment is highest (56%). A similar pattern was
found for restaurant menu size expectations, with around 20% of French, German
and Swiss respondents expecting many, compared to 29% of Italians, 40% of
English and 36% of Americans. A weak correlation was found between the two. For
all countries older respondents were less likely to prefer having much choice.
2. Exposing Oneself to Choice
Of course, consumers do not expose themselves to the same amount of
choice for each decision. I fact most consumers actively choose either to expose
themselves to choice or to avoid it. Kahn and Isen (1993) found that people look for
more variety when they are in a good mood. Consumers that consistently expose
themselves to as much choice as possible for the majority of choices they make are
referred to as maximizers. The differences between maximizers and satisficers will
be discussed shortly. First, however, a more comprehensive overview of choice
exposure strategies is given.
Haynes, Pipkin, Black & Cloud (1994) define six types of exposure style
profiles based on a research on maternity apparel store patronage of 100 pregnant
women (see table 2). First of all, there are shoppers, people with this profile know
many stores selling the item, considered visiting many of these and visit many as
well. These shoppers are highly involved, and show high interest in and enjoyment
of the shopping process. Their attitude towards planning shopping trips is very
positive. They are motivated little by the functionality (the search for information,
Consumer Demand for Variety 30
negotiation, purchase etc.) and more by the symbolic (the effects on self-image and
expectations related to social roles) and experiential (experiences resulting from the
experience) aspects of shopping. In line with this they are relatively little product
and price oriented. Demographically, this group includes the relatively old, wealthy
and well-educated.
Table 2: Choice exposure styles.
Source: Haynes, Pipkin, Black & Cloud (1994).
Secondly, there are narrowers. These people also know a lot of stores, but
considered substantially less and visited even fewer. They are unlikely to want to
plan shopping trips and are hardly motivated by the symbolic value of shopping.
Narrowers pay more attention to brand than the average consumer and focus less on
value for price. This group has no particular demographic profile, except that they
tend to be relatively more career oriented.
Thirdly, apathetics have low awareness of which stores are available,
consider few stores and visit few stores. They are young and the most career
focused, however have little income and little education. They put little emphasis on
the experiential side of shopping, are highly product oriented, care relatively little
about price, and want the store to have relatively much product knowledge.
Fourth, loyals are highly involved with shopping which they value for its
functionality; shopping allows them to get good value for money. While they know
the fewest stores, they visit a moderate amount, showing interest in those stores
Consumer Demand for Variety 31
which allow them to get the most out of their limited income. The fifth group, late
bloomers, are similar to loyals but know, consider and go to more stores. They are
likewise motivated by functionality, however instead of product involvement they
are concerned with reducing price and time taken.
The final group is the avoiders. Customers in this group dislike shopping the
most, have little involvement in the shopping process and get little satisfaction from
the process nor its outcomes. Although they know a moderate amount of stores they
consider and also visit the least. Their income levels are high, and they view
shopping as necessary and uninteresting.
3. Maximizers and Satisficers
The decision whether to stop searching once a product with desired
characteristics is found or to evaluate all available alternatives in an effort to make
the best possible decision effectively determines exposure to choice. Swartz (2004)
defines maximizers as people that “seek and accept only the best” (p.77), the
alternative to which is satisficing; settling for the alternative that meets the criteria
without worrying that another option may be better. Though maximizing-satisfying
can be constructed as a general personality trait, it is unlikely for a person’s
maximizing tendency to be fixed across product categories. Furthermore, there is an
interrelation with the extent to which people know what they prefer, a characteristic
which is further discussed in chapter 5.
For maximizers every purchase has to be the best purchase that could be
made, and therefore maximizers attempt to evaluate as many alternatives as are
available to them and consequently take longer to decide. In addition Schwartz,
Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and Lehman (2002) found that maximizing
was correlated with the amount of social comparisons made and the frequency of
counterfactual thinking during the purchase process.
In conclusion, want for choice and reactions to choice are culturally,
personality and circumstance dependent. The following chapters will investigate
choice more in depth, with a particular emphasis on choosing from variety.
Making Purchasing Decisions 32
4. Making Purchasing Decisions
1. The Purchase Decision
In the following chapters the focus will be on the customer’s purchasing
decisions and the effects of variety on their satisfaction with and after the purchase.
The following chapter will take a look at both theory as well as findings on
purchasing decisions. Firstly, the rational decision process will be discussed,
followed by differences between rebuys and new purchases. The frequency that
people make in store decisions, as well as what kind of decisions these are and how
they are made is covered in the last two sections.
All purchasing decisions start with people recognizing that they want or need
a product; followed by a search for information as well as an evaluation of the
alternatives based on set criteria (see Christ, 2008 for a more elaborate discussion of
each stage). This can be followed by the purchase of a product, which then is
evaluated during use. The decision making process outlined above is a rational one,
in which the consumer mentally evaluates the alternatives, maximizing the expected
utility (Hastie & Dawes, 2009). However, consumers are also influenced by other
factors, including moods, emotions, the consumer’s habits, imitation of a role model
and perceived cultural mandates.
For example, when working memory is occupied with as little as
remembering seven digits 63% of participants chose chocolate cake, while
participants that only had two digits in their working memory chose chocolate cake
only in 43% of cases (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). This shows that when working
memory is occupied, people more easily make choices in favor of physically
pleasing alternatives, because the rational mind is too occupied to control impulses.
For reaching a decision especially the information search and evaluation of
alternatives stages are important. During these stages consumers make a (mental)
ranked list of the relevant products available to them and their characteristics. The
size of the evoked set (the mental list of alternatives) is not unlimited, as working
memory cannot contain an infinite number of items, nor evaluate the items that it
does contain on many aspects simultaneously, this is also known as bounded
rationality (Hoyer, 1984). In a classic study by Miller (1956) he asserts that we can
remember only a limited amount of information, more or less the size of seven digits
or ‘chunks’ (the smallest meaningful memory units, including letters, acronyms,
Making Purchasing Decisions 33
numbers, colors, etc.) if we focus on one characteristic. If we focus on more
characteristics the total amount of what we remember goes up, while the amount of
items remembered per category goes down, and also the accuracy of our memory
goes down. There are some techniques people use to increase the sets they can
handle, such as making relative judgments, increase the amount of dimensions, or
split the decision. People can also write the options down, as well as commit
knowledge to their long term memory.
2. Involvement, Information Search and Decision Novelty
Consumers do not go through the full decision process for each purchase as
extensively. A combination of two purchase characteristics seems to largely
determine the extent to which people engage in the search for information and
evaluate the various alternatives (Christ, 2008). These two characteristics are
involvement and decision novelty. These two characteristics combined lead to four
different types of purchasing decisions. Decisions that have been made repeatedly
before and are considered uninvolving and are referred to as routine purchases or
straight rebuys. Purchases that are relatively uninvolving but novel are called minor
new purchases, and purchases that are relatively involving and have not been made
before are called major new purchases. Finally, there are relatively involving
repeated purchases.
When making routine purchases customers rely on a previous purchasing
decision for their current product choice, minimizing cognitive effort (Hoyer, 1984).
They have found the product which satisfies them, may feel a certain loyalty to this
product, but most importantly give little thought to alternative products. Routine
purchases allow customers to completely ignore approximately 75% of the items on
the shelves (Swartz, 2004). Customers planning a routine purchase may still be
persuaded to evaluate other alternatives when there is a sales promotion. Also when
an item is out of stock, customers have to make either a minor new purchase, visit
another store or come back later. Under these conditions it may be found that what
was thought to be an uninvolving product is involving after all. Routine purchases
are discussed in more detail in the following section.
A second type of purchasing decision is customers making a minor new
purchase. As the product is neither expensive nor highly involving they make use of
Making Purchasing Decisions 34
limited problem solving. Consumers making these types of decisions are unlikely to
search information before entering the store and are likely to buy whichever product
alternative is offered as long as it meets their requirements and the price does not
exceed their expectations. A common decision strategy, the use of heuristics, is
discussed later in this chapter.
Finally, there are major purchases, which in the case of non-professional
consumers are unlikely to be re-buys as major purchases within one product
category are rather infrequent. Furthermore, if there is a need to make a large
purchase more than once this is often due to product failure, in which case
alternatives will be considered. When customers are faced with major purchases, due
to high involvement and/or high prices, they are likely to take much time for each
decision making step evaluating many of the offered options in detail, visiting
multiple stores and search online for information (Beatty & Smith, 1987).
3. In-store Decisions
Approximately two out of three purchases involve in-store decision making
(Inman, Winer & Ferraro, 2009). The MacFadden Communications Group LLC
(1996) reports more details for the mass merchandising retail sector based on a
sample of 1,399 American consumers. Namely, 41.5% of home furnishing purchases
were found to be decided in store. Domestics, such as towels, blankets and table
linens were often bought spontaneously with 48% of purchases being unplanned.
Also electronics were often (40%) decided upon in the store. In store decision
making in this context was defined as those consumers that either have no or only a
general idea as to what they are seeking, but have not yet decided on the product
they want.
The Point-Of-Purchase Advertising Institute (POPAI, 1995, as cited in
Shimp, 2008) reports that items with particularly high in-store decision rates in
supermarkets were first aid (93%), toys, crafts and sporting goods (93%),
housewares (90%), stationary (90%) and candy (89%). For mass merchandise
purchases high in-store decision rates were found in the following categories apparel
accessories (92%), foils and other food wraps (91%), hardware electric and
plumbing (90%), infant and toddler wear (90%) and garbage bags (88%). Examples
of product categories with exceptionally low in-store decision rates for supermarkets
Making Purchasing Decisions 35
are produce (33%), meat and seafood (47%), eggs (53%), coffee (58%) and baby
food (58%). In mass merchandise disposable diapers (35%), baby food (35%) eye
drops (52%), prerecorded music and videos (54%) and coffee, tea and cacao (55%)
had relatively low in-store decision rates. Overall non-necessities seem to have
higher in-store decision rates, as well as necessities that are not on top of the mind
(such as garbage bags).
As the previous studies show, many purchases involve some type of in-store
decision making. The extent to which decisions are made in-store is an important
decision characteristic, and purchases can be unplanned, generally planned or
specifically planned. Specifically planned purchses are those for which the customer
has decided upon the exact variety he/she wants to buy before enterring the store,
often these are straight re-buys, but they can also be products that the customer has
decided upon after seeing an advertisement, or after a long purchase decision. When
specificly planned purchases are changed in store, with the customer for example
buying Pringles instead of the planned Lays chips, this is referred to as a switch
purchase, which in grocery stores accounts for approximately 4% of sales, and for
approximately 3% in mass merchandisers (POPAI, 1995 as cited by Shimp, 2008;
The MacFadden Communications Group LLC, 1996).
In the case of a generally planned purchase, the customer has only decided
upon the category before enterring the store, while for an unplanned purchase, the
need recognition occurs in the store. Craft and hobby supplies were bought more
often unplanned (68%) than planned (The MacFadden Communications Group LLC,
1996). Unplanned purchases for all categories in mass merchandise stores are 53%,
generally planned 18% and 26 % are specifically planned.
A research by Inman, Winer and Ferraro (2009) investigates the in-store
decision making of 2,300 consumers sampled in 1995 from 28 different grocery
stores across the US making over 34,000 purchases. The research shows that the
majority of grocery store purchases in unplanned (60,9%), 32.5% of purchases is
specifically planned and 6.6% is generally planned. That purchases are unplanned
however, does not necessarily mean that once the consumer has decided to buy a
product in a certain category all brands will have equal chances of being considered.
These unplanned purchases are much more likely to be unplanned re-buys than
unplanned new purchases. Unplanned purchases are most likely for infrequently
Making Purchasing Decisions 36
bought products and more hedonistic products and made more often by consumers
on hedonistic shopping trips.
People making least unplanned purchases tend to use shopping lists, visit
fewer aisles, visit stores more often, spend less time in the store and pay in cash
(Inman, Winer & Ferraro, 2009). Women make 14% more unplanned purchases than
men, and also people buying groceries for larger households are more likely to make
unplanned purchases. Furthermore, people make approximately 10% more
unplanned purchases when they are more familiar with a store. “This may be
because consumers who are most familiar with the store are more willing to let the
store guide their need recognition” (ibid, p.24). Whether the respondents were
shopping alone or with others had no influence on the amount of unplanned
purchases.
4. In-Store Decisions and Heuristics
Given that shoppers make so many decisions in a matter of seconds, it has
been questioned to what extent the decision process described at the start of this
chapter applies for these small choices. A study by Hoyer (1984) of 120 supermarket
customers who were given a choice task between laundry detergents (a product
which is low on involvement, and has much variety), shows that most people
examined less than than two products (on average 1.42, 72% only examined one
product), and picked up on average only 1.2 products. Only 12% of the consumers
made a comparison between more than two products, and no-one looked at more
than 5 products. The majority (89%) of people did not look at shelf tags at all, and
75% took less than 10 seconds after entering the aisle to decide what brand to
purchase (mean=13 seconds, median=8.5 seconds).
The hypothesis Hoyer (1984) had formed was that consumers must use some
sort of simple rule to base their decision on. These rules of thumb, or heuristics, are
stragtegies that ignore part of the information allowing decisions to be made quicker,
more accurately and/or with less effort than under more complex decision making
(Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011). An interesting variant of this is the take-the best
heuristic, in which one searches his/her memory or envirnment for cues that
differentiate the alternatives meaningfully. Once a cue has been found that
discriminates between the alternatives wichever alternative scorers higher for this
Making Purchasing Decisions 37
cue is chosen. Most shoppers (91%) indicated to use some form of heuristic, the
remaining 9% using two or more heuristics. Most either bought the cheapest (15%),
the one they liked most (17%), the one they know works well (12%) or the one the
wife likes (7%). When grouping the responses into categories it was found that 28%
decided based on performance, 22.5% on price, 20% on affect and 11% on
normative heuristics. Especially when price heuristics are used Hoyer (1984) found
that consumers take more time evaluating alternatives, possibly as this heuristic
relies less on memory and is relatively easily checked in-store.
These heuristics may be stable for a product category, or constructed at the
moment a decision needs to be made. The repeated use of any such heuristic is
dependent on the decision outcome. In this manner simple heuristics may become
more complex over time, for example: ‘buy the cheapest Japanese brand’.
It is important to differentiate between product loyalty due to habit, the
constant application of stable evaluation methods and brand loyalty. Underhill
(1999) relates decreasing brand loyalty to increasing amounts of product choices that
are made on a purchase-by-purchase basis, rather than based on a stable brand
preference. Maheswaran, Mackie and Chaiken (1992) have attempted to measure the
interrelation, by presenting 122 business students with various descriptions of the
study’s importance, the brand track record and the products attributes. Their results
show that uninvolved consumers were influenced solely by the reputation of the
brand name. Subjects with high involvement were affected by product attributes and
only by brand name if its reputation was in line with these. Their findings provide
support not only for heuristics being used mainly for uninvolving products, but also
for involvement and motivation to reduce brand name importance if product
attributes do not match brand image.
The rational purchase model introduced in the start of this chapter has been
found to only limitedly apply to consumer choice in the retail sector. Most notably
involvement and decision novelty affect decision style. For repeated low
involvement decisions little cognitive effort is spent and decisions are either made
based on loyalty or heuristics. More involving and novel decisions however more
closely resemble the rational model, though limitations to memory should be taken
into account. Many decisions are made inside the retailer, because of this, it is
important to look at how the variety offered by the retailer affects customers’
decisions, most notably their likelihood to purchase.
Purchasing from Variety 38
5. Purchasing from Variety
1. Product Choice and Variety
The amount of variety presented has an effect on what product gets chosen.
As discussed in the previous chapter, choices are not fully rational, and can be
influenced by seemingly unrelated factors such as the extent to which memory is
occupied. Sela, Berger and Liu (2008) found that when two options were offered
55% chose fresh fruit over cookies, while when twelve options were offered 76%
chose the fruit. Similarly, when confronted with two ice-creams 20% of participants
chose the low-fat option, while 37% did so when faced with ten products. These
studies show that customers’ preferences may in fact be changed through the
presented amount of variety. This change in preference may be due the need for
justification, because as more variety becomes available preference shifts from
hedonic to utilitarian/healthier choices.
In a slightly different experiment, participants were faced with either two or
six printers and two or six mp3 players (Sela, Berger & Liu, 2008). When there were
in total four options people were least likely to prefer a printer (11%). However,
when the amount of available options for either mp3 players or printers increased the
amount of participants that chose the printer went up (to 32-54%). The most notable
result is that when the variety of mp3 players increased the frequency with which
they were chosen decreased. This provides support for customers fulfilling utilitarian
rather than hedonic objectives when faced with more choice. In addition, it was
found that rather than assortment size alone, the experienced choice difficulty
explained the choice for more utilitarian alternatives.
The choice for hedonic or utilitarian options is based on an interaction
between mood and assortment size. For example, participants that were primed with
indulging were more likely to choose a laptop for fun, than those that were primed
for work when choosing from small assortments (Sela, Berger & Liu, 2008). When
choosing from larger assortments, however, the effect of the priming was
significantly less pronounced. On the other hand, those participants that were given a
reason to reward themselves were more likely to do so when assortments were
larger. These experiments show that the amount of variety presented in retailers has
a large influence not only on what alternative we buy but also on which criteria we
seek to meet.
Purchasing from Variety 39
2. Chance of Purchase and Variety
Purchases decisions are more complex than solely what option should be
selected. As variety expands deciding between options is perceived as increasingly
difficult (Chernev, 2003). This difficulty in deciding may cause customers to
postpone the decision or to not buy at all. Choice deferral decisions can be under the
customers attention before selection has taken place, but research on choice deferral
has demonstrated that this decision whether or not to buy is often made after
consumers have decided which option they would like most (Dhar & Nowlis, 1999).
The likelihood of deferral is related to how easy this product selection decision is;
the more difficult and unsure the customer is about their preference the more likely
he or she is to decide to defer the purchase. Looking at the relationship between
choice deferral and variety is not only important from a sales perspective, but
additionally because indecision and choice deferral lead people to doubt their
decision making skills, lower self-confidence, increased shopper fatigue and an
overall decrease in the enjoyment of the shopping experience (Mitchell, Walsh &
Yamin 2005; Mitchell & Papavassilou, 1997; Matzler, Stieger & Füller, 2011).
One of the field’s most renowned papers on when variety leads to decreasing
chances of purchase was published in 2000 by Iyengar and Lepper. This paper
contains several experiments. The first experiment was a field experiment in which a
jam-tasting booth was operated for 5 hours for each of two conditions on a Saturday
in a large grocery store. The regular assortment contained 300 types of jam. On the
booth first 24 types of jam were offered, and the second Saturday only 6 types of
jam were offered. The extensive offer did not include the four most commonly
preferred jam types, and the limited assortment was selected from the more
extensive one by selecting two often preferred types, two moderately often preferred
types as well as two least often preferred types.
The results of the experiment were that both booths attracted the same
proportion of men and women, and also subsequent observed behavior did not
significantly depend on gender. The booth that presented more choice attracted the
attention of many more of the customers that passed by (60%) than the booth with
limited choice (40%). The amount of jams each customer tried was not significantly
different, with customers trying on average 1.5 types of jam when presented with
extensive choice and 1.4 when presented with limited choice. However, customers
faced with the limited assortment were much more likely to purchase a jar of jam
Purchasing from Variety 40
than customers who were faced with the extensive assortment (30% and 3%
respectively). This suggest that having fewer alternatives is in fact more motivating
than having many. This study however has many limitations, the most important of
which is that the intentions of people that approached both booths may have
differed.
In a second study Iyengar and Lepper (2000) participants sampled a
chocolate that either was chosen for them, that they chose from a limited assortment
or that they chose from an extensive assortment. The participants that did not choose
themselves were shown either the limited or extensive assortment to control for the
amount of alternatives presented. In total there were 134 student participants who all
indicated to like chocolates, split equally between the 4 experimental conditions. It
was found that students deciding between 30 chocolates took more time to decide
than students choosing between 6 types of chocolates. The average time taken to
decide was 24.4 and 8.9 seconds respectively. Additionally, participants that decided
between 30 types of chocolate indicated that there had been too much choice, while
participants that chose from between 6 chocolates indicated that the amount of
choice had been “just right”. The amount of choices had no effect on reported
expected satisfaction, and participants in both groups were equally likely to have
picked the alternative they usually chose. Participants that indicated that the
assortment had contained too much variety reported to have found choosing more
enjoyable, frustrating and difficult. While the experience of difficulty and frustration
were correlated, neither of these was correlated with enjoyment, indicating that
choice can be enjoyable and overwhelming at the same time.
After tasting the chocolate 48% of the participants that had been presented
limited choice purchased some chocolates. This was much higher than the 12% of
people in the extensive choice condition and the 10% of those in the no-choice
condition. In fact, there was no significant difference between the likelihood of
purchase of the latter two groups. This shows that those that were faced with
extensive choice were hardly more satisfied with the resulting chocolate than those
that had had no choice at all, and that rather than large assortments allowing people
to do better our capacity to choose results in choices that are hardly better than
results obtained with no choice at all.
A study by Heitmann, Herrmann and Kaiser (2007) looked at 583 German
customers of three major consumer electronics retailers who considered the DVD
Purchasing from Variety 41
player or digital camera assortments during a minimum of five minutes. Overall,
50.6% of the respondents had bought an item, 49.4% had not. Figure 10 shows the
relationship between assortment size and purchase frequency they found. This
suggests that there is an optimal range for variety, with three being too few, and 12
options being too many. Shah and Wolford (2007) found a similar result when
selling pens. Price was kept the same and assortments were varied between two and
twenty options. The proportion of potential customers making a purchase was
highest with an assortment between eight and twelve pens, second highest with an
assortment of two to six and lowest with assortments of 14 and more.
Figure 10: Relationship between perceived variety and likelihood of purchase.
Source: Heitmann, Herrmann & Kaiser (2007).
3. Chance of Purchase, Trade-offs and Preference Uncertainty
As the previously discussed researches have shown the size of the assortment
is related to the chance of purchase. Dhar (1997) suggested that difficulty to select a
single item is one of the most prominent reasons to delay a purchasing decision. This
choice not to choose can be combined with a choice to look for more information
and/or more alternatives. This happens most often when there is no clearly superior
product, due either through trade-off difficulty or preference uncertainty. These
theories were confirmed by his experimental study of 190 American students
imagining the purchase of four different consumer electronics (bookshelf speakers,
answering machines, laptops and electric shavers). When there was only one product
alternative around 60% of the students decided to purchase the given option. When
Purchasing from Variety 42
an alternative was added which was relatively heterogeneous, thus high on trade-
offs, purchase rates were lower (48%), in favor of search for other brands. This
tendency was stronger when the added alternative was relatively homogeneous
compared to the first option, thus presenting relatively few trade-offs. Finally, when
an alternative product that was worse than the original option was provided purchase
rates went up, and fewer people were interested in obtaining information on other
brands.
Dhar (1997) replicated these results using 300 students who were first shown
five product alternatives and then told to imagine that the store they were currently
in, depending on the experimental condition, had either one or two of them. They
were asked to indicate whether they would buy a provided alternative or visit
another store. It was found that when multiple attractive options were available
participants were more likely to postpone their purchase then when only one
attractive option was available, even though also when only one option was
available they already knew of the existence of the other alternatives. This supports
the hypothesis that the existence of trade-offs can cause people to postpone their
purchase. When an inferior alternative was available in the store people were less
likely to postpone their decision. Participants across the experimental conditions
rated the chance of a better sale similarly, therefore the chance of purchase seems
related to preference uncertainty and inability to make trade-offs, rather than a belief
one could do better by searching further.
A third study by Dhar (1997) in which 30 students vocalized their thoughts
about their choice between either two similar products, choice set {A,B}, or two
products of which one was superior, choice set {A,C}, showed that participants were
cognitively more involved when products were similar. Furthermore, when the
participant decided to defer the choice between comparable alternatives both
alternatives received as much attention as the chosen alternative had for those that
did make a purchase. When there was a clear superior alternative participants that
did decide gave the chosen alternative as much thought as the participants making a
choice from set {A,B}. The non-chosen alternative however received much less
attention. When participants faced with set {A,C} decided to defer the choice they
gave the alternatives much less thought. Thus, especially choice sets with similar
alternatives lead to indecision, and customers faced with this type of choice try for a
longer amount of time to choose.
Purchasing from Variety 43
The experiments from Dhar (1997) consistently show that people are most
likely to decide on an article when they are sure of their preference between two
articles, followed by when only one alternative is available and finally least likely to
make a choice when trade-offs are involved. These results are confirmed by various
other experimental researches (Schwartz, 2004). For example, when participants
were asked to choose whether or not to purchase, 73% decided to purchase if a
discounted CD player was offered and an inferior non-discounted CD player was
offered as well, 66% of the participants faced with one discounted CD player would
make the purchase, and 54% of people faced with two discount offers would make
the purchase. Furthermore, a choice between a relatively unsafe cheap car, and a
relatively safe higher priced car, with the price difference being what the participant
indicated this higher safety would be worth, led participants to experience negative
emotions and if possible the participants tended to avoid the choice altogether. The
negative emotions evaluating trade-offs arouses may impair decisions as it distracts
and narrows focus.
Schwartz (2004) suggests that the avoidance of trade-offs is a major
motivator for the use of consumer reports, experts and other sources. By relying on
their opinion decision makers are able to skip evaluating many characteristics of the
alternatives. Unlike the average purchaser opinion leaders have taken the time to
obtain information from a wide variety of sources, including stores and category-
specific magazines (Shoham & Ruvio, 2008). The less knowledgeable purchaser,
when faced with a difficult choice in which there are either trade-offs or in which he
is not sure of his personal preference, may attempt to make a more optimal decision
by adopting the choice of an opinion leader (Leotti, Iyengar & Ochsner, 2010)
4. Memory and Time
The most obvious limiting factors to the amount of alternatives one can
consider during a purchasing decision are memory and time limits. Schwsartz (2004)
suggests that though people want to limit the amount of alternatives they consider,
when faced with large assortments it is easy for them to repeatedly decide in favor of
including one more alternative into their mental list. This is called the ‘tyranny of
small choices’ because though including one more seems harmless, when done
repeatedly the set of alternatives under evaluation tends to become unmanageably
Purchasing from Variety 44
large. Especially as with the amount of products under consideration, the time this
evaluation takes increases exponentially. Simultaneously, though products differ on
increasingly various aspects, the amount of product aspects evaluated goes down
(Miller, 1956). However, being pressured for time will limit the amount of options
that can be considered.
Research by Dhar and Nowlis (1999) shows that time pressure is related to
choice deferral and that this relationship varies as the characteristics of the
assortment change. In the initial study 196 undergraduate marketing students were
asked two make a choice between two alternatives in three product categories. These
products were either both attractive or there was one clear superior product, and
either an answer for all three choices was expected within 45 seconds or participants
were given unlimited time. The results of this were that those presented with
equally attractive options and unlimited time reached a decision much less often
(choice deferral rates around 36%) than those under time pressure (choice deferral
rates around 21%). When presented with clearly superior and inferior options, time
pressure did not have an influence on choice deferral (choice deferral rates were
around 22%).
This result may be explained by those under time pressure process
information more selectively and focus more on characteristics unique to the product
(Dhar & Nowlis, 1999). When there is no time pressure on the other hand customers
may be more likely to focus on characteristics shared by both products in an attempt
to process all information. Results from their second study using 240 undergraduate
marketing students showed that assortments containing products with moderately
attractive features in common were more likely to cause choice deferral than
assortments with highly attractive common characteristics. This effect was less for
those participants under time pressure and larger for those that had little time
pressure. Their third study of 262 students showed that time pressure leads to
decreased choice deferral only if the unique characteristics of the products are
attractive and the common ones unattractive, but not when the common ones are
attractive and the uncommon ones are not.
In conclusion, these studies show that time pressure simplifies decisions by
focusing the purchasers attention on unique attractive features rather than features
products have in common and less attractive characteristics. Further the studies
Purchasing from Variety 45
showed that under time pressure less information was collected (Dhar & Nowlis,
1999).
5. Knowledge and Articulated Preferences
Up until now we have discussed making decisions without taking into
account more person specific factors. There are various person bound characteristics
that have a profound effect on how one perceives and is affected by variety. Here the
focus will be on knowledge, involvement and articulated preferences. The final
section of the chapter will discuss a special variation on choice variety, namely
customization.
When people become more knowledgeable about a product they perceive
less variety within the assortment (Park & Lessig, 1981). In particular the perceived
category breadth is reduced as more and more mental product categories are created
for each characteristic. For customers with little or no direct information about a
product through experience the more recognized differences there are the more
cognitive burden there is to evaluate all these categories. Therefore, customers with
no or little knowledge are more likely to focus primarily on price and brand and
group all alternatives in one or few large categories. People with moderate and a lot
of experience perceive more variety of product characteristics, make more groups
and thus perceive less category breadth. Those with moderate knowledge focus
primarily on functional characteristics, however have little knowledge to evaluate
these on causing them to take, in the case of microwaves 40%, more time to reach a
conclusion then those with both less and more knowledge. People with a lot of
knowledge, due to prior ownership, focused on both functional characteristics as
well as brand and price equally while making a decision. Their final finding is that
people with less knowledge feel less confident in their evaluations of criteria and
less confident in their decision as well.
One influencing factor is that individuals vary in the extent to which they
have verbalized product preferences (Chernev, 2004). While some may know
exactly what characterizes the preferred pre-packaged meat, another, though equally
aware of the characteristics of pre-packaged meat may have no such clear cut
articulated preference. This moderates the effects of having much variety. People
who have articulated preferences are able to directly evaluate to what extent
Purchasing from Variety 46
products are satisfactory, while those that do not need to simultaneously articulate
what they perceive as ideal and rank the available alternatives. This dual task
becomes more and more complex as variety grows because there is an increasing
amount of attributes that need to be considered.
Chernev (2004) tested this theory using an experimental set-up. For this 101
American students were equally divided over four experimental conditions. Half the
participants were asked beforehand to describe their ideal chocolates by picking
their ideal kind on four characteristics, namely type, mix, flavor and nut content. The
second characteristic of the conditions was that students were faced with either eight
or 20 chocolates to choose from. The choice alternatives were split between two
brands, in both conditions the ‘limited assortment’ brand carried alternatives that
were the same as those offered by the other brand. Therefore, effectively there were
four and 16 alternatives in each condition.
The results Chernev (2004) obtained showed that for those who picked from
more alternatives the ones that had articulated their preferences chose much more
often than those that had not articulated their preference (98% and 72%
respectively). On the other hand when deciding from a smaller assortment, there
were less people that made a choice in both conditions, but no significant group
differences (54% and 43% respectively). This shows that increased assortment sizes
enable those with more specific wishes to choose from amongst the alternatives
more effectively than those with less articulated wishes. Furthermore, those that had
articulated their ideal chocolate type beforehand were more likely to choose from the
brand that offered a larger assortment (93%) than those who did not articulate their
preferences (43%). Thus, one may conclude that people who have less articulated
preferences are more likely to prefer limited assortments. Finally, participants were
more confident that they had selected the optimal alternative when faced with the
smaller assortment, a difference that was larger for participants with articulated
preferences. When choosing from the larger assortment participants that had
articulated preferences were much less confident about their choice than participants
that had not articulated their preference.
Further research showed that people that have articulated preferences can
skip the early decision stages allowing them to reduce the effort spent in searching
information (Chernev, 2004). People without articulated preferences are more likely
to first attempt to understand the attribute structure of the assortment, then form their
Purchasing from Variety 47
preference and then find their preferred alternative. Also, as people with articulated
preferences did not observe the characteristics of all alternatives, it is speculated that
they stop searching for information once an alternative was found that sufficiently
matched their ideal product, a characteristic previously attributed to satisficers as
well. The extent to which preferences are articulated has a greater influence on
search style as assortment size grows.
When participants were asked to justify their decisions afterwards those with
articulated preferences used more confirmatory arguments, such as ‘I chose option x
because I like white chocolate’, than participants that had not articulated their
preferences. However, the relative amount of confirmatory statements was equal
across the groups. Participants that had not articulated their preferences were more
likely to give disconfirmatory reasons, such as ‘I did not choose option x because I
do not like white chocolate’.
Chernev’s (2004) results also showed that those that articulated their
preference beforehand were able to recall fewer alternatives. Both groups were
equally likely to recall alternatives incorrectly. Participants that had articulated their
preferences beforehand were more likely to recall options presented earlier on the
list of alternatives, while participants that had not articulated their preference were
equally likely to recall options mentioned early as options that were mentioned later.
This supports the idea that those with more precise preferences are more likely to
stop evaluating alternatives once an adequate alternative is found.
These experiments provide evidence that the more the decision maker’s
preferences are specified the less difficult choosing becomes. This effect of
articulation is especially pronounced as assortment sizes grow. There is a main
reason that having specific criteria facilitates choice. It enables the purchaser to,
rather than having to create an overall picture of the offered variety and choose the
preferred option from that, stop evaluating alternatives once a product with desired
characteristics is found.
6. Customization and Personalization
The difference between customization and personalization is for the former a
unique design is made based on the customer’s needs and wants while in the latter
the customer picks from among predefined alternatives for each characteristic and
Purchasing from Variety 48
thus compiles his product (Franke, Keinz & Steger, 2009). The two terms however
are used interchangeably by many researchers as well as marketing applications and
also here both will be used to refer to personalization.
Customizing and personalizing have become increasingly popular, especially
as the Internet provides an easy platform for customers to define and communicate
their preferences almost directly to the production department (Franke, Keinz &
Steger, 2009). Innovations in production and delivery have also facilitated the
growth of personalization. And increasing heterogeneity in demand allows
companies to define choice sets that are not exceedingly large but do satisfy almost
their complete target group. Offering personalization is attractive because it provides
a large number of alternatives under one name and allows customers to get a product
or service closer to what they are looking for. However research has suggested
various downsides to customization, most notably the high customer participation
that it requires and the customer’s inability to recognize the opportunities offered.
A study on customization of newspapers in Austria found that people faced
with a customized newspaper evaluated it more positively than participants faced
with newspapers targeted the average consumer, those designed by experts and those
based on segmentation (Franke, Keinz & Steger, 2009). Those faced with a
customized version were more willing to pay, had a higher intention to purchase the
product and had a more positive attitude toward the product. Preference insight and
the ability to express this insight increase the benefit derived from customization.
These results were reproduced in a study between online customization versus
standardized products for fountain pens, kitchens, skis and breakfast cereals. For
these products additionally product involvement was shown to increase the benefits
of customization.
Levav, Heitmann, Herrmann and Iyengar (2010) did three studies in this
respect. First they investigated the customization of suits by giving 73 MBA
students the chance to win a substantial discount on their ideal suit by designing it.
The amount of options provided was diverse, for example there were 100 suit
fabrics, 20 types of suit buttons and 20 dress socks. Participants were either provided
with the category with most options first and that with least last, or the other way
around. Results show that when the amount of options gradually increases the
amount of times participants choose default remains more or less stable. When they
on the other hand are first presented with much choice and after that with decreasing
Purchasing from Variety 49
amounts they choose the default option more and more often. In addition to making
more choices the participants who were first faced with little choice were more
satisfied with the result and more confident that they would make the same choices
again than those that had first been asked to decide about the suit fabric.
In the second study Levav, Heitmann, Herrmann and Iyengar (2010) looked
at car personalization in Germany in co-operation with a large European car
manufacturer. In total 450 clients of various dealers were asked to design their sedan
using the online customization software. The participants were invited by the dealer
who was unaware of the purpose of the study. The customization process contains
67 product attributes, with between 4 and 56 different options of which one is
selected by default, and takes around 30 minutes. The price of the car is updated as
each attribute is decided and customers can go backwards in their selection process.
During experiment two, eight of the customization decisions were selected
and placed at the start of the process. Results replicated the finding that those
choosing from much variety first are more likely to choose default, especially in
subsequent choices, indicating shopping fatigue. In addition, those first choosing
from much variety were willing to pay significantly more for their car (€1,482.37
more on an overall average of €36,507.48). Moreover, the overall satisfaction was
lower for those that had started with having much choice. Thus, while customizing
the car less and being less satisfied with it participants that started with much choice
were willing to pay more. This while only the order of the first eight out of 67
customization decisions was changed. This effect however disappeared when the
study was duplicated with 300 participants using instead of the high variety
expensive engine a low variety less expensive radio and keeping the other seven
items the same. Purchasers that were more knowledgeable were less likely to choose
default and thus less affected by the order of choice.
Combined these studies show that for customization is most beneficial for
those that know what they want and who are therefore able to make decisions
regardless of the order of the attributes. Also those that are less sure about their
preferences through customization arrive at a product they like better than they
would the standardized version. However, customers that are less sure about their
preferences need more guidance when choosing and should not be presented with
too much choice at the start. Companies, however, should consider the attribute
order carefully as it has a large influence on how much customers are willing to pay.
Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction 50
6. Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction
1. Post-Purchase Satisfaction
Choosing from larger assortments takes more mental effort is perceived as
more difficult and induces feelings of frustration. Additionally, choosing from larger
assortments is more likely to lead to choice avoidance. Choice avoidance is
moderated by knowledge, time pressure, assortment variety and involvement. On the
other hand, having choice can also bring enjoyment and reinforce identity.
Downsides to choosing from more variety are believed to be compensated by, as
discussed in chapter three, doing better both objectively as well as subjectively.
Objective choice accuracy found that people looking for specific product
characteristics were equally well off in large as small assortments (Fasolo, Hertwig,
Huber & Ludwig, 2009). People with less specific objectives pick more accurately in
stores with small assortments and less so in stores with large variety. Furthermore,
there are other indicators that purchasers deciding from large assortments may not
do better than those in limited assortment contexts. As discussed in the section
‘Knowledge and Articulated Preferences’ in chapter five, the participants in
Chernev’s (2004) study were more confident that they had selected the optimal
alternative when they had decided in a limited assortment context than when they
had faced the larger assortment. This effect on decision confidence is especially
pronounced when no ideal product or reference point such as a previously bought
satisfactory product is present (Chernev, 2003).
Additionally, when people choose from many alternatives their satisfaction
with the purchased product is relatively low. Coming back to the research on
choosing between chocolates discussed in the section ‘Product Choice and Variety’
in chapter five, Iyengar and Lepper (2000) found that when participants choose from
among six alternative chocolates were significantly more satisfied with the taste of
the chocolates and reported less regret than participants who had been able to choose
from among 30 alternatives. This reduction in satisfaction is not there for everyone.
When participants were asked to choose from either five different types of coffee
those that had articulated preferences tended to be somewhat less satisfied then those
that did have articulated preferences, while unknowingly drinking the same coffee
(Mogliner, Rudnick & Iyengar, 2008). When asked to choose from among 50
uncategorized types of coffee the satisfaction of those that did not have articulated
Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction 51
preferences dropped substantially, while the satisfaction of those with articulated
preferences increased a bit.
There are various suggested reasons as to why people may feel less satisfied
with their choices when there are more available alternatives. This chapter will
discuss some of these, namely opportunity costs, escalation of expectations, regret
and responsibility for the outcome.
2. Opportunity Costs and Escalation of Expectations
First of all there are opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are the costs
associated to not choosing each of the other available alternatives (Schwartz, 2004).
These opportunity costs lessen the subjective desirability of the chosen alternative,
because the purchaser loses the opportunity to experience the alternative. Carmon,
Wertenbroch and Zeelenberg (2003) attempted to measure this, as they named it,
option attachment by asking 53 American students, 114 Dutch students and 156
Chinese students to imagine various scenarios. Results showed that when greater
attachment to the non-chosen option was described participants projected greater
post-purchase discomfort and heightened attractiveness of the forsaken alternatives.
This was true when the option attachment was increased because of greater option
proximity, a longer period of deliberation, forfeiture rather than acquisition, hedonic
rather than utilitarian consumption and prior ownership.
Furthermore, Carmon, Wertenbroch and Zeelenberg (2003) also analyzed the
occurrence of opportunity costs of real choices. For this 43 university staff-members
were assigned to one of four experimental conditions, characterized by whether they
were presented a choice and whether or not they had to elaborate. They were all
presented three times with sets of two coupons for each of which the people in the
elaboration condition had to elaborate upon the advantages and disadvantages of
each coupon. Then those in the choose condition were asked to choose which one
they preferred. Finally all participants rated the attractiveness of the less appealing
coupon, after which all participants received either the coupon they chose or a
random one. Rating results showed that the less appealing coupon was rated more
favorably when it had not been chosen, thus supporting the existence of opportunity
costs. This effect was stronger when the choosers had also elaborated beforehand,
thus supporting that higher option attachment increased opportunity costs.
Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction 52
As the amount of options available increases, the amount of desirable
features of these options also increases (Schwartz, 2004). Therefore, when choosing
from among many opportunity costs are likely to be heightened. It is very unlikely
for one option to be better in every aspect than all other available options. In this
manner the made trade-offs decrease satisfaction with the final choice. In
conclusion, while larger assortments are more likely to include an option that you
like, it is precisely the fact that it will include things that you like that makes you
less likely to choose and less satisfied with your choice. Furthermore, when people
attempt to limit these effects through settling for the first satisfying alternative they
are less likely to perform better objectively speaking as well.
As the amount of alternatives increases it becomes increasingly easy to
imagine alternatives that are better (Schwartz, 2004). When there is only one
alternative, the worst that can happen is that one gets disappointed, however, as the
amount of alternatives increases, people expect that at least one of the alternatives
resembles their ideal product more and more (Diehl & Poynor, 2010). Because of
this their evaluation of the best they could possibly do by choosing any alternative
goes up. Unfortunately, as the perception of the best one could do increases, the
chosen alternative tends to look worse and worse in comparison. And as
comparisons with what is perceived as possible is often the only meaningful
benchmark available when evaluating a product, satisfaction decreases. This,
Schwartz speculates is related to the fact that consumers are less likely to be
positively surprised when their expectations are higher.
3. Regret and Responsibility
Regret is an emotion that purchasers experience when after making their
purchase they change their decision in favor of an alternative (Schwartz, 2004). The
frequency with which regret is experienced is strongly correlated with the extent to
which people compare what they bought to current offers. Regret is worse when the
causes for a bad outcome are small and when the now regretted option was
considered during the decision process.
According to Schwartz (2004) regret is often expressed through
counterfactual thoughts. Counterfactual thoughts express the world as it currently is
not but as it could be or could have been. These types of thoughts can improve how
Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction 53
we feel about our current situation when we imagine other, worse, possible
situations. Imagining better current situations however makes us regret the choices
that we have made and makes us less satisfied with the chosen alternatives.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that people are much more likely to imagine and
vocalize better alternative current situations rather than worse, thus counterfactual
thoughts tend to increase the amount of experienced regret, and decrease our
satisfaction with both the made choices as the chosen alternatives.
When looking at the relationship between sunk costs, expenses that cannot be
regained no matter the future course of action, and regret it has been found that the
higher the sunk costs the more likely people are to attempt to avoid regret (Schwartz,
2004). For example, people that paid more for a theater ticket were more likely to
attend the performance than people that paid less.
Empirical evidence that regret increases with the amount of alternatives
available has been provided by Heitmann, Herrmann and Kaiser (2007). They
collected responses from 583 German electronics customers that had deliberated at
least five minutes over the assortment of either digital cameras or DVD players.
50.6% Of the respondents had bought an item, 49.4% had not. Results indicated that
anticipated regret increased with the assortment size and moreover that it was a
driving factor behind low purchase rates when large assortments were offered.
Maximizers, who are the ones most willing to expose themselves to choice,
are more likely to experience regret, anticipate experiencing regret and express
counterfactual thoughts. Therefore, though satisficers may be impacted little by
having more choice maximizers may be more so.
A final possible drawback of choice is its relation with perceived control
over outcomes (Schwartz, 2004). As a consequence, as ones choice increases so
does one’s control over the outcomes. However, having a larger amount of options
also increases the chance that a consumer mistakes one product for another. And
thus while meaning to buy product A finds himself back at home with product B.
When we perceive higher control over the outcome, not only does our regret over
negative outcomes increase, but so does our perceived responsibility for them
(Schwartz, 2004). Unfortunately, this sense of responsibility may link unsatisfying
products to self-blame and negative self-perception. The sense of responsibility is
lessened when decisions are justified rather than impulse based. Inman and
Variety and Post-Purchase Satisfaction 54
Zeelenberg (2002) found that when decisions were justified less regret was
experienced than when the decision had been impulse based.
This chapter has outlined various reasons why people that are faced with
more choice may be less satisfied with their choice. Most explanations provided are
taken from Schwartz (2004), namely opportunity costs, regret, escalation of
expectations and responsibility for the outcome. For some of these support from
other authors has been found. However, many of these hypotheses are difficult to
test, and as the extent to which the customer engages with the alternatives as well as
world view play a large role, research has often been inconsistent.
In conclusion, the literature review shows that increased variety has many
negative impacts on decisions (see figure 11 for a summary). Identified mediators of
variety are the extent to which products differ, time pressure, involvement,
knowledge and articulated preferences. The remaining part of this research will
discuss what the presentation of choice can do to mitigate these effects and attempt
to replicate these findings through empirical research of both Dutch and Americans.
Figure 11: Variety and decisions; relationships identified in the literature review.
Note: Green boxes represent positive, red ones negative and blue non-linear relationships.
Decision Product Use
Indecision
Need for justification
Enjoyment choosing
Frustration
Shopping fatigue
Shopping experience
Confidence choice Product satisfaction
Opportunity costs
Satisfaction Choice
Regret
Aspects considered
Product expectations
Responsibility
Objective Accuracy
Choice Moderation by Retailers 55
7. Choice Moderation by Retailers
1. The Retailers and Variety
The third sub-question that is defined in the introduction is: ‘What are
industry best-practices when it comes to presenting choice?’ This chapter aims to
give a brief overview with as main focus the continuing drivers for retailers to
expand choice, presentation effects and other retailers’ policies that have the
potential to influence consumer reactions to choice. Within presentation effects
emphasis is placed on categorization and decision trees. For the latter the findings of
an in depth interview on how a major Dutch retailer presents choice are used.
The customer is not the only party that does not always benefit from
increased variety, also for retailers there are costs (Oppewal & Koelemeijer, 2005).
First of all, if a retailer offers more variety he needs more shelf place to present this
variety on. Restocking takes longer as there are more products that need to be
restocked and inventories go up as for each individual product sufficient items need
to be in stock to prevent stockouts. As more SKUs are added the ICT systems need
to accommodate more unique numbers and the chance that errors are made in the
imputation of data grows. Finally, more category managers are needed to negotiate
with more suppliers, plan which products are offered and monitor their profitability.
Furthermore, the practical consequence of the scientific evidence from the
previous chapters is that when slight reductions are made (1-5% decreases) category
revenues grow with 1-14% (Nielsen, 2010c). Boatwright and Nunes (2001) found
similar results for online grocery assortments. On average they decreased
assortments with 20% leading to 11% in sales growth. Research additionally shows
that when options are highly attractive smaller assortments are preferred over larger
ones (Chernev & Hamilton, 2009). Thus, rather than expanding assortments the
solution may be to select products more wisely.
Therefore, it is no surprise that also retailers have recently attempted to
reduce their assortments. Taylor and Chaudoir (2010) found that grocery store food
assortments had shrunk with 1% during 2009, with 22% of stores increasing their
assortments with an average of 3%, while 40% decreased it with an average of 5%.
Further assortment reductions of approximately 15% were expected during 2010. At
the end of 2009 Walmart announced a 20% reduction in part to reduce clutter
(Supply Chain Digest, 2011).
Choice Moderation by Retailers 56
This change in strategy has met with some serious obstacles. Suppliers
pressure for increasing rather than decreasing assortments. Furthermore, often
customer dependence on specific product varieties is cited as reason against
assortment reductions. In addition, it remains true that customer interest and varying
profit margins are often drivers for category mitigation and thus customer driven
increases in variety also remain present (Zentes, Mirschett &Schramm-Klein, 2011).
There are few specific categories in which USA consumers want more variety,
namely well marketed new products, medium marketed premium products (so called
A-brands) and low marketed store brands (Nielsen, 2010c). Also, overall consumers
seem to want more variety. Research shows that customers evaluate larger
assortments more favorably (Oppewal & Koelemeijer, 2005). Furthermore, larger
assortments attract more attention, provide the store with a competitive advantage
and may lead to increased consumption (Mogliner, Rudnick & Iyengar, 2008).
Bishop (2010) found that 72% of US retailers have increased their
assortments over the past 5 years. For 2011 37% said they were likely and 8%
indicated to be extremely likely to add new product categories, while 30% indicated
to want to reduce the total assortment. Also Walmart reversed its strategy in 2010
announcing to expand its assortments again with an average of 11% (Supply Chain
Digest, 2011). In the Netherlands assortment expansion has been the trend for 2009,
2010 and 2011 (Deloitte, 2009, 2010, 2011). For 2011 on average retailers planned
to enlarge assortments with 20-30%.
However, some research has cast doubts on to what extent customers are
capable of recognizing changes in the assortment variety offered. Nielsen (2010c)
found that when assortments are cut 30% of consumers believe that they in fact have
increased and only 6% recognizes the reduction. This latter finding does not mean
that consumers are incapable of recognizing the amount of choice offered. Data on
retailers in the UK shows that hard-discounters with their smaller assortments score
low on perceived amount of choice, other supermarket chains, such as Sainsbury’s,
Tesco and Asda score higher (Cox & Brittain, 2004). However, this finding does
show that there is more that determines customers perception of variety than only
the amount of different products sold.
Choice Moderation by Retailers 57
2. Presentation Effects
There are various manners in which the perception of variety can be
influenced and the negative effects of too much variety can be mitigated. Possibly
the most defining factor of the amount of variety and the difficulty consumers have
deciding between the alternatives is how the store presents choice. Retail marketers
can increase the perceived variety by varying messiness, shelf space and by
featuring popular options (Mogliner, Rudnick & Iyengar, 2008). Furthermore, retail
marketers should be careful to not present alternatives spanning more than 1.20m
horizontally, as this makes it more difficult for customers to maintain oversight (van
der Lee, personal communication, December 28, 2011).
Assortments can be both organized and unorganized. Kahn and Wansink
(2004) studied the effect of sortation on consumption in both small and large
assortments of jelly beans and pencils. Note that for the dependent variable, rather
than purchase, the number eaten and used was chosen. They found that for
disorganized assortments assortment size did not influence consumption. However,
when confronted with organized assortments people tended to consume less when
the assortment was smaller and more when the assortment was larger.
The organization structure can be labeled, in which case the amount of
categories in which the assortment is divided influence perceived variety (Mogliner,
Rudnick & Iyengar, 2008). Categories identify differences between items to
choosers that are less familiar with the assortment and do not (yet) have articulated
preferences. Furthermore, the presence of categories, even when they are irrelevant
for the products, allow people with little articulated preferences to be more satisfied
with the made choices. People with articulated preferences on the other hand are
more satisfied when choosing from large assortments without categories than from
small assortments or large assortments with categories. These findings can be related
to the findings described in chapter five showing that choosing can be both
confusing as well as a source for enjoyment. Though the presence of categories
mitigates the effects of assortment size on people with different amounts of
knowledge, on average both groups were less satisfied with their choice when made
from an assortment of 50 divided into ten categories than they were when deciding
from an assortment of five.
Categorization as noted before helps consumers with little knowledge make
sense out of large assortments. Furthermore, it can reduce time spent and cognitive
Choice Moderation by Retailers 58
effort. However, categorization is much more effective when categories are
meaningful than when random alternatives are grouped. This is illustrated well by
the experiences of an artisan producing and selling unique fashion accessories with
floral motives (Flowersbyfarha, 2009). At first, all accessories were displayed in the
store organized by flower and ribbon types. This organization was chosen because
these characteristics were the theme around which the sub-collection was based
artistically. However, customers looked for the item based on color. To facilitate the
customer’s search the inventory was reorganized by color. This ‘rainbow’ display
received many compliments, especially for the individual works, but sales did not
increase much, as customers often commented that there was too much choice to
choose from. Only the most highly motivated would make the effort to sort through
the options. Therefore, the display selection was limited and further sub-categorized
based on accessory type. Then sales increased.
The search path of customers in this case is rather short. Most likely
customers first find the color that they like, secondly look for the type of fashion
accessory they are interested in and then attempt to select one suiting alternative.
The overview of which decisions customers make first, and which follow after that
is called the consumer decision tree (Zentes, Mirschett & Schramm-Klein, 2011). A
consumer decision tree primarily answers which product characteristics are
important to the customer and on which levels they are prepared to switch between
alternatives. For example, it was found that people buying canned peas were more
likely to switch to canned carrots than to peas conserved in a glass jar (van der Lee,
personal communication, December 28, 2011). The consumer decision tree should
play a central role in which products are presented together as well as which product
categories should be placed close to each other. Consumer decision trees also can
help decide where choice can be reduced and where choice should be increased.
Finally, and most importantly consumer decision trees offer one of the clearest
evidence based guidelines with respect to product presentation.
For grocery store items the consumer decision tree should be revised each
year to once every five years depending on product category innovation as well as
the speed at which consumer search patterns change (company documents of a large
international retailer, 2011). Furthermore, the decision tree differs per target group,
and therefore, assortments may need to be organized differently depending on
whether the store is located in an urban area, the relative amount of (young) families
Choice Moderation by Retailers 59
as well as other demographics. Furthermore, consumer decision trees can help to
identify differences between category perceptions of customers with varying
amounts of knowledge, preference awareness and variety seeking tendencies.
Bishop (2010) reported that relatively few companies reported using
consumer decision trees. Only 6.1% of retailers with ten or fewer stores reported
always or most of the time using consumer decision trees, compared to 15% of
companies with 11-50 stores and 16.7% of chains with more than 50 stores. Survey
results from 50 leading and mid-range consumer packaged goods retailers show that
49% of these retailers use consumer decision trees (The Grocery Manufacturers
Association, McKinsey & Company & Nielsen, 2010).
Often a lack of customer decision making is apparent when evaluating
product presentation in retailers. For example, grocery stores often categorize meat
based on animal type, such as chicken or veil. However, customers are highly
unlikely to switch between biological and non-biological and therefore it would be
more convenient for all customers if the assortment was first categorized based on
biological versus other meat and only then based on type of meat. Retailers should
also be more aware when using product brand to structure their assortments. While
for shampoo people are likely to choose for a brand this is less the case for biscuits.
However, the C1000, a Dutch grocer, presents both biscuits and shampoo based on
brand. When trying to buy for example roze koek this gives the initial impression
that there is only one variety. It is not until after searching the full six meter shelf
that one can say with certainty that all alternatives are identified. A similar case may
be made for the presentation of make-up, where at the very least the less
knowledgeable consumer searches based on product type, color and price rather than
brand.
3. Other Moderating Policies
Next to the presentation of choice retailers have various other techniques at
their disposal. Interventions from store personnel can effectively limit choice and
help people to reach decisions. Personnel can guide customers to the right aisle, give
advice, make suggestions and provide additional information. Furthermore,
personnel can be used as a direct gate-keeper to the assortment. For example, as a
sales counter employee of a menswear tailor shop John (2009) presented no more
Choice Moderation by Retailers 60
than four shirts at a time, and only when all are rejected took out another four. In this
manner most customers never saw most of the assortment. Similar conventions are
present at restaurants, where often no more than three or four specials are presented.
To a lesser extent a similar strategy is employed by many libraries and bookstores,
where more popular books are presented on special shelves, less popular books on
the normal shelves and least popular books are kept in storage or are available for
order.
Another manner in which choice can be mitigated is the inclusion of a
default option. This allows for easier decision making through reliance on the sellers
recommendation. Default options do not limit the assortment itself, but rather only
presents the full assortment to those that express interest in it. Default options in
retail can take many forms, such as the house wine in restaurants and car radios that
can be customized if the customer desires it.
There are also manners of sub-categorization that span across product
categories and which can be used without placing the products together. An example
of this is labeling. Currently many forms of product labeling exist that set a product
apart from other products by adding an easily identifiable product attribute. There
are labels indicating that the product is fair-trade, biological, organic, a healthy
choice and others. Moreover, sales promotions and discounts can also be seen as
labels signaling information to customers that may make it easier for the customer to
differentiate between products and justify their decision.
The perceived risk associated with the choice can be reduced by the
existence of product trials, such as test drives and product stands in grocers. Another
manner in which risk can be reduced is return policy. More lenient policies make it
easier for customers to correct mistakes and thus less important to choose right.
Unfortunately, no research regarding the mitigating effect of return policies on
decision making and assortment variety in the field of store-retailing have been
found.
As variety for most commonly purchased products is large, and retailers only
have limited space retailers have to decide on what assortments to offer. Ideally the
chosen assortment jointly optimizes the amount of customers as well as their
spending, thus maximizing profits. As this chapter has discussed variety has various
drawbacks for the retailer, and as the previous chapters have discussed various
drawbacks for the customers as well. However, larger assortments attract more
Choice Moderation by Retailers 61
attention and customers have expressed preference for larger retailers carrying larger
assortments.
Presentation can influence purchasing behavior, can help to increase sales,
and it is important to be aware that presentation affects the perception of variety.
Broader aisles induce customers to seek less variety, as do organized small
assortments. However, unorganized assortments increase decision difficulty
especially among less knowledgeable customers. Though assortments with many
choices attract attention, customers may decide more easily when presented with
fewer. Furthermore, presentation should emphasize differences to minimize
preference uncertainty and indecision. Finally, consumer decision trees, sales
personnel intervention, default options and effective return policies can mitigate
indecision effects of the assortment size presented.
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 62
8. Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice
1. Study Design
In this study both American and Dutch respondents were asked regarding
their attitude towards choice in supermarkets. Attitude for the purpose of this study
is defined as “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistent evaluative manner”
(Ostrom, 1969, p.12) and the tripartite theory was used to sub-divide it in three main
components, namely affective, cognitive and behavioral. The affective component
relates to one’s feelings, the cognitive component includes both perceptions and
believes, and the behavioral component refers to the actions taken.
The main objective of this survey was to identify similarities and differences
between American and Dutch attitudes. For this purpose the following hypotheses
were developed:
H1: American and Dutch respondents’ attitudes towards choice differ on all
attitude components.
H2: The reasons provided by American and Dutch respondents’ for their
attitudes towards choice differ.
H3: The attitude component scores are related to gender and age.
H4: The three attitude components are positively related.
The affective component is operationalized through a self-reported measure
of liking for the amount of choice in stores, the behavioral through whether or not
the respondent had complained about the offered assortment sizes and the cognitive
by asking the respondent about his or her believes regarding the benefits of choice.
The following questions were formulated:
• Why do or don't you like the amount of choice in stores?
• Can you give an example of when you have complained or wanted to complain
about a store being too big and/or offering too much choice?
• Do you believe that you benefit from the amount of choice available? Why or
why not?
2. Analysis Procedure
First of all, sample composition is described, with specific attention to
nationality, gender and age. Cross-tabulations were made, using the χ2 tests for
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 63
independence to determine whether or not the gender distribution differed between
the two countries. To test for age differences between the two nationalities and
gender, as well as for possible interaction effects a two-way ANOVA test was
conducted.
To test the hypothesis that people in the two countries have the same attitude
towards choice the answers for each question were scored. First, all answers were
read and coded into groups based on the answer given. For the affective component
four groups were made, namely those that did not like the amount of choice, those
that did not like the amount of choice with specific mentioning of being offered too
much choice, those that did like the amount of choice and those that indicated that it
depended on either the store or the product. For the behavioral component three
groups were made, namely people that had not complained, people that had not
complained but did express complaints in their response and those that had
complained. For the cognitive components the respondents were also grouped in
three groups, namely those that believe they benefit, those that do not believe they
benefit and those that are unsure whether or not they do or indicated that it is context
dependent.
Secondly, the answers were read again and common themes were identified
and coded, grouping them where possible. These were then compared to the
concepts provided by the theory discussed earlier in this thesis. Reasons for liking
choice identified in previous research are the possibility to match preference,
enjoyment of the choice process, variety seeking, increased confidence in the made
choice, finding everything at one location and the importance of having freedom of
choice. Reasons for disliking choice are cognitive overload leading to confusion,
doubts, increased mistake probability and indecision and decreased motivation.
Previous research also identifies several moderators for choice, most notably
articulated preference, satisficing, familiarity and avoidance.
To ensure data quality during coding cases with non-sense and uninformative
answers were deleted. After the coding, to determine the quality of responses both
the amount of coded responses and the amount of reasons were looked at in
comparison to the amount of answers given. For the behavioral component rather
than comparing the amount of reasons to complain to the total number of
respondents it was compared to only those that indicated to have or have wanted to
complain.
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 64
After all questions were coded various analysis were conducted. First of all,
χ2 tests for independence were used to determine whether or not there are significant
between country differences between attitude component scores. Secondly, χ2 tests
for independence were used to determine whether or not gender differences existed
with regard to attitude component scores, both for the complete sample as well as
within the two countries. Thirdly, age differences between the component scores
were tested for using a one-way ANOVA. When the ANOVA test was significant a
LSD post hoc test was used to identify significant group differences.
Secondly, the reasons given for the attitude components were analyzed. The
distributions for both countries are reported jointly using a Pareto chart. And χ2 tests
for independence were used to determine whether or not there are significant
between country differences in the most frequent reasons given (reasons with
expected cell counts under 5 were excluded). To gain more insight in the factors
underlying the attitude components it was chosen to illustrate the main themes with
quotes from the answers (translated to English), indicating the respondent’s
nationality, age and gender. Additionally, the reasons given were split by component
group.
For the relationship between the attitude components it was decided to look
both at the frequency that people had all negative and all positive component scores
(note that the behavioral one was scored in the opposite direction from the other
two). As the ranking of the liking groups is unclear (should ‘no’ and ‘too much’ be
grouped or treated as opposite extremes) it was decided to treat the component
scores as categorical rather than ordinal variables. The variables were recoded into
dummies (consisting of 0 and 1) and phi (mean square contingency) coefficients
were calculated. The square of this coefficient is equal to the two-by-two chi-square
test statistic divided by the sample size. The phi-coefficient, like Pearson’s r, will
have a value between -1 and 1 if the variables have an equal distribution; otherwise
the minimum and maximum values are lower. These relationships were checked for
cross-cultural reliability by additionally generating them for both countries
separately and reporting those that are related in both samples.
For all tests and assumption checks a 5% significance threshold was used.
For all χ2 tests the assumption of minimum expected cell count of five was checked,
and categories were regrouped where necessary. For the ANOVA the assumption of
independence was met due to the study design. The normality of age within each
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 65
sub-group was tested for using both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic as well as Q-
Q plots. The assumption of homogeneity of variance is tested for using Levene’s
test.
3. Sampling Procedure and Sample
Two samples were obtained, one of American respondents and another of
Dutch respondents. For the Dutch respondents the survey was translated from
English into Dutch. The questionnaire was distributed through two online panels,
and for the American respondents a 50/50 gender quota was used. Furthermore, only
one reply per ip-address was allowed to reduce the chance of one respondent
answering multiple times. The survey was started by 135 Americans and 122 Dutch,
of whom 127 Americans and 118 Dutch completed the survey (a completion rate of
94 and 97% respectively). Another six Americans and four Dutch were excluded
from the analysis because of incomplete or inappropriate answers.
The final sample size was 236, of whom 42% were men. The Dutch sample
had a significantly different gender distribution than the American one (χ2(1,
N=233)=4.52, p=.034). In the American sample 49% was male, and in the Dutch
sample 35%. The average age in the sample was 38.3 (SD=15.1, youngest=14,
oldest=73) and did not differ significantly based on country or gender. Furthermore
no interaction effect was found between these two and age.
On average respondents took 2:07 minutes to answer the three questions. For
the affective component there were relatively many answers that could not be
grouped (22%), the average amount of reasons given per respondent was .9. For the
cognitive component there were few answers that could not be coded (3%), and
there on average was one reason given per respondent. Finally, for the behavioral
component there was only 1 answer that could not be grouped (<1%) and on average
.6 reasons were given per respondent indicating to have or have wanted to complain.
4. Results
4.1 The Affective Component
The distribution of liking of the amount of choice in stores can be seen in
table 3. Overall the majority of people liked the amount of choice (64%) another
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 66
19% indicated that they did not of whom 11% indicated there was too much choice.
The Dutch sample had a significantly different distribution from the American one
(χ2(3, N=185)=13.83, p=.003). They indicated less often that they disliked the
amount of choice and more frequently that there was too much choice. There were
no significant gender differences between nor within the countries for liking the
amount of choice offered in stores.
Table 3: Distribution for ‘liking’ of the amount of choice in stores.
Age was significantly related to liking, F(3, 179)=3.806, p=.011. Those that
did not like the amount of choice on average were 27.5 (SD=12.8), those that did
like the amount of choice were on average 37.2 (SD=14.5), those that said it
depended on average were 40.0 (SD=15.2) and those that believed there was too
much choice were on average were 44.5 (SD=15.3) years old. Those that did not like
the amount of choice were significantly younger than all others (mean difference
with ‘depends’=-12.3, p=.010; mean difference with ‘yes’=-9.5, p=.023; mean
difference with ‘too much’=-16.8, p=.001). Those that felt there was too much
choice were significantly older than those that did not like choice and also older than
those that do (mean difference=7.3, p=.048).
Reasons why people liked or disliked choice were very closely related to the
amount of choice they were offered. Most commonly they cited their perception of
variety (17%) and the large amount of choice offered (13%; coded as ‘lot of choice’)
as basis for their affect. Another common reason cited was the availability of the
wanted product (10%), the fit of the offered options to what was wanted (9%) and
the possibility to get everything at one store (3%). 5% Of the respondents indicated
to like choosing from many options and another 5% indicated to have trouble
making decisions when many varieties were available. Also the assortments quality
and price variety were often cited, with people indicating that much choice allowing
US NL total
too much 6 (6%) 14 (18%) 20 (11%)
yes 71 (66%) 47 (61%) 118 (64%)
no 13 (12%) 1 (1%) 14 (8%)
depends 18 (17%) 15 (19%) 33 (18%)
total 108 (100%) 77 (100%) 185 (100%)
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 67
them to get more value for money, cheaper products or the opposite saying for
example that: “It seems there is a greater significance on creating variety than
producing quality products” (American, 21, male).
Figure 12: Pareto chart of reasons for liking/disliking the amount of choice in stores.
For the main eight reasons there was no significant difference between Dutch
and Americans on the frequency they were cited, χ2(7, N=165)=12.4, p=.088.
However Americans tended to report more overt liking for choosing from variety
and also reported more indecision, as well as more diverse benefits and negative
feelings associated with having choice. For example, one American said that “Too
many, and too many times I have picked up the wrong thing because it was low this,
or lite that, or just not the regular brand. I think there are too many choices there on
the shelves these days. If you need special food then go to a special food store...”
(48, male).
When looking at the less frequently cited reasons especially Dutch indicated
that the higher amounts of choice enabled them to compare products better. Another
common theme in the Dutch sample was that people related the amount of choice in
stores to the perceived lack of variety in stores, often complaining that the same
chains were present everywhere and that there were too few original, independent
stores.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
cummulative percentage
cummulative percentage
cummulative percentage
cummulative percentage
frequency
frequency
frequency
frequency
American Dutch Cummulative percentage
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 68
Grouping the reasons given by whether or not the amount of choice was
liked, showed that those that were unsatisfied with the amount of choice offered
most often indicated to want more (22%), indicated that what they were looking for
was often unavailable (17%), disliked that they had to visit multiple stores (17%)
and found that there were too many of the same stores (11%) (see Appendix C for a
full cross-tabulation). Respondents that indicated that were ambiguous about liking
the available amount of choice gave similar reasons to those that did not like choice,
namely 26% wanted more choice, 16% found that products they wanted were
unavailable, 8% indicated to like having everything they wanted in one store and
another 8% indicated to that there were too many chain stores.
The reasons given by those that like the amount of available choice were the
appropriate amount of choice offered (21%), the provided variety (20%), the fact
that all products they want are available (11%) and that the available products fit to
what they want (11%). The respondents that feel there is too much choice reported
indecision (36%), negative feelings, for example feeling overwhelmed (14%), the
fact that there is a lot of choice (14%) and that the amount of choice negatively
impacts their decision quality (7%).
4.2 The Cognitive Component
Table 4: The believed benefits of having choice in stores.
The distribution of the believed benefits of the amount of choice in stores can
be seen in table 4. Overall the majority of people believed having choice benefitted
them (68%) another 11% were unsure and 21% did not believe so. The Dutch
sample had a significantly different distribution from the American one (χ2(2,
N=228)=11.30, p=.004). Dutch indicated much more often than Americans to not
believe they benefitted from the amount of choice (31% and 13% respectively) and
were less likely to believe that they did (59% and 76% respectively). The amount of
US NL total
no 15 (13%) 34 (31%) 49 (21%)
unsure 13 (11%) 11 (10%) 24 (11%)
yes 90 (76%) 65 (59%) 155 (68%)
total 118 (100%) 110 (100%) 228 (100%)
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 69
people that were unsure did not differ much between the Netherlands and the United
States (10% and 11% respectively). Belief in benefit was not significantly related to
gender between nor within the countries.
Age was significantly related to believed benefit, F(2,223)=3.083, p=.048.
Those that did not believe they benefit were 41.5 (SD=14.6), those that said it
depended on average were 32.3 (SD=15.5), those that did like the amount of choice
were on average 37.5 (SD=14.9) years old. Those that did not believe they benefit
were significantly older than those that indicated an ambiguous belief (mean
difference=9.2, p=.015).
Figure 13: Pareto chart of believed benefits of choice.
Respondents from both countries indicated that the main reason for believed
benefit was that it provided them with cheaper products, either through larger price
variety or through competition. A second reason was that they believed that as the
amount of choice increases at least one of the alternatives would be closer to what
they want, like or need. Furthermore, many indicated to benefit from having variety,
for example because: “you don’t have to buy the same product each time” (Dutch,
17, female). Also the ability to compare and reach a better decision were cited as
reasons for benefit. The frequency the six most common reasons were cited differed
significantly between the Netherlands and the US (χ2(5, N=140)=13.6, p=.018).
Americans were more likely to indicate that more choice allowed them to buy
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
cummulative percentage
cummulative percentage
cummulative percentage
cummulative percentage
frequency
frequency
frequency
frequency
USA NL Cumm
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 70
something closer to what they wanted and Dutch were more likely to indicate that
increased choice made it easier to compare products.
Other perceived benefits of choice were that it allows you to visit less stores
and thus save time and gas, can make less common products easier to find, and gives
one the possibility to decide for oneself. Having choice is also considered by one
respondent as modern. There was also a multitude of reasons why people did not
believe they benefit from choice, such as choosing taking more time, increased
spending, shopping less, indecision and specific products being more difficult to find
among a multitude of others.
The most commonly provided reason why people do not believe they
benefitted were lack of variety (67%) and the most common reasons given by people
that do believe they benefit was that products were cheaper (29%) and 16%
indicated that choice allows them to pick products that fit well with what they want
(see Appendix C, table 9 for a complete cross-tabulation).
4.3 The Behavioral Component
The distribution of the believed benefits of the amount of choice in stores can
be seen in table 5. The majority of people have never complained (85%), 11% of
these however did indicate to have reasons to complain. 15% of respondents have
complained about stores being too big and/or carrying too many items. The Dutch
sample did not significantly differ from the American one (χ2(2, N=235)=5.389,
p=.068). Americans tended to be less likely to express having no reasons to
complain (68% vs. 81%). There were no significant gender or age differences
between nor within the countries and whether or not people had complained.
Table 5: Amount of respondents that did, did not and did not but indicated reason to complain.
US NL Total
No 82 (68%) 92 (81%) 174 (74%)
No, but 17 (14%) 8 (7%) 25 (11%)
Yes 22 (18%) 14 (12%) 36 (15%)
Total 121 (100%) 114 (100%) 235 (100%)
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 71
Most of the respondents had not complained and saw no reason to complain
about having a lot of choice. Especially not because one can limit the amount of
aisles one walks through (mentioned by Americans three times) or avoid large store
formats completely (mentioned by one Dutch and one American respondent). Four
American respondents indicated that familiarity with the store decreased the
confusing and overwhelming effects of choice.
Reasons given for complaining included difficulties finding a product
(mentioned six times by Americans and once by a Dutch person), loss of oversight
(mentioned five times by Dutch respondents), indecision (mentioned four times, of
which three were times by American respondents). Americans gave various other
reasons to complain. Namely large stores being overly crowded (mentioned thrice),
the amount of choice being intimidating (mentioned thrice), products being
unavailable (mentioned twice) and confusion (mentioned once). (Again a cross-
tabulation of the reasons, and mediators, grouped by whether or not the respondent
had complained can be found in Appendix C, table 10).
4.4 Attitude
Relating the answers on the affective, cognitive and behavioral components
provides some insight into attitude towards choice. A large group (42.8%, 42% of
Dutch and 43% of Americans, no gender differences) scored positively on all three
aspects saying to like, benefit and not complain about the amount of available
choice. And 5 (3%) of the respondents had a completely negative attitude towards
choice (signified by complaints, no perceived benefit and indicating they found there
was too much choice).
Looking at specific respondent profiles it was found that people that had
complained were less likely to like choice, phi(184)=-.228, p=.002, and more likely
to believe that there was too much choice, phi(184)=.284, p<.000 (see Appendix C,
table 11 for a comprehensive overview of all relationships). Also those that had
complained were more likely to be unsure about the benefits of choice,
phi(227)=.231, p<.000, and less likely to believe they benefit from having choice,
phi(227)=-.214, p=.001. People that had not complained, but gave reasons why they
would want to were more likely to indicated that their liking for choice depended,
phi(184)=.151, p=.041. Respondents that had not complained and gave no reasons
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 72
why they may want to were less likely to say that their liking of choice depends,
phi(150)=-.171, p=.037, and more likely to like the amount of choice in stores,
phi(150)=.190, p=.020.
Respondents that like the amount of choice in stores believe more often that
they benefit from having choice, phi(181)=.364, p<.000, and were less often unsure
about their benefit, phi(181)=-.232, p=.002, and also less often believed that they did
not benefit, phi(185)=-.229, p=.002. Respondents that did not like the amount of
choice were less likely to believe they benefit, phi(228)=-.138, p=.038. Respondents
that believed there was too much choice were less likely to believe they benefit from
choice, phi(181)=-.281, more likely to be unsure about the benefits, phi(181)=.168,
p=.024, and more likely to believe they did not benefit, phi(185)=.168, p=.023.
When splitting the file on nationality, and looking at the associations
between the attitude components only three relationships were found to be present
for both (tables containing all relationships per country can be found in Appendix
C). Namely, respondents from both countries that indicated a believed benefit from
choice were more likely to like the amount of choice in stores, phi(75)=.449, p<.000
and phi(106)=.299, p=.002 for Dutch and Americans respectively. Those that felt
there is too much choice are more likely to have complained, phi(76)=.325, p=.004
and phi(108)=.289, p=.002 for Dutch and Americans respectively. Finally, those that
had complained were less likely to believe they benefit, phi(109)=-.248, p=.009 and
phi(118)=-.226, p=.014 for Dutch and Americans respectively.
Thus, the hypothesis that the components are positively related was accepted
for the affective and cognitive and affective and behavioral relationships, because
those that liked choice more were more likely to believe they benefit and were less
likely to complain and those that believed there was too much choice were more
likely to believe there was no benefit of having choice and were more likely to have
complained. There was also support for a positive relationship between the cognitive
and behavioral components as those that believed they benefit from having choice
were less likely to have complained. These relationships between components were
similar for Dutch and Americans.
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 73
5. Discussion of Results and Methodology
The results of this study support H1. Americans were more likely to believe
that there was too little choice, more likely to believe that they benefit and more
likely to indicate having reasons to complain, though they were no more likely than
Dutch to have complained. Dutch more often believed that there was too much
choice. Simultaneously it was found that near half of the respondents of both
nationalities had a solely positive attitude towards choice.
The reasons provided by American and Dutch respondents’ for their attitudes
towards choice differ when looking at the cognitive and behavioral components.
Reasons given for affect did not differ significantly, thereby providing only partial
support for H2. The reasons given by the respondents confirmed those present in the
theory, namely they like choice because it increases the chance and extent to which
preference are matched and reduces the amount of stores one needs to visit.
Furthermore, the respondents were variety seeking, valued being able of choosing
for themselves, and felt that having more choices improved their decisions. Also
some of the reasons for disliking found in the literature, most notably confusion,
indecision and decreased motivation. Also two moderators were identified namely
avoidance and familiarity.
Dutch had an especially negative attitude towards the presence of chain
stores and often put stress on there being variety of interest to others. Americans on
the other had more often reported to prefer going to smaller stores and reported more
negative feelings as a reaction to having much choice.
With respect to H3, no support was found for gender differences. For age
differences in attitude limited support was found. Young people were more likely to
think that they benefitted from choice and that there was not enough choice offered
to them. Older people were less likely to believe they benefitted and more likely to
believe that there was too much choice.
Supporting H4 the three attitude components were positively related. Also
looking at the countries separately support for this hypothesis was found. However,
reflecting the differences in component scores and reasons the relationships between
the components were rather different between the countries.
There are some limitations to this research, first of all the attitude
components were all measured with only one question. As coding often proved
difficult it may have been better to split the questions between for the attitude score
Study 1: Attitude Towards Choice 74
and another question asking for the reason. However, this would have not revealed
that there is a great difference between people that do not like the amount of choice
because there is too little and those that believe there is too much. Furthermore, as
the online panels used placed a limitation on the amount of questions that could be
asked, namely five, splitting the questions was not possible.
Also the validity and reliability of the questions can be questioned as the
reasons given for the affective component are often perceptions and beliefs.
Furthermore, the behavioral question merely covered one aspect of behavior towards
choice, for example omitting whether or not people avoided going to large stores.
Moreover, complaining can be interpreted in two distinct manners. Namely,
complaining as in privately or publicly expressing a negative evaluation, but also as
the voicing of this opinion directly to a representative of the retail chain.
Both the samples are relatively small (leading to a relatively large, 10%,
confidence interval for each country). The sampling method was non-probability and
there are also some downsides specific to the use of panels, most notably the high
self-selection bias and the presence of professional respondents, both which reduce
the validity of generalizations. Furthermore, the effective sample size for reasons
given by component group and the sample size of reasons given for complaints in
general are even smaller.
The questionnaire was translated to ensure the Dutch respondents were able
to understand the question correctly and lower the barrier to answering accurately
and elaborately. However, manners of expressing the same idea may be different
between the Netherlands and the United States leading to incorrect grouping of
reasons. Moreover, all component scores are heavily dependent on the acceptability
of expressing certain believes. For example, whereas there has been much public
attention for the rise of chain retailers and the negative consequences of this for local
retailers in the Netherlands, this may not have been the case in the United States.
All questions were related to the amount of choice currently offered by stores
and thus only relative conclusions can be drawn. However, as described in chapter 2,
Americans are faced with more choice and variety than the Dutch are. Because of
this the finding that Dutch more often feel that there is too much choice, whereas
Americans more often feel that there is too little shows that Americans in fact desire
more choice than the Dutch. These ideas, among others, are further examined in
study 2.
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 75
9. Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction
1. Study Design
Study 1 found that though literature research indicates that stores are bigger
in the USA and customers are faced with more choice Dutch respondents more often
felt that there is too much choice. Americans, on the other hand, are more often
dissatisfied with the assortment sizes because they are too small. What underlies this
difference in satisfaction with the amount of choice offered? And to what extent do
findings from American studies on choice translate to the Dutch?
The difference in the evaluation of the amount of choice assortments offer
may be related to the perceived assortment breadth as well as the customer’s self-
exposure to choice and his or her capacity to cope. Dutch respondents are
hypothesized to evaluate the assortment size less favorable than Americans because
they perceive higher assortment breadth. Furthermore, they have a more negative
attitude towards having much choice due to having more difficulties deciding and
higher self-exposure to choice. These difficulties in deciding, the higher perceived
assortment breadth and the higher self-exposure additionally make Dutch people less
satisfied with their choices than Americans are. As the theoretical background shows
the customer’s knowledge and the importance of the decision affect both the
perceived category breadth and the size of the choice sets created these two factors
are controlled for with special attention to non-linear effects. Based on this the
following hypotheses are tested:
H1: Dutch give lower assortment evaluations than Americans.
H2: Assortment evaluations are based on the same underlying factors in the
Netherlands and in the United States.
H2a: Assortment evaluations are related to perceived category breadth
similarly in both countries.
H2b: Assortment evaluations from both nationalities decrease as they are less
satisfied with their choices.
H2c: In both countries assortment evaluations depend on the customer’s
knowledge and the decision importance.
H3: Dutch are less satisfied with the choices they make than Americans are.
H4: Satisfaction with the made choice is based on the same underlying
factors in both countries.
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 76
H4a: People that have more difficulties choosing are less happy with their
choices.
H4b: Dutch are more likely than Americans to have trouble deciding.
H4c: People that choose from larger assortments or choice sets are less happy
with their choices.
H4d: People that choose from larger assortments or choice sets have more
difficulties choosing.
H5: People making more important decisions have more trouble choosing.
H6: People making more important decisions create larger choice sets.
H7: People who have more knowledge have less trouble deciding.
H8: People who have more knowledge perceive larger assortments.
H9: People who have more knowledge smaller choice sets.
The second part of this study has a distinct objective: the identification of
Dutch perceptions of, reactions to and attitude towards choice in retailers. Rather
than testing hypothesis this analysis takes an exploratory approach including factors
identified in the literature review. The first focus is on describing the want for
choice, the relationship between choice and identity and the perceived benefits of
choice. The latter will complement the qualitative approach of study 1 with a more
quantitative one, remedying the validity issues and allowing for the testing of
relationships between perceived benefits and age, gender and urbanization. A second
focus of the research is identifying how variety in assortments is perceived, to what
extent people are influenced by presentation and how this relates to assortment
evaluation. Thirdly, the extent to which choice in retailers gives rise to drawbacks is
analyzed in relation to decision satisfaction and fourth post-purchase satisfaction is
investigated.
2. The Instrument
Many of the constructs of interest are highly dependent on the choice
situation one is in. Furthermore, to test the hypotheses it is crucial that there is some
degree of deliberate decision making. Therefore, at the start of the survey the
respondents were asked the following (see Appendix D for a copy of the survey):
“Please remember the last time that you were in a store choosing
between two or more varieties of the same product (for example between
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 77
different shirts, snacks or different brands of detergent). Answer the following
questions about this experience.”
This was followed by two questions asking for some insights in the memory,
namely: ‘What did you want to buy?’ and ‘How long ago did this happen?’ One
question asking for the extent to which the respondent agreed with the statement ‘I
am satisfied with the choice I made.’ using a six-point Likert scale. Difficulties
choosing were prompted for by two questions, one asked whether the respondent
had considered either not buying the product or postponing the decision and the
second asked the respondent to complete the sentence: ‘Making the decision was...’
with one of five answer possibilities ranging from ‘very easy’ to ‘very difficult’.
In study 1 four distinct assortment size evaluations were found ‘no’,
‘depends’, ‘yes’ and ‘too much’. However, this raised questions regarding whether
or not those that found there sometimes was too much choice should be regarded as
an extension of the group that was satisfied or dissatisfied with the amount of
choice. Therefore, in this study it was chosen to for the extent to which the
respondent agreed with the statement: ‘I was satisfied with the offered amount of
choice.’
Perceived category breadth was operationalized by asking for the
remembered amount of alternatives offered, and the self-exposure to choice was
measured through the amount of alternatives considered. Finally, the two moderators
of choice included in this research were asked for through the question to which
extent the respondent agreed with the statements: ‘For this product it is important to
choose the right one.’ and ‘I knew a lot about the product.’
Dutch respondents were asked additional questions, mainly six modality
Likert scale based (Appendix E for a complete overview). The questions were
grouped in ten categories. These were presented in the following order: memory
details, satisfaction and indecision, assortment size and variety, choice set size and
variety, the decision experience, involvement, post-purchase behavior and
satisfaction, purchase environment and attitude, culture and finally background.
Within the categories question order was randomized to reduce structural biases as
much as possible. For the same reason questions regarding satisfaction were asked
early on.
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 78
3. Sampling Procedure and Sample
For the cross-country comparison two samples were obtained, one of
American respondents and another of Dutch respondents. American respondents
were recruited through an online panel where a 50/50 gender quota was used. The
Dutch respondents, who completed a more extensive survey, were recruited through
social media, mainly Facebook and LinkedIn, where a snowball method was
employed. The questionnaire was distributed spring 2012. On average the American
respondents took 1:29 minutes to answer the ten questions.
The survey was started by 206 Americans and an unknown number of Dutch,
of whom 190 Americans (92% completion rate) and 157 Dutch completed the
survey. Due to some respondents giving inadequate responses the final sample size
was 340. Of the Americans 51% was male, compared to 61% of Dutch. Therefore,
weighting was applied homogenizing the Dutch gender distribution to 50% of men,
and a weighted sample size of 188. The average age in the sample was 39 (SD=15,
youngest=15, oldest=81) and did not differ significantly between the Dutch and
American sample. Women were significantly younger than men (mean=34.5,
SD=14.5 and mean=42.7, SD=13.9 respectively), t(365)=-5.5, p=<.000.
Most of the Dutch respondents (43%) live in small cities of 20,000-100,000
inhabitants, 25% lives in towns smaller than that or in rural areas, and the remaining
33% lives in cities larger than 100,000 inhabitants.
4. Analysis Procedure Cross-Cultural Study
To start seven respondents who had not named a product were deleted from
the data. The remaining responses were then recoded into groups based on retail
type: food, fashion, electronics and other. The latter contains products such as paint,
helmets, pens, detergent, cosmetics and hobby items. Secondly, the numeric
variables assortment size and the size of the choice set were screened for outliers.
For assortment size numbers between 10 and 20 were recoded as 9 (there were no
nine’s mentioned yet), numbers between 21 and 50 were recoded as 10 and numbers
higher than 50 as 11. For choice set size there were 11 extremely large observations,
namely three of 5, three of 6, one of 8 and 4 of 10. As none of these are
unrealistically large it was decided to keep them as they are.
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 79
After the data set was cleaned and all variables appropriately recoded, a
missing value analysis was carried out. Three variables had more than 2% missing
values. The assortment size had 19 (5.6%) missing values, knowledge 60 (17.6%)
and satisfaction 62 (18.2%). The latter two are due to troubles with the online panel
technology for the American sample.
A comparison of the two samples was made focusing on gender distributions
per nationality. Based on this it was decided to weight the Dutch female respondents
with a factor 1.5 (compared to 1 for all others) in order to obtain a 50-50
distribution. Also age was looked at, and a two-sample independent t-test was
conducted to ensure that there were no significant age differences.
To test the hypotheses mentioned before, several tests were conducted.
Where appropriate, ANOVA tests and t-tests were used to analyze group differences
in continuous variables such as age, assortment size and choice set. When nominal
and/or categorical variables were crossed χ2-tests were used. For all of these separate
tests were conducted for the two countries and only if both were significant an
overall test was conducted, unless otherwise stated. All appropriate assumptions
were checked as in study 1, and variables were regrouped where necessary. Only
when no regrouping was possible expected cell counts of less than 5 were accepted,
but only if there were no more than two occurrences within one two-way table.
5. Recalled Choices
To interpret what the recalled choices can tell us about assortment size
evaluation, choice satisfaction and choice difficulty a thorough understanding of the
memories is crucial. People most frequently (39%) recalled deciding over food.
Apparel decisions were recalled by 24%, electronics by 12% and other products by
25%. There were no significant differences between the countries (see Appendix F,
table 14). The product type was significantly related to gender, with women less
often remembering situations involving technology, χ2(3, N=366)=23.3, p<.000 (see
Appendix F, table 15). Furthermore, product group was significantly related to age
in both the Netherlands and the USA, F(3,174)=4.504, p=.005 for American and
F(3,181)=6.595, p<.000 for Dutch respondents. USA respondents recalling food
choices were on average 40.2 (SD=13.6), those choosing fashion 37.3 (SD=13.9),
those deciding upon electronics 39.6 (SD=8.8) and those deciding on other types of
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 80
products 38.1 (SD=14.0). Dutch respondents choosing food were on average 33.5
(SD=14.6), those deciding on fashion 43.6 (SD=16.0), those deciding on electronics
45.8 (SD=12.7) and those deciding on other products 39.1 (SD=15.6). Product group
was not significantly related to the amount of options considered. For American
respondents product group was related to the store’s assortment size, F(3,
169)=2.545, p=.058. Respondents reported remembering significantly fewer options
when choosing a fashion item than when choosing an item classified as ‘other’
(mean difference=1.9, SE=.7).
There were significant differences between the nationalities for the age of the
memory, χ2(3, N=372)=25.3, p<.000. Of the American respondents 63%
remembered a decision made during this week and another 21% a decision last
week. Only 12% recalled something from last month and 4% from longer ago.
Dutch respondents took experiences that were less recent, with 38% recalling
something that happened this week, 29% a decision from last week, 23% a decision
from last month and 10% recalling a decision from longer ago. Dutch women were
more likely than Dutch men to recall memories from this week (50.5% versus
26.0%), χ2(4, N=189)=14.4,p=.006. The age of the recalled memory was related to
the age of the respondent, F(5, 363)=9.896, p<.000. Respondents recalling a memory
form this week were on average 34.8 (SD=13.8), those recalling from last week 40.1
(SD=15.0), those recalling from last month 41.4 (SD=13.7), those recalling from this
winter 48.4 (SD=10.4) and those recalling a product choice form longer ago 58.4
(SD=14.8) years old. In addition, memories concerning electronics and other
products were significantly older than recalled choices about food and apparel, χ2(6,
N=368)=65.0, p<.000 (see Appendix F, table 16).
There was no significant relationship between the age of the memory and the
satisfaction with the made choice and assortment evaluation. However, for Dutch
respondents choices recalled from longer ago were perceived as more difficult χ2(9,
N=191)=17.5, p=.042 (see Appendix F, table 17). Furthermore, for Dutch
respondents were more likely to have considered postponing the decision when the
recalled memory was older, χ2(3, N=185)=8.3, p=.042. Respondents that recalled
choices from this or last week were relatively unlikely to have considered
postponing the decision (22% did so). Respondents remembering decisions from last
month had a 40% chance to have considered postponing and 47% of respondents
recalling memories from longer ago had considered postponing the decision.
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 81
Looking at the importance of the decision made Americans indicated that
their recalled decisions were more important than did the Dutch respondents, χ2(5,
N=370)=48.6, p<.000 (see Appendix F, table 18). This difference was most striking
when looking at the amount of people indicating that they to some extent disagree
that for the chosen product it is important to choose the right one. Only 5% of
Americans indicated that it was not that important to choose the right one compared
to 29% of Dutch. Older respondents indicated less perceived importance than
younger ones, F(5,359)=3.333, p=.006. Respondents that indicated that the choice
was highly important (mean=42.0, SD=14.9, N=117) were significantly older than
all participants slightly disagreeing (mean=33.8, SD=12.7, N=25), mostly
disagreeing (mean=32.1, SD=16.2, N=20) and completely disagreeing (mean=32.5,
SD=14.2, N=19) that it was important to choose the right product. Decisions made
about food were rated significantly less important than other decisions concerning
the other product categories χ2(9, N=366)=36.9, p<.000 (see Appendix F, table 19).
Dutch are significantly less likely to believe they know a lot about the
product in question than Americans are, χ2(5, N=312)=85.3, p<.000 (see Appendix
F, table 20 for a full cross-tabulation). Half (50%) of the Americans completely
agreed with the statement that they knew a lot, 30% mostly agreed and 17% slightly
agreed. Of the Dutch respondents 12% completely agreed, 22% mostly agreed, 25%
slightly agreed, 21% slightly disagreed, 14% mostly disagreed and the last 5%
completely disagreed. For Dutch respondents knowledge was positively related to
the respondent’s age, F(5, 177)=1.007, p=.008. Those that believed to know a lot
were older (mean=42.7, SD=15.1) than those who did not (mean=34.5, SD=16.2).
No significant relationships with gender, age of the memory or product type were
found. Product knowledge and importance of the choice were significantly
positively related, χ2(16, N=314)=97.3, p<.000 (see Appendix F, table 21).
In addition, Dutch respondents were asked to indicate if there was a specific
reason why they had to choose between alternatives. Analysis of the given answers
shows that 21 respondents were attempting to manage expenditure, eight were
looking for the best value for money, five needed to match specific criteria and four
found that their preferred option was unavailable. Thirteen respondents indicated
that they had to decide between multiple liked options, nine were faced with
multiple options while being uninterested in that much variety, six lacked experience
in choosing the product, two were trying to find a less complicated product than on
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 82
average was offered and another two were seeking variety from their usual choice.
Eight respondents indicated that they made a choice between price and values, either
buying biological or fair-trade products.
6. Results Cross-Cultural Comparison
6.1 Assortment Evaluation
The present study reproduces the earlier result that Dutch are less satisfied
with the amount of choice offered than Americans, χ2(3, N=309)=20.2, p<.000 (see
Appendix F, table 22). Half of Americans (52.8%) indicate to have been completely
satisfied with the amount of choice offered and another 31.2% being mostly
satisfied. Of the Dutch respondents, however only 28.8% was completely, 39.1%
mostly and 18.5% was slightly satisfied. Evaluation did not significantly differ based
on product type, gender or age.
There was no significant difference between the remembered assortment
sizes of Dutch and Americans, however Dutch tended to remember more
alternatives, t(347)=-1.66, p=.099. Overall, the respondents indicated remembering
5.45 alternatives (SD=3.10), Americans on average remembered 5.18 alternatives
(SD=3.23) and Dutch remembered 5.73 (SD=5.45). A one-way ANOVA showed no
support for a relationship between assortment size and assortment evaluation neither
for the overall sample nor for the countries separately. Thus, though Dutch tended to
tended to remember slightly larger assortments (mean=5.7, SD=2.9) than Americans
(mean=5.2, SD=3.2), t(347)=-1.66, P<.1, this does not explain the difference in
evaluation of the assortments.
Customers that are less satisfied with their decisions are also less satisfied
with the assortment, χ2(6, N=308)=25.0, p<.000 (see Appendix F, table 23). This
may be explained by Dutch people not only giving lower assortment evaluations but
also being less satisfied with their choices. Comparing the satisfaction with the made
choice reported by Dutch and Americans it was found that Dutch tended to be less
positive about their decisions, χ2(2, N=370)=4.9, p=.088. Whereas 60% of
Americans was completely satisfied with their choice only 50% of Dutch were.
Analyzing the two countries separately shows that the relationship between
satisfaction with the made choice and the evaluation of the assortment are indeed
culture specific (see Appendix F, table 23). Whereas in the USA there is a
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 83
significant relationship, χ2(4, N=125)=42.7, p<.000, this is not observed with
respondents from the Netherlands.
People with less knowledge gave worse assortment evaluations, χ2(10,
N=254)=22.8, p.012 (see Appendix F, table 25 and
table 26). As discussed before the USA respondents indicated having more
knowledge than the Dutch respondents and Americans were also more positive in
their assortment evaluations. Looking at the relationship between assortment
evaluations and knowledge reveals that only in the USA this relationship exists, χ2(4,
N=67)=18.8, p=.001.
There is a significant relationship between evaluation and importance, χ2(10,
N=311)=22.9, p.011 (cross tab see Appendix F, table 27 and table 28). As discussed
before the American respondents indicated that their choices were more important.
When looking at the relationship in the two countries separately it was found that in
the USA assortments are evaluated more positively if the made decision is more
important, χ2(4, N=215)=14.3, p=.006. No support for this interrelation was found
for Dutch respondents, χ2(6, N=186)=9.6, p=.142.
6.2 Explaining Indecision and Decision Difficulty
The survey included two measures of decision ease which were recoded into
three distinct measurers. Of the Dutch respondents 41% considered not buying the
product compared to 20% of Americans, which is a significant difference, χ2(1,
N=367)=20.2, p<.000. There were no significant differences in the frequency with
which people considered postponing the decision which was 27% in both countries.
However, Dutch men (37%) were significantly more likely to have considered
postponing the decision than Dutch women (20%), χ2(1, N=184)=6.9, p=.008.
Americans indicated to have found the decision significantly more easy to make,
χ2(3, N=372)=34.1, p<.000. 30% Of Americans found their decision very easy
compared to 7% of Dutch (see Appendix F, table 33). Dutch on the other hand more
often found the decision neither difficult nor easy (26% compared to 15%).
The three measures were related to each other, χ2(9, N=372)=42.9, p.000. Of
those that considered neither postponing nor not buying the product (N=199) 24%
found the decision very easy, 51% easy, 16% neither easy nor difficult and 10%
difficult. Of those that considered not buying the product (N=72) 11% found the
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 84
decision very easy, 47% easy, 25% neither and 17% difficult. For those that
considered postponing the decision (N=58) 21% indicated that the final choice had
been very easy, 33% that it had been easy, 24% neither and 22% had found making
the decision difficult. Those that considered both postponing and not buying (N=43)
had most trouble deciding, with only 2% finding it very easy, 28% finding it easy,
30% finding it neither easy nor difficult and 40% found it difficult.
Independent sample t-tests revealed no support for relationships between
choice deferral, as measured through the consideration of postponing and not buying
the product and variety, as measured through assortment size and the amount of
alternatives considered. Perceived decision ease was found to be related to
assortment size, F(3, 345)=4.581, p=.004. Those that found the decision very easy
remembered significantly less alternatives than all others (see Appendix F, table 29
for a complete overview of significant mean differences). For American respondents
it was additionally found that choice set size was related to perceived decision ease,
F(3, 181)=4.983, p=.002 (see Appendix F, table 30). Overall as perceived decision
difficulty increased so did the amount of alternatives considered.
Products for which the decision is very important were more often very easy
to decide on than other products for both nationalities, χ2(9, N=374)=36.3, p<.000
(see Appendix F, table 31). On the other hand, those making important decisions
were more likely to consider postponing them (36%) than those making rather
important or neither important nor unimportant decisions (25%) and those making
unimportant decisions (14%), χ2(3, N=366)=10.8, p=.013. Only for Dutch
respondents an relationship was found between importance of the decision and
whether or not deferring the purchase was considered, χ2(3, N=184)=10.7, p=.019.
Not buying the product was considered most often by those making decisions that
were either rather important or neither important nor unimportant (53% and 50%
respectively). Of those making decisions about products where choosing right is
very important 38% considered not buying, and 25% of those making unimportant
decisions considered not buying the product. No significant relationship was found
between the importance of decisions and the choice set size.
Concerning product knowledge no significant relationship was found with
the frequency of considering postponing the purchase nor with the frequency of
considering not buying the product. There was a significant relationship between
knowledge and perceived ease of the decision (see Appendix F, table 32). Those that
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 85
believed they had most knowledge were most likely to have found the decision easy
(33% thought so) compared to 16% on average. Those that indicated have very little
knowledge were least likely to find making a decision easy; 45% found that making
a decision had been difficult, compared to 17% on average. Knowledge was not
significantly related to remembered assortment size nor to the size of the choice set.
6.3 Explaining Satisfaction with Made Choices
As discussed in the section 6.1 Dutch tend to be less satisfied with the
choices they make. This section will look at some possible explanations for choice
satisfaction, namely the difficulties experienced while choosing, the assortment size
and the size of the choice set.
Satisfaction with the made choice is significantly related to the ease of the
decision for Americans, χ2(6, N=183)=31.6, p<.000, but not for Dutch, χ2(6,
N=190)=9.3, p=.159 (see Appendix F, table 34). Decisions that were easier were
also rated as more satisfying. For the Dutch respondents satisfaction was related to
whether or not they had considered not buying the product, χ2(2, N=184)=10.7,
p=.005, and whether or not they had considered postponing the decision, χ2(2,
N=184)=7.8, p=.021 (see Appendix F, table 35 and table 36). In both cases if such
considerations had been made the satisfaction with the made choice was lower. For
Americans neither of these significantly relate to choice satisfaction.
There was no significant difference between the size of the choice sets of
Dutch and Americans, however Americans tended to consider fewer alternatives,
t(365)=-1.66, p=.097. Overall, the respondents indicated remembering considering
2.82 alternatives (SD=1.89), Americans on average considered 2.65 alternatives
(SD=1.96) and Dutch considered 2.98 (SD=1.80). As discussed before though Dutch
tended to remember larger assortments there was no significant difference between
the countries. Neither assortment size nor the size of the choice set was found to be
related significantly to satisfaction with the made choice; not for the overall sample
nor for the nationalities separately.
Satisfaction with the made choice was significantly related to product
knowledge, χ2(8, N=313)=38.4, p<.000, and having more knowledge related with
making more satisfying decisions (see Appendix F, table 37). For Americans
satisfaction with the made choice was also significantly related to the importance of
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 86
the choice, χ2(4, N=183)=13.8, p=.008 (see Appendix F, table 37). More important
choices were perceived as more satisfying than less important ones.
7. Discussion on Cross-Cultural Findings
The present study duplicates the earlier finding as support was found for H1
as Dutch were less satisfied with the assortments than Americans. There was no
support for H2a as in neither country assortment breadth was related to assortment
evaluation. There is partial support for hypothesis H2b, as in the USA assortment
evaluations are less positive when people are less satisfied with their choice. There is
also partial support for H2c, as Americans that know more and find their decisions
more important gave higher assortments evaluations than Americans that knew less
and or made less important assortment decisions. Such relationships were however
not found for the Dutch respondents, leading to a rejection of H2. Assortment
evaluations seem to be based on different underlying factors in the Netherlands than
in the USA. While in the USA sample support is found for the hypothesis derived
from the theory, these do not seem to apply to the Netherlands.
Looking at satisfaction it was found that Dutch tend to be less satisfied with
their choices, therefore H3 has been partially accepted. For US respondents
satisfaction with the made choice was higher when they perceived the choice as
easier. And the Dutch rated their satisfaction with the made choice lower when they
had considered either postponing or not buying the product. This provides support
for H4a, though different aspects of choice difficulty seem to be of influence for
Dutch and Americans. Partial support was found for H4b. Dutch indicated that there
decisions had been less easy and more often considered not buying the product than
Americans did. No difference was found for the frequency with which people
considered postponing the decision. No support was found for H4c and H4d as
assortment and choice set sizes do not seem to influence satisfaction with the made
decision. In conclusion no support was found for H4 as no common factors
underlying choice satisfaction were found.
With respect to H5, it was found that people making more important
decisions found it easier to decide but are also more likely to consider postponing
the decision. Both people making very important decisions and unimportant
decisions were less likely to consider not buying the product. No support was found
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 87
for H6, people making more important decisions do not work with larger choice sets.
Regarding knowledge only partial support was found for H7, as those having more
knowledge report having found the decision easier to make. No support was found
for H8 and H9.
This research revealed structurally lower scorings by Dutch on topics as
satisfaction with the made choice, knowledge, importance, the ease of the decision
and assortment evaluations. The amount of options, remembered by Dutch tended to
be higher than the amount remembered by Americans, both when looking at the
assortment size and choice set. Therefore, though American retailers tend to be
larger than Dutch, Dutch retailers may have broader assortments. An alternative
explanation is that Dutch category perceptions are broader, or that Dutch were more
involved with the decision.
Looking at the overall picture, it seems that the factors taken into account do
not account for the difference in assortment evaluation between Americans and
Dutch. Although when taking the complete sample many of the constructs appear to
explain evaluation, in reality they only explain variation in evaluation for the USA
and are non-significant when looking at solely the Dutch respondents. As very few
of the hypotheses seem to explain the Dutch satisfaction with choice and the
evaluation of the assortments the following section will look into the Dutch
perceptions of, attitudes towards and reactions to choice in more detail using a more
exploratory approach.
8. Analysis Procedure Study of Dutch Respondents
Using the same sample of Dutch respondents as was used in part one of this
study some further analyses were carried out. This analysis of Dutch respondents is
complementary to the previously presented results. First, results regarding believes
regarding choice are presented as addition to and replication of study 1. Secondly,
perception of variety in retailers and presentation are explored in relation to
assortment evaluations. Thirdly, possible negative experiences and associations with
the decision process are explored. Fourth, post-purchase feelings were investigated,
with an emphasis on mediators for the relationship between assortment and choice
set size and choice satisfaction. Included mediators are: experienced positive
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 88
surprise, regret, thinking about and looking at other alternatives, increased
expectations and outcome responsibility. Only significant effects are reported.
For the analysis mainly χ2-tests and ANOVA’s were used according to the
procedure described before. Principal components analyses were carried out
regarding benefits and downsides associated to choice. The analysis of benefits
included six variables, namely liking of the act of choosing, and the belief that
having choice increases freedom, decision quality, control, happiness and enables
one to do better, which were measured on a six level interval Likert scale.
Furthermore, principal component analysis was applied to negative associations with
the decision process, including frustration, stress, feeling of being overwhelmed and
perceived wasted time extracted (see the appropriate result sections for more
information including assumption checks).
9. Specific Results for Dutch Respondents
9.1 Beliefs Regarding Choice
Of the respondents 50.6% believed that for generic products such as milk,
flower, sugar and water no brand differentiations were needed. As many Dutch
(49.7%) believed that the product choices they make have a large influence on their
life, while 50.3% did not believe this to be the case. Somewhat more respondents
(60.7%) feel that product choice allows them to express their identity. Those that
feel one product alternative for basic products is enough were less likely to believe
that product choice enabled them to show identity than those that did not feel one
brand would suffice, χ2(5, N=158)=11.0, p=.052 (see Appendix G, table 39).
Furthermore, the extent to which products are perceived to affect life is related to
perceived ability to express identity through product choice, χ2(9, N=159)=22.3,
p=.008 (see Appendix G, table 40).
The survey contained various other possible believed benefits of choice,
namely liking of the act of choosing, the belief that having choice increases freedom,
decision quality, control, happiness and enables one to do better (the extent to which
respondents agreed to the existence of each benefit is summarized in percentages in
table 6). Overall, as in study 1 respondents associate benefit with choice. Unlike
study 1 however all of the benefits were significantly related to gender, with women
associating fewer benefits to having choice (see Appendix G, table 41).
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 89
Table 6: Benefits associated to choice.
Like choosing
Increases freedom
Increases decision quality
Enables doing better
Increases control
Increases happiness
Completely agree 13,1% 13,6% 11,4% 8,8% 8,05 8,4%
Mostly agree 35,4% 31,0% 23,9% 27,3% 23,1% 21,4%
Slightly agree 23,7% 31,4% 24,2% 26,1% 31,8% 31,3%
Slightly disagree 14,0% 12,4% 22,9% 26,3% 17,6% 17,7%
Mostly disagree 7,3% 5,5% 11,9% 8,2% 12,8% 14,1%
Completely disagree
6,5% 6,2% 5,7% 3,2% 6,7% 7,0%
N 157 158 157 156 156 158
Principal component analysis was carried out regarding benefits associated to
choice. The variables were sufficiently correlated (Barlett’s test for sphericity:
χ2(15)=371.5, p<.000 and KMO =.879) and the communalities were between .48
and .71. One factor was extracted with an eigenvalue of 3.57, the second factor did
not meet the minimum eigenvalue criteria as the eigenvalue was .67. The factor
explains 59.5% of variation of the original variables. The model fit was average with
80% non-redundant residual correlations (under .05) indicating that relatively much
information got lost during the creation of the factors. The following formula was
found for calculating factor scores based on the original variables:
Benefit of choice=.708*enjoyment of choosing + .694*freedom +
.782*decision quality + .792*achieving better outcomes + .802*control +
.838*happiness
Like the individual variables benefit of choice is significantly lower for
women than for men, t(151)=-3.6, p<.000. Furthermore, older respondents scored
higher, r(150)=.319, p<.000, and also respondents living in more urban areas had a
more positive attitude towards choice F(2, 150)=3.9, p=.023, linearity: F(1,
150)=7.3, p=.008, deviation from linearity: F(1,150)=.5, p=.498. A linear positive
relationship was found between the perceived influence of bought products on one’s
life and believed benefit of choice, F(3, 148)=7.7, p<.000, linearity: F(1, 148)=19.8,
p<.000, deviation from linearity: F(2,148)=.7, p=.670. Also a linear positive
relationship was found between ability to express identity to product choice and
benefit of choice, F(3, 149)=15.8, p=.001, linearity: F(1, 149)=14.9, p<.000,
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 90
deviation from linearity: F(2,149)=.9, p=.608. No significant relationships were
found between perceived benefit of choice and perceived increase in choice or the
amount of experience shopping.
9.2 Assortment Perception, Presentation and Evaluation
Most Dutch (86.9%) feel that more product alternatives have become
available to them over the last years. This is unrelated to urbanization of the area
they live in is and age. Regardless the product type of the remembered choice,
65.3% was faced with more variety than they had expected. When asked to qualify
the amount of differences between the product offered 20% of respondents said they
differed very little, 41% that they differed somewhat and 31% that they were rather
different. 5% of the respondents perceived the offered products as extremely
different and 3% as not at all different. Products were perceived to vary most widely
on intrinsic attributes such as functionality, design and taste (44%), followed by
price (21%) and brand (15%).
Assortments were perceived to be very well categorized by 49% and rather
well by 26%. The remaining 25% felt that alternatives could have been placed closer
together. Products were easily found by 74% of respondents, the remaining 26% had
some to a lot of trouble location the products within the assortment. For 17% of the
respondents the assortment did not include the wanted product, and 50% was
influenced in their decision by special offers. 38% of the respondents feel that their
choice is to some extent influenced by the available variety.
Product offer and presentation as measured through the above mentioned
variables did not relate significantly to the amount of perceived variety, however it
did relate to assortment evaluation (see appendix G, table 42 to 47). Evaluations of
those that found more variety than they expected were also more positive, χ2(8,
N=153)=33.1, p<.000. Those who increased their expectations due to the size of the
assortment were also likely to evaluate it more positively, χ2(6, N=152)=13.7,
p=.033. Respondents who were influenced in their decision by special offers were
more likely to give a positive evaluation, χ2(8, N=150)=21.8, p=.005. When the
wanted product was not available assortment evaluation was lower, χ2(4,
N=154)=20.4, p<.000. Evaluation is related to how close alternatives were together,
χ2(6, N=150)=23.0, p=.001, people that considered items that were placed close
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 91
together were more likely to give a positive evaluation than those that considered
alternatives that were placed further from each other.
9.3 The Decision Experience and Decision Process Satisfaction
Dutch people most often (42.3%) indicated to sometimes have difficulties
deciding between alternatives, 24.8% indicated to hardly ever or never have trouble,
23.6% indicated to regularly have problems deciding, and 9.3% indicated to often or
always have experience difficulties. The frequency of experiencing trouble is
significantly related to gender, χ2(3, N=157)=10.7, p=.013, men more frequently
have hardly any trouble, while women more frequently experience decision
difficulty often. The frequency with which difficulties are experienced is related to
self-efficacy, χ2(6, N=153)=13.4, p=.038 (see Appendix G, table 47). Those that
more often experience difficulties in deciding express less belief in their ability to
make good decisions.
Table 7: Extent to which negative feelings were experienced.
Time wasted Overwhelmed Stress Frustration
Completely agree 5,4% 4,8% 1,0% 2,4%
Mostly agree 9,4% 10,6% 5,1% 7,2%
Slightly agree 17,6% 20,3% 10,4% 22,9%
Slightly disagree 14,0% 18,2% 14,8% 17,7%
Mostly disagree 29,0% 21,3% 25,6% 26,0%
Completely disagree 24,7% 24,8% 43,0% 23,8%
Note: n=158
For some of the respondents the decision was associated with negative
feelings (see table 7 where the extent to which respondents agreed to the existence of
each drawback is summarized in percentages). Principal component analysis was
carried out regarding these drawbacks of deciding. The variables were sufficiently
correlated (Barlett’s test for sphericity: χ2(6)=135.6, p<.000 and KMO =.745). The
communalities were relatively low with values between .42 and .69. One factor was
extracted with an eigenvalue of 2.25, the second factor did not meet the minimum
eigenvalue criteria as the eigenvalue was .73. The factor explains 56.3% of variation
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 92
of the original variables. The following formula was found for calculating factor
scores based on the original variables:
Experienced drawbacks = .651*overwhelmed + .717*wasted time +
.828*frustration + .792*stress
As all contributing variables were significantly related to gender the factor
analysis was also carried out for both genders separately. No reasons were found to
apply different loadings based on gender (see Appendix G, table 48).
Men were less likely to experience drawbacks than women, t(156, 79)=2.0,
p=.049. Older respondents reported less negative associations with the process than
younger respondents, r(156)=.162, p=.044. People with larger choice sets tended to
experience more drawbacks, r(156)=-.137, p=.089. No relationship between
experienced drawbacks and assortment size was found, even though choice set and
assortment size were correlated, r(147)=.449, p<.000.
The experience of drawbacks is negatively related to perceived decision ease,
F(2, 155)=23.625, p<.000, test for linearity: F(1, 155)=45.209, p<.000, deviation
form linearity F(1, 155)=1.736, p=.190. The experience of drawbacks was not found
to be related to whether the respondent liked multiple options, nor was perceived
decision ease. While the use of heuristics did not influence experienced drawbacks
significantly, the extent to which a satisficing strategy was used did, F(4,
152)=3.125, p=.017. The more people bought the first product found that matched
their criteria the less drawbacks to deciding they experienced.
Negative decisions feelings were significantly related to satisfaction with the
decision process, F(3, 154)=7.433, p<.000, test for linearity: F(1, 154)=19.209,
p<.000, deviation form linearity F(1, 154)=.574, p=.424. Those that are satisfied had
significantly higher scores, indicating less experienced drawbacks, than those that
were less satisfied. Satisfaction with the decision process was also directly related to
perceived decision difficulty, χ2(4, N=158)=11.2, p=.024, people that found making
the decision very easy indicated high satisfactions with the decision process and
those that found it difficult reported less satisfaction (see Appendix G, table 49).
9.4 Post-Purchase Satisfaction
As discussed in the cross-cultural analysis 50% of Dutch were completely
satisfied with the made decision. This satisfaction was found to be related to the
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 93
whether or not the respondents would buy the product again, χ2(6, 156)=99.313,
p<.000. 84% of those satisfied with the choice would buy the product again, 57% of
those that were mostly satisfied would consider buying the product again and 73%
of those unsatisfied with their decision would not buy the product again.
No direct relationship between assortment size and satisfaction with the
made decision was found, however satisfaction with the made decision was found to
be related to the extent to which a positive surprise was experienced, χ2(6,
156)=34.9, p<.000 (see Appendix G, table 50). When a positive surprise was
experienced satisfaction with the made decision increased. Positive surprises were
more likely when choice sets were smaller, F(3, 149)=3.6, p=.016. People that were
very positively surprised on average considered 1.5 (SE=.5) options less than those
that were not positively or negatively surprised and 1.4 (SE=.5) options less than
those that were negatively surprised. Furthermore, positive surprises were less likely
when assortment sizes had increased expectations, χ2(12, 154)=24.6, p=.017 (see
Appendix G, table 51). Increased expectations in turn were again more likely when
assortment sizes were larger, F(4, 145)=6.0, p<.000. Thus indirectly assortment sizes
may lower decision satisfaction by influencing product expectations.
10. Discussion of Dutch Results
With respect to cultural attitude towards choice Dutch were found to want
(brand) variety even for products that are widely considered uninvolving. This
preference increases as people feel more able to express identity through choice as
was suggested in chapter three. Also other benefits of choice identified in the
literature were held by Dutch, namely that having more product choice increases
freedom, decision quality, control, happiness, enables one to do better and that
choosing is enjoyable. Women perceived fewer benefits, while people living in
urban areas and older people perceived more. Lastly, the amount of perceived
benefit increased as product choice was related stronger to identity.
The study further confirmed that the amount of choice has grown over the
past years. No support was found for a relationship between urbanization and choice
expansion, though theory suggested greater choice expansions in urbanized areas.
Most people perceived relatively little difference between the products in the
assortment and assortments were perceived to vary most on intrinsic attributes, and
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 94
to a lesser extent on price and brand. This is surprising as both in studies respondents
indicated to mainly look for and decide based on price and value for money.
The importance of point-of-sale marketing was underlined as many of the
choices were consciously influenced by the available assortment and also special
offers often played a role in of decisions. Moreover, a large proportion of the
recalled decisions involved situations in which the preferred alternative was not
available, negatively impacting assortment evaluation. This supports the retailers’
fear for the salience of these experiences, and subsequent large assortments.
Especially since study 1 found that Dutch often express tolerance for variety when it
caters to the wants and needs of others.
Though in the majority of recalled cases all alternatives had been located
close together in a substantial part this was not the case. The extent to which the
assortment was appropriately sorted was positively related to assortment evaluation,
underscoring the importance of understanding customer choice sets. Assortment
evaluation was additionally positively related to perceived variety, increased
expectations and being influenced by special offers. This shows that for assortment
evaluation not only variety is important but also the extent to which this variety is of
interest to the customer.
The third section of the analysis explored drawbacks of choice, decision
difficulty and decision satisfaction. It was found that most Dutch had difficulties
deciding between alternatives, women more so than men. This gender difference
may however alternatively be explained by the frequency of making purchases
which was not controlled for. Product choice was associated with wasted time,
frustration, feeling overwhelmed and to a lesser extent with stress. All these together
were experienced less by older participants, and less by men, groups which also
associated more benefits to choice. Age may moderate choice as more experience
choosing has been accumulated and people are more aware of their preferences. Men
may use more effective decision styles than women, be more tolerant to negative
emotions, or expose themselves to different amounts or types of choices. More
research into these differences are needed, especially as traditional gender
differences in purchasing divisions disappear more and more. More negative
emotions were experienced by those considering more alternatives. This possibly
relates to the increased difficulty deciding documented in part one of this study, but
again more research is needed.
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 95
Finally, it was found that post-purchase satisfaction was influenced by
whether or not the product was positively surprising, which in turn was related to
increased expectations due to assortment variety and the assortment and choice set
size. This provides some support for the hypothesis that choosing from more variety
may lead to lower subjective decision quality.
These studies explored further to what extent findings of American research
on choice under variety could be transferred to Dutch. The initial cross-cultural
analysis showed little support for cultural transferability. The more in depth analysis,
on the other hand, found that many concepts and relationships proposed in the theory
apply to the Dutch as well.
11. Discussion of the Methodology
Methodologically the study has several limitations; most notable are its use
of memories and the instrument used. Furthermore, like study 1 the sample is non-
probability and small decreasing both reliability of the study and generalizability.
The use of memories facilitated establishing a broad overview, provided data
on decisions that are really made, rather than solely imagined. The ease with which
most respondents could come up with an example, often not more than two weeks
old, highlights the ubiquity of conscious choice in the current retail setting,
regardless of product type. Only one American respondent said that when asked to
remember a choice made in retail: ‘I do not remember this happening’ (male, 49).
The use of memories furthermore, to a certain extent, allows for
generalization over product categories and retailers. The drawback however is that
for specific product types sample sizes are too small to draw conclusions.
Furthermore, as the recalled memories differed based on nationality it is difficult to
determine how reliable and valid the between country differences are.
Respondent could freely contribute his own experience selecting only based
on the criteria that the decision had to be made consciously enough to be
remembered. However, this construction also introduced a selection bias in favor of
more salient memories, thereby not unlikely inflating reports for example with
respect to negative associations to the decision. Additionally, relying on memories
poses various limitations. First of all, time may affect each of the answers
individually as well as the relationships among them. Overall, reports become less
Study 2: Choice and Satisfaction 96
accurate. Furthermore, no causal relationships can be established, and that makes the
effects of variety difficult to assess. For example, people that have difficulty
choosing may have expanded their choice sets in an attempt to reach a decision,
rather than the choice set remaining unchanged throughout the decision process.
Importance of the decision and product knowledge were controlled for in the
cross-cultural comparison. It is however beyond the scope of this study to
additionally control for other known mediators and moderators, such as involvement
and familiarity with the assortment.
With regard to the instrument there are various points for discussion. As
none of the questions were used in previous research the survey was pre-tested by
eight participants and proof-read by two native English speakers, however the scales
were not validated. Whereas study 1 has the problem that answers were provided in
two different languages making scoring more difficult, here the quality of Dutch
responses may be lower as they did not complete the survey in their mother tongue.
Some answer categories were not optimal, for example whether or not people had
considered not buying the product was assigned a six point Likert scale. The item on
assortment evaluation facilitates analysis as it provides a clear continuum. However,
this does not help answer the question posed in the discussion of study 1 whether or
not having too much choice should be interpreted as a linear extension of a good
assortment, or as a return to a bad assortment.
All constructs are measured through self-report scales and as only one
question was included for most constructs validity could not be checked as only one
measuring item was included. Analysis of Dutch responses shows that the validity of
some questions is compromised, as for example not everyone that did purchase the
product though not immediately indicated to have considered postponing the
decision. Possibly this can be explained as they never meant to purchase the product
straight away, but rather were gathering information.
Finally, remembered variety and choice set size had to be recoded to reduce
outliers. However, this may have masked differences in choice environment. Those
faced with over 50 alternatives are more likely to have chosen using the internet, as
recalled memories were not limited to in-store decisions. Either way, those faced
with such extensive choice sets are much less likely to evaluate all options and more
likely to have other information sources and decision aiding tools available.
Conclusion, Recommendations, Discussion and Future Outlook 97
Conclusion, Recommendations, Discussion and Future Outlook
It is safe to conclude that choice, in the sense of available alternatives, has
become increasingly pervasive in retailing, both in the USA as well as in Europe.
And due to the concentration and globalization trends in retail, as well as the rise of
the internet, choice is increasingly pervasive all around the world. Over the past two
centuries store formats in Europe and the USA have become larger offering both
deeper and broader assortments. New inventions, innovations, newly available
products and increased variety of existing products through package size, pricing
and branding fill the shelves. And only temporarily available products additionally
increase the variety. Furthermore, due to urbanization and increased personal
mobility the amount of different stores customers can choose from has increased.
Moreover, the rise of the Internet has made it easier for customers to share and
retrieve information regarding products and services. Additionally, the Internet
provides a global channel which widely expands the amount and variety in retailers
customers can easily access. Also, through the Internet the amount of product
alternatives that are available has become almost unlimited, especially when looking
at sites facilitating trade between customers.
The literature review revealed various effects of assortment size on customer
purchase decisions. As assortment size increases it draws more customer attention.
However, likelihood of purchase, though initially growing as well soon drops. The
point where more variety becomes detrimental depends not only in product type and
customer involvement, but also on factors such as the customer’s variety seeking
tendencies, the perceived relationship between product choice and identity,
knowledge and the customers decision making strategy. The relationship is further
influenced by time pressure and the extent to which the customer has articulated
preferences. Evidence from customization experiments shows that it is important to
gradually increase provided alternatives over subsequent choices to reduce shopping
fatigue. Having a high amount of options can be both a source for enjoyment as well
as frustration and thus fundamentally affect the shopping experience. Assortment
size can affect the product chosen as customers are less likely to pay attention to
many product attributes and looking more for choice justification. Also after the
decision process assortment size continues to have an effect on the post-purchase
confidence and satisfaction. Choice from large assortments leads to lower decision
Conclusion, Recommendations, Discussion and Future Outlook 98
confidence and less satisfaction with the chosen product, due to higher expectations,
opportunity costs, regret and responsibility.
Many choices are of little importance and are made in a matter of seconds
when the customer is confronted with the assortment. The empirical research shows
that many respondents were influenced by the available variety and in particular by
special offers. Appropriate presentation of choice in retail can reduce cognitive
effort, affect the perception of variety and increase sales. Smaller aisles induce
customers to seek more variety, and organized small assortments induce less variety
seeking. Though assortments with many choices attract attention, customers may
decide more easily when presented with fewer. For the same reason presentation
should emphasize differences, for example through clear labeling of healthy choices,
to minimize preference uncertainty and indecision. Large assortments can be made
more accessible, especially for the less knowledgeable and less involved customer
through categorization. However, even well categorized assortments may be less
attractive then smaller ones. Therefore, information regarding the target group, such
as provided by consumer decision trees, is crucial in making presentation and
assortment size decisions. Other methods of mediating choice are sales personnel
intervention, default options and effective return policies.
The understanding of choice from variety must be articulated within the
broader context of cultural values, norms and the social construction of reality. In
the literature some indications were found that the preference for and response to
product choice may be different based on culture. Both studies found support for the
effect of culture and the existence of cultural differences. The initial cross-cultural
analysis showed little support for cultural transferability of research on product
choice under variety. The more in depth analysis on the other hand found that many
concepts and relationships proposed in the theory do apply to Dutch as well.
The main question of this paper is: ‘To what extent is the amount of choice
offered by Western retailers to non-professional customers desirable?’ The
research presented here shows that customers often want variety and presenting
larger assortments leads to better evaluations and more attention. Furthermore, there
is a biological preference for choice. However, presenting too much choice
decreases the quality of the shopping experience, purchase likelihood and post-
purchase satisfaction. Deciding how much choice to offer however can be difficult
as many mediators play a role that are not only person bound but also context
Conclusion, Recommendations, Discussion and Future Outlook 99
related. Moreover, preference for choice is prioritized versus other preferences and
cognitive as well as behavioral patterns dependent on context, individual
characteristics, socio-economic status and culture. Deeper understanding of this
process of prioritization is needed before a conclusive answer can be given.
As customers become more used to choice it may be that choice becomes
more desirable as learning effects take place. It is important that this possible
learning effect is investigated as the retail industry is highly dependent on the size of
the middle class, which is growing especially fast in countries where now little
assortment variety is offered. Also, more in general the relationship between
assortment familiarity, indecision and drawbacks of choice should be investigated as
familiarity is likely a large moderator of all assortment size related drawbacks.
Further research should also focus on choice presentation online. The
Internet provides a platform where there is virtually no limitation to the amount of
choice that can be offered. However, also here the customer may decide not to
decide when faced with too many options, including the amount of websites that a
product can be ordered through and the amount of different payment methods. Also
other situations in which large amount of choice are presented should be
investigated. It is likely that there are specific characteristics setting apart products
for which near unlimited amounts of variety do not have detrimental effects, and
which allow selling a large variety to become the competitive advantage it is for
websites such as Amazon and Threadless.
A main limitation to this thesis is its sole focus on the variety offered in-
store. However, this may not reflect accurately the amount of variety offered. For
example, the bread people buy is most often not eaten alone. Instead customers
combine it with at least one other product such as meat or jam, thereby creating
much more choice than only the number of products would suggest. When more
variety is offered by instead of bread selling sandwiches, though the in-store variety
increases, actual variety decreases. Furthermore, only variety within one store is
taken into account, largely ignoring variety created by assortment differences
between stores, an aspect that especially the Dutch were unhappy with. Maybe this
explains why though there is widespread belief in the benefits of choice it can be
observed that ratings of retailers within the western world, as presented on the front
page, are higher there where stores are smaller.
□
References 100
References
Achille, S.J. (2008). World Statistics on the Number of Internet Shoppers. Retrieved
May 10, 2012, from http://www.multilingual-search.com/world-statistics-on-
the-number-of-Internet-shoppers/28/01/2008/
Acton, J. (1994). Light Bulb. How Products are Made. Retrieved January 1, 2012
from http://www.encyclopedia.com/
Alexander, N (1997) International retailing. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alexander, N. & Akehurst, G. (1998). Introduction: The Emergence of Modern
Retailing, 1750–1950. Business History, 40(4), 1-15. doi:
10.1080/00076799800000335
Allison (2011, March 1). UK Will Lead E-commerce Sales in Europe for Next Five
Years Says Forrester. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://Internetretailing.net/2011/03/uk-will-lead-ecommerce-sales-in-europe-
for-next-five-years-says-forrester/
Arnold, S.J., Ruth, V. & Tigert, D.J. (1981). Conditional Logit Versus Mda in the
Prediction of Store Choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 665-670.
Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/
Arunachalam, B., Henneberry, S.R., Lusk, J.L. & Norwood, F.B. (2009). An
Empirical Investigation Into the Excessive-Choice Effect. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 91, 810–825. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01260.x
Ashfaq, M. (n.d.). World top 100 retailers. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from
http://worldb2blink.com/worldtop100retailers.htm
Baudisch, A.F. (2006). Continuous Market Growth Beyond Functional Satiation.
Papers on Economics and Evolution, 3, 1-33.
Beatty, S.E. & Smith, S.M. (1987). External Search Effort: An Investigation Across
Several Product Categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 83-9.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489245
Betje Boerhave. (2011). Historie. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://www.kruideniersmuseum.nl/historie.htm
Bishop, D. (2010). NACS/BALVOR SKU Rationalization Survey. Retrieved January
4, 2012, from http://www.slideshare.net/balvor/sku-rationalization-in-
convenience-retail
References 101
Boatwright, P., & Nunes, J. C. (2001). Reducing assortment: An attribute-based
approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 50-63.
Borin, N., Farris, P.W. & Freeland, J.R. (1994). A Model for Determining Retail
Product Category Assortment and Shelf Space Allocation. Decision Sciences,
25(3), 359-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb00809.x
Boyd, D.E. Bahn, K.D. (2009). When Do Large Product Assortments Benefit
Consumers? An Information-Processing Perspective. Journal of Retailing,
85(3), 288-297.
Boyer, P. S. (2001). Telephone. The Oxford Companion to United States History.
Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/
Broda, C. & Weinstein, D. E. (2004). Variety Growth and World Welfare. The
American Economic Review, 94(2), 139-144. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3592871
Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Option Attachment: When
Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30, 15-29. Retrieved from http://www.psych.ualberta.ca
Center for Retail Research (n.d.). Online Retailing Britain and Europe 2012.
Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://www.retailresearch.org/onlineretailing.php
Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point
availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(2), 170-183
Chernev, A. (2004). Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 151–162. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.85.1.151
Chernev, A. & Hamilton, R. (2009). Assortment Size and Option Attractiveness in
Consumer Choice Among Retailers. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 410-
420. ISSN: 1547-7193
Christ, P. (2008). KnowThis; Marketing Basics. Blue Bell: KnowThis Media.
Retrieved from books.google.com.
Cox, R. & Brittain, P. (2004). Retailing; an Introduction (5th ed.). Essex: Pearson
Education Limited. Retrieved from books.google.com.
Cushman and Wakefield (2011). European Retail Report; 2011. Retrieved May 15,
2012, from http://www.cushwake.com/
References 102
Deloitte (2002-2012). Global Powers of Retailing Series. Retrieved April 24, 2012,
from https://www.deloitte.com/
Deloitte (2007-2011). Bedrijfsvergelijking; Zelfstandige
Levensmiddelendetailhandel. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from
http://www.deloitte.com/
Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer Preference for a No‐Choice Option. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(2), 215-231. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209506
Dhar R. & Nowlis, S.M. (1999). The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice
Deferral. Journal of Customer Research, 25, 369-384. doi: 0093-
530l/99/2504-0005$03.00
Diehl, K. & Pynor, C. (2010). Great Expectations?! Assortment size, expectations
and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 312-322. doi:
10.1509/jmkr.47.2.312
Einarsson, Á. (2007). The Retail Sector in the Nordic Countries; A Comparative
Analysis [working Paper]. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://bjss.bifrost.is/index.php/bjss/article/viewFile/16/23
Euromonitor (2009). World Retail Data and Statistics 2008/2009 5th edition sample.
http://www.just-style.com/store/samples/wrdas_samples.pdf
Fasolo, B., Hertwig, R., Huber, M. and Ludwig, M. (2009). Size, Entropy, and
Density: What is the Difference That Makes the Difference Between Small
and Large Real-World Assortments? Psychology and marketing, 26(3), 254-
279. doi: 10.1002/mar.20272
Fishbach, A., Ratner, R.K. & Zhang, Y. (2011). Inherently loyal or easily bored?:
Nonconscious activation of consistency versus variety-seeking behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 38-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2010.09.006
Fisher, A.B. (1984, November). The Ad Biz Gloms Onto Global. Fortune, 12, 77-
79. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Flowersbyfarha. (2009, June 22). Customers Given Too Many Choices are 10x Less
Likely to Buy. Message posted to sivers.org, archived at http://sivers.org/jam
Forrester (2012). Asia Pacific Online Retail Forecast, 2011 to 2016. Retrieved May
11, 2012, from http://www.forrester.com/
Foster, N., Poeschl, J. & Stehrer R. (2008). Welfare gains from product variety in
European Economies - A First Assessment [OENB working paper 12830].
References 103
Retrieved December 26, 2011, from
http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2008/Papers/Poschl.pdf
Franke, N., Keinz, P. & Steger, C.J. (2009). Testing the Value of Customization:
When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences?
Journal of Marketing, 73, 103-121. doi: 1547-7185
Gaffney, J. (2009, January 22). Shopper’s Show Cross-Channel Eagerness, But
Satisfaction Levels Slump. Retail TouchPoints
Garg, V., Jones, C. & Sheedy, C. (1999). 17 Billion Reasons to Say Thanks; The 25th
Anniversary of the UPC and its Impact on the Grocery Industry. London:
PWC. Retrieved from http://barcodes.gs1us.org
GfK GeoMarketing. (2010). Key European retail data 2009 review and 2010
forecast. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://www.gfk-
geomarketing.de/fileadmin/gfkgeomarketing/de/gfk_geomarketing_sondernew
s/1110_weihnachtsgeschenk3_handelsstudie_gfk_2010.pdf
Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissenmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-
145436
Godin, S. (2003). Standing out. TED2003 [conference]. Video file, retrieved January
16, 2012, from
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/seth_godin_on_sliced_bread.html
Haskel, Jarmin, Motohashi and Sadun (2007). Retail Market Structure and
Dynamics: A Three Country Comparison of Japan, the UK and the US.
NBER/CRIW [conference]. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from
http://www.people.hbs.edu/rsadun/Retail_Market_Structure/HJMS_NBER_C
RIW_07_07_slides.pdf
Hastie, R., Dawes, R.M. (2009). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The
Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (2nd ed.). London: Sage
Publications Inc. Retrieved from books.google.com
Haynes, J.L., Pipkin, A.L., Black, W.C & Cloud, R.M. (1994). Application of a
Choice Sets Model to Assess Patronage Decision Styles of High Involvement
Consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 22-32. doi:
10.1177/0887302X9401200304
Heitmann, M., Herrmann, A. and Kaiser, C. (2007). The effect of product variety on
purchase probability. Springer Online. doi:10.1007/s11846-007-0006-6
References 104
van Herpen, E. & Pieters, R. (2002, Summer). The Variety of an Assortment: An
Extension to the Attribute-Based Approach. Marketing Science, 21(3), 331-
341. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558048
Hill, R. (2009). Retail Density: Apples to Oranges. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://villagesolutionscompany.com/blog/retail-density-apples-to-oranges/
Holmes, G.S. (2001). Vacuum Cleaner. How Products Are Made. Retrieved January
1, 2012, from http://www.encyclopedia.com
Howard, P. (2006). Consolidation in Food and Agriculture: Implications for Farmers
& Consumers. The Natural Farmer, 1, 17-20. Retrieved from
http://www.nofa.org/
Hoyer, W.D. (1984). An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common
Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3), 822-829.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489071
Hunneman, A. (2011). Advances in Methods to Support Store Location and Design
Decisions. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2011/a.hunneman/01_c1.pdf
IBM (2002). Integrated multi-channel retailing (IMCR); A roadmap to the future.
Retrieved May 11, 2012, from
ftp://129.35.224.12/software/websphere/commerce/bn/ibv_imcr.pdf
Igan D. and Suzuki J. (2011). The “Wal-Mart Effect” in Central and Eastern
Europe. http://individual.utoronto.ca/suzuki/Igan_Suzuki.pdf
IGD (2009). Which are the retailers to back worldwide in the post-recession era?
Retrieved May 4, 2012, from
http://www.igd.com/index.asp?id=1&fid=1&sid=7&tid=10&cid=1339
IMAP (2010). Retail Industry global Report – 2010. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from
http://www.ascendant.hr/docs/imap_sector_reports/IMAPRetailReport8_23CB
9AA9C6EBB.pdf
Inman, J.J., Winer, R.S. & Ferraro, R. (2009). The Interplay Among Category
Characteristics, Customer Characteristics, and Customer Activities on In-Store
Decision Making. Journal of Marketing, 73, 19-29. issn 0022-2429
Inman, J.J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in repeat versus switch decisions: The
attenuating role of decision justifiability. Journal of Consumer Research, 29,
116–128.
References 105
International Monetary Fund (2011). World Economic Outlook Database. Retrieved
January 4, 2012, from http://www.imf.org
Iyengar, S.S. & Lepper, M.R. (2000). When Choice is Demotivating: Can One
Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.995
Iyengar, S.S. (2010, July). The Art of Choosing. TEDGlobal 2010 [Conference].
Video file retrieved January 16, 2012, from
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing.ht
ml
Jahn, M. & Müller, S. (2011). Key European retail data 2010 review and 2011
forecast. GfK GeoMarketing. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://www.fmig-online.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-
Dokumente/Studien/Studie_Key_European_retail_data.pdf
John C. (2009, June 22). Customers Given Too Many Choices are 10x Less Likely to
Buy. Message posted to sivers.org, archived at http://sivers.org/jam
Kahn, B.E. & Isen, M.A. (1993). The Influence of Positive Affect on Variety
Seeking Among Safe, Enjoyable Products [abstract]. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(2), 257-270. doi:0093-5301/94/2002-0006
Kahn, B.E. & Wansink, B. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on
perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research,
30(4), 519-533.
Khanna, T. (2008). India’s Forgotten Farmers. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/india%E2%80%99s-forgotten-farmers
Lasserre, P. (2007). Globalization of Mass Retail. Global Strategic Management
Mini Case Series. Retrieved from
http://www.philippelasserre.net/contenu/Download/Mass_Retail.pdf
Leotti, L.A., Iyengar, S.S. & Ochsner, K.N. (2010). Born to Choose: the Origins and
Value of the Need for Control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457-463.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001
Levav, J., Heitmann, M., Herrmann, A. & Iyengar, S.S. (2010). Order in Product
Customization Decisions: Evidence from Field Experiments. Journal of
Political Economy, 118(2), 274-299. doi:0022-3808/2010/11802-0003$10.00
Levav, J. & Zhu, R.J. (2009). Seeking Freedom Through Variety. Journal of
Consumer Research, 36, 600-610. doi: 10.1086/599556
References 106
Levy, M. & Weitz, B.A. (2009). Retailing Management (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-
Hill Higher Education. Retrieved from books.google.com.
MacFadden Communications Group LLC (1996). Consumers: Many Unplanned
Buys. Retrieved January 14, 2012, from
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Consumers%3A+many+unplanned+buys.-
a018204427
Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D.M. and Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand Name as a Heuristic
Cue: The Effects of Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on
Consumer Judgments. Journal of Consumer psychology, 1(4), 317-336.
Matzler, K., Stieger, D. & Füller, J. (2011). Consumer confusion in internet-based
mass customization: Testing a network of antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(2), 231-247.
Michigan State University (2012). Retail: Introduction.
http://globaledge.msu.edu/industries/retail/
Michman, R.D. & Mazze, E.M. (2006). The Affluent Consumer; Marketing and
selling the luxury lifestyle. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Retrieved from
books.google.com.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits
on our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–
97. doi:10.1037/h0043158.
Minesota Grocers Association, (2011). Industry Statistics and Definitions. Retrieved
January 4, 2012, from http://www.mngrocers.com/index.php/industry/stats/
Mitchell, V.W. & Papavassiliou, V. (1999). Marketing causes and implications of
consumer confusion. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 319-
339.
Mitchell, V.W., Walsh, G. & Yamin, M. (2005). Towards a conceptual model of
consumer confusion. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 143-150.
Mogliner, C., Rudnick, T. & Iyengar, S.S. (2008). The Mere Categorization Effect:
How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers’ Perceptions of
Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research,
35, 202-2115, doi:10.1086/588698
Mooijman, P. (2004). Supers Verdringen Groenteboer en Slager. Retrieved January
4, 2012, http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/handel-
horeca/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2004/2004-1473-wm.htm
References 107
Mostashari, S.M. (2010, December). Expanding Variety of Goods Underscores
Battle for Competitive Advantage. Economic Letter—Insights from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 5(15). Retrieved from http://dallasfed.org/
Nestle, M. (2002, September) The soft sell: how the food industry shapes our diets.
Nutrition Action Healthletter. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/
Nielsen. (2007). The Hard Discounter Report; An Overview of Aldi and Lidle in
Europe. Retrieved January 4, 2011, from http://dk.nielsen.com/
Nielsen (2010a). Retail and Shopper Trends Asia Pacific 2010; The latest in
retailing and shopper trends for the FMCG industry. http://sg.nielsen.com/
Nielsen (2010b). Global Trends in Online Shopping; A Nielsen Global Consumer
Report. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from http://www.nielsen.com/
Nielsen. (2010c). Cutting the Assortment Global Learnings. Retrieved January 4,
2012, from http://www.ecr-baltic.org/f/G.Gross_Cutting_the_Assortment.pdf
Office of Consumer Affairs (2011). Consumers and Changing Retail Markets.
Retrieved January 9, 2012, from http://www.ic.gc.ca/
Oppewal, H. & Koelemeijer, K. (2005). More choice is better: Effects of assortment
size and composition on assortment evaluation. International Journal of
Research Marketing, 22, 45-60. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.03.002
Ostrom T.M. (1969). The Relationship between Affective, Behavioral, and
Cognitive Components of Attitude. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 5, 12-30.
Park W. & Lessig, V.P. (1981). Familiarity and its Impact on Consumer Decision
Biases and Heuristics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(2), 223-231. Stable
url:www.jstor.org/248834
Philpott, T. (2007). How Food Processing Got Into the Hands of a Few Giant
Companies. Retrieved, January 2, 2012, from http://www.grist.org/
Ratner, R. K., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption
on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246-257.
Romanowski, P. (1998). Shampoo. How Products Are Made. Retrieved from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/
Rouse, C. (2010). History of Energy Drinks. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://www.themedicineman.com/
References 108
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Shields, C., & Masson, E. (2006). Attitudes towards large
numbers of choices in the food domain: A cross-cultural study of five
countries in Europe and the USA [abstract]. Appetite, 46, 304-308
Schulz, D.P. (July 2011). Top 100 Retailers; The Nation's Retail Power Players
2011. Stores Magazine, 7. Retrieved May 13, 2012, from www.stores.org
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, A., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K. & Lehman,
D.R. (2002). Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 1178-1197.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1178.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice. New York: HarperCollins Publishers
Inc.
Sela, A., Berger, J. & Liu, W. (2008). Variety, Vice, and Virtue: How Assortment
Size Influences Option Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941-
951, doi: 10.1086/593692
Seth, A. & Randall, G. (2001). The Grocers: the Rise and Rise of the Supermarket
Chains (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited. Retrieved from
books.google.com.
Shah, A. M., & Wolford, G. (2007). Buying behavior as a function of parametric
variation of number of choices. Psychological Science, 18(5), 369-370.
Shimp, T.A. (2008). Advertising, Promotion, and other Aspects of Integrated
Marketing Communications (8th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage
Learning. Retrieved from books.google.com
Shiv, B. & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of
Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer
Research, 26(3), 278-292. doi:10.1086/209563.
Shoham, A. & Ruvio, A. (2008). Opinion leaders and followers: A replication and
extension. Psychology and Marketing, 25(3), 280-297.
doi:10.1002/mar.20209.
Supply Chain Digest. (2011). Supply Chain News: Walmart to Reverse SKU Count
Reductions, Bring Back 8500 Items to Shelves. Retrieved January 4, from
http://www.scdigest.com/
Tat Keh & Park (1997). To Market, to Market: the Changing Face of Grocery
Retailing. Long Range Planning, 30(6), 836-846. doi:10.1016/S0024-
6301(97)00069-1
References 109
Taylor, S. & Chaudoir, K. (2010). Too Much Choice and Variety: Assortment
Realities. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://blog.nielsen.com/
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, McKinsey & Company & Nielsen. (2010).
The 2010 Customer and Channel Management Survey; Emerging from the
Storm; How Leading Customer Organizations Reignite Growth. Retrieved
January 16, 2012, from www.nielsen.com
Underhill, P. (1999). Waarom we Kopen wat we Kopen (3d ed.) (R. Dowden,
Trans.). Amsterdam: de Boekerij bv.
Wrigley, N. & Lowe, M. (2002). Reading Retail; A Geographical Perspective on
Retailing and Consumption Spaces. Lodon: Arnold.
Wrigley, N. & Lowe, M. (201). The Globalization of Trade in Retail Services.
Retrieved May 4, 2012, from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/49/46329746.pdf
Zentes, J., Mirschett, D. & Schramm-Klein, H. (2011). Strategic Retail Management
(2nd ed.). Meppel: Gabler.
Appendix A: Legend figure 6 I
Appendix A: Legend figure 6
AT -Austria
BE - Belgium
BG - Bulgaria
CY - Cyprus
CZ - Czech Republic
DE - Germany
DK - Denmark
EE - Estonia
EL - Greece
ES - Spain
EU - European Union
FI - Finland
FR - France
FYRM - Macedonia
HR - Croatia
HU - Hungary
IR - Ireland
IS - Iceland
IT - Italy
LT - Lithuania
LU - Luxembourg
LV- Latvia
MT - Malta
NL - the Netherlands
NO - Norway
PL - Poland
PT - Portugal
RO - Romania
SE - Sweden
SI - Slovenia
SK - Slovakia
TU - Turkey
UK - the United Kingdom
Appendix B: Additional Industry Data II
0 5 10 15 20
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
USA
Venezuela
Vietnam
Appendix B: Additional Industry Data
Figure 14: Number of stores per 1,000 inhabitants in 2007 for selected countries.
Data source: Euromonitor (2009).
0 5 10 15 20
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Appendix B: Additional Industry Data III
Figure 15: Share of grocery sales by format in Europe, 2000 vs 2004.
Source: Igan & Suzuki (2011).
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information IV
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information
Table 8: Cross-tabulation of liking and given reason.
Total No Depends Yes Too much Other
Variety 37 1 2 21 1 12
Lot of choice 30 0 0 23 2 5
Availability 22 3 6 12 0 1
Want more choice 19 4 10 3 2 0
Fit to want 19 0 2 12 0 5
Quality (price) 16 1 3 4 0 8
Indecision 11 1 1 3 5 1
Like choosing 11 0 1 7 0 3
Compare 9 0 1 3 0 5
Freedom to choose 7 1 0 5 0 1
Same stores 7 2 3 1 1 0
Cheaper 7 1 1 4 0 1
Amount of stores visited 7 3 3 0 0 1
Negative feelings 5 0 2 1 2 0
Something for everyone 5 0 1 4 0 0
More competition 4 1 0 2 0 1
Store organization 3 0 2 0 0 1
Decision quality 2 0 0 0 1 1
Express self 1 0 0 1 0 0
Novelty 1 0 0 1 0 0
Total 223 18 38 107 14 46
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information V
Table 9:Cross-tabulation of whether there was perceived benefit and reason given.
Total No Depends Yes Other
Cheaper 50 0 6 44 0
Fit to want 26 0 2 24 0
Variety 24 6 0 18 0
Price variety 17 0 2 15 0
Ease comparison 13 0 0 12 1
Good/better choice 10 1 1 8 0
Like choice 8 0 0 8 0
Time & gas 7 0 2 5 0
Availability 6 0 1 5 0
Freedom to decide 5 1 0 4 0
Quality 4 0 0 4 0
Increased spending 3 1 2 0 0
Ownership decision 3 0 0 3 0
Other positive 1 0 0 0 1
Other negative 1 0 0 0 1
Total 178 9 16 150 3
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information VI
Table 10: Cross-tabulation of whether the respondent complained and given reason or mediator.
Total No No, but Yes Other
Difficulties finding 7 0 5 1 1
Loss oversight 5 0 2 3 0
Indecision 4 0 1 2 1
Too crowded 3 0 1 2 0
Intimidating 3 0 2 0 1
Availability 2 0 0 2 0
Confusion 1 0 0 1 0
Familiarity 4 0 3 1 0
Limit aisles 3 0 2 0 1
Avoidance 2 0 2 0 0
Total 34 0 18 12 4
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information VII
Table 11: Relationship between attitude components.
Complained? Benefit
Yes No, but No Yes Unsure No
Liking depends phi .003 .151* -.171* -.130 .097 .078
p .965 .041 .037 .082 .194 .293
N 184 184 150 181 181 185
Like choice phi -.228** -.124 .190* .364** -.232** -.229**
p .002 .095 .020 .000 .002 .002
N 184 184 150 181 181 185
Too much choice phi .284** .039 -.123 -.281** .168* .168*
p .000 .595 .133 .000 .024 .023
N 184 184 150 181 181 185
Dislike amount of choice
phi .093 -.029 .018 -.138* .091 .093
p .157 .663 .803 .038 .172 .156
N 235 235 199 228 228 236
Unsure benefit phi .231** .062 -.120
p .000 .352 .096
N 227 227 195
Yes benefit phi -.214** -.002 .037
p .001 .975 .608
N 227 227 195
No benefit phi .048 -.038 .034
p .462 .563 .630
N 235 235 199
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, all significances two-tailed.
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information VIII
Table 12: Relationship between attitude components for Dutch respondents.
Complained? Benefit
Yes No, but No Yes Unsure No
Liking depends phi .030 -.026 -.035 .145 -.032 -.115
p .770 .785 .710 .123 .741 .231
N 100 114 114 115 110 110
Like choice phi .135 -.126 .055 .094 .151 -.175
p .291 .278 .640 .417 .195 .133
N 63 76 76 77 75 75
Too much choice phi .178 -.119 -.291* -.210 -.358** .449**
p .162 .305 .011 .067 .002 .000
N 63 76 76 77 75 75
Choice not liked phi -.417** .285* .325** .119 .320** -.359**
p .001 .013 .004 .303 .005 .002
N 63 76 76 77 75 75
Unsure benefit phi .026 -.024 -.003
p .797 .801 .974
N 100 114 114
Yes benefit phi -.234* .139 .369**
p .021 .149 .000
N 97 109 109
No benefit phi .087 -.055 -.248**
p .397 .568 .009
N 97 109 109
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, all significances two-tailed.
Appendix C: Study 1; Extra Information IX
Table 13: Relationship between attitude components for American respondents.
Complained? Benefit
Yes No, but No Yes Unsure No
Liking depends
phi .051 -.063 .113 .193* .136 -.249**
p .617 .489 .216 .034 .143 .007
N 99 121 121 121 118 118
Like choice phi -.333**
.303** -.031 .049 .061 -.082
p .002 .001 .747 .612 .537 .406
N 87 108 108 108 106 106
Too much choice
phi .209 -.138 -.188 -.244* -.149 .299**
p .053 .153 .052 .011 .129 .002
N 87 108 108 108 106 106
Amount of choice disliked
phi .073 -.101 .289** .147 .033 -.138
p .503 .298 .002 .129 .738 .159
N 87 108 108 108 106 106
Unsure benefit
phi -.025 -.008 .148
p .805 .933 .106
N 99 121 121
Yes benefit phi -.041 .010 .130
p .689 .916 .162
N 98 118 118
No benefit phi .048 .002 -.226*
p .639 .984 .014
N 98 118 118
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, all significances two-tailed.
Appendix D: Study 2; Questionnaire American Respondents X
Appendix D: Study 2; Questionnaire American Respondents
Please remember the last time that you were in a store choosing between two or more varieties of the same product (for example between different shirts, snacks or different brands of detergent). Answer the following questions about this experience. What did you want to buy?
How long ago did this happen?
This week
Last week
Last month
This winter
In the past year
More than a year ago I am satisfied with the choice I made.
Completely Agree
Mostly Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Completely Disagree Which of the following did you consider?
not buying the product
postponing the decision
none of the above How many alternatives did the store(s) offer? (please respond with a concrete number)
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
Appendix D: Study 2; Questionnaire American Respondents XI
Completely Agree
Mostly Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Completely Disagree How many alternatives did you consider? (again, please respond with a concrete number)
Making the decision was...
Very easy
Rather easy
Neither easy nor difficult
Rather difficult
Very difficult For this product it is important to choose the right one.
Completely Agree
Mostly Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Completely Disagree I knew a lot about the product.
Completely Agree
Mostly Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Completely Disagree
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents XII
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
ImaginePlease remember the last time that you were in a store choosing between two or more varieties of the same product (for
example between different shirts, snacks or different brands of detergent). Answer the following questions about this
experience.
What did you want to buy?
Was there a special reason why you had to choose which alternative to purchase?
Please indicate your agreement with each of these statements.
Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
I considered not buying the product.
I would buy the product again.
I was positively surprised by the product.
I considered postponing the decision.
I am satisfied with the choice I made.
How long ago did this happen?
Did you buy the product?
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents XIII
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
Did you compare products from different stores?
Yes No
In how many stores did you look at the assortment for this product while choosing?
How many alternatives did the store(s) offer?
How different were the offered alternatives from each other?
Not at all Very little Somewhat Rather Extremely
Please rank what differences there were between the offered alternatives (1=here products differ most; 6=on this the alternatives differ least).
Functionalty/design/taste Product quality Package size
Product price Brand Company image
The following questions are about all the products the store offered in this product category.
Please indicate your agreement with each statement
Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
All alternatives were placed together.
The store(s) offered more variety than I expected.
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
It was easy to find the products in the store(s).
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents XIV
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
Decision Feelings
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the followng statements.
Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
I wasted time choosing between the alternatives.
Making the decisions was stressful.
I feel satisfied with my decision process.
I felt overwhelmed by the amount of products
available.
Choosing between the alternatives was frustrating.
Making the decision was ...
Very easy Rather easyNeither easy nor
difficultRather difficult Very difficult
How much time did you take for this decision?
Less than 5 minutesBetween 5 and 10
minutes
Between 10 and 30
minutes
More than half an
hour
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
Post-Purchase Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
The amount of alternatives available increased my
expectations.
I have regretted I bought this alternative.
After deciding, I still looked at new alternatives.
Because I chose I am responsible for my
satisfaction with this product.
After purchasing, I thought of alternatives that I
could have bought instead.
Involvement
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement.
Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
This product influences how others see you.
For this product it is difficult to choose the right
one.
For this product it is important to choose the right
one.
I can't say I particularly like this product.
The product is very important to me.
The product was related to one of my
interests/hobbies.
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents XV
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
Purchase
Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements.
Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
I believe I am capable of making great decisions.
I had not bought such a product before.
I had previously used some of the alternatives.
Special offers influenced my choice.
I planned to buy this product.
The product I wanted was not there.
I made more effort than others to choose the best
alternative available.
I closely examined and compared the alternatives.
I took more time than most others to make this
decision.
There were multiple alternatives that I liked.
The available variety changed my original choice.
I made the decision based on one simple criteria
(such as price, quality, familiarity, brand etc)
I knew a lot about the product.
Once I found the product I looked for I bought it.
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the followng statements.
Completely
Agree
Mostly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Mostly
Disagree
Completely
Disagree
For basic products (such as milk, flour, sugar and
water) no product brand variation is needed.
The products I buy have a large influence on my
life.
Having more choices increases my personal
freedom.
Product choices enable me to show who I am.
Having more choices increases my happiness.
Having more choices enables me to do better.
Being able to choose from multiple alternatives
increases my control over my life.
Having more options makes my decisions better.
Over the past years more product alternatives
have become available to me.
I like making choices.
Culture
Appendix E: Study 2; Questionnaire Dutch Respondents XVI
Retail Consumption Choice - Version 1
General QuestionsWhat is your gender?
Male Female
How old are you?
Please select what country you are from.
the Netherlands Germany Spain Other
If your country was not in the list, please indicate what country you live in.
In what kind of area do you live?
Rural area, village or
small town (<20.000)
Small city
(20.000-100.000)
City
(100.000-500.000)
Large city (over
500.000)
How experienced a shopper are you?
Not at all A little Somewhat Rather Very Extremely
How often do you have difficulty deciding between alternatives?
Never Hardly ever Sometimes Regularly Often Almost always
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XVII
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison
Table 14: Recalled product type by nationality.
Product Type
FMCG-Food Apparel Electronics Other Total
USA 70 (39.1%) 40 (22.3%) 18 (10.1%) 51 (28.5%) 179 (100%)
NL 73 (39.0%) 48 (25.7%) 26(13.9%) 40 (21.4%) 187 (100%)
Total 143 (39.1%) 88 (24.0%) 44 (12.0%) 91 (24.9%) 366 (100%)
Table 15: Recalled product type by gender.
Product Type
FMCG-Food Apparel Electronics Other Total
Women 79 (43.9%) 43 (23.9%) 7 (3.9%) 51 (28.3%) 180 (100%)
Men 64 (34.4%) 45 (24.2%) 37 (19.9%) 40 (21.5%) 186 (100%)
Total 143 (39.1%) 88 (24.0%) 44 (12.0%) 91 (24.9%) 366 (100%)
Table 16: Age of the memory by product type.
Age of the memory
This week Last week This month Older Total
Prod
uct t
ype
FMCG-Food 99 (68.8%) 34 (23.6%) 11 (7.6%) 0 (0%) 144 (100%)
Fashion 37 (42.0%) 20 (22.7%) 24 (27.3%) 7 (8.0%) 88 (100%)
Electronics 12 (27.3%) 8 (18.2%) 15 (34.1%) 9 (20.5%) 44 (100%)
Other 38 (41.3%) 32 (34.8%) 14 (15.2%) 8 (8.7%) 92 (100%)
Total 186 (50.5%) 94 (25.5%) 64 (17.4%) 24 (6.5%) 368 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XVIII
Table 17: Age of the memory and decision difficulty for Dutch.
Ease
Very easy Rather easy Neither Difficult Total
Age
of
the
mem
ory
This week 7 (9.7%) 37 (51.4%) 13 (18.1%) 15 (20.8%) 72 (100%)
Last week 6 (10.7%) 28 (50.0%) 15 (26.8%) 7 (12.5%) 56 (100%)
Last month 0 (0%) 19 (43.2%) 18 (40.9%) 7 (15.9%) 44 (100%)
Longer ago 0 (0%) 8 (42.1%) 4 (21.1%) 7 (36.8%) 19 (100%)
Total 13 (6.8%) 92 (48.2%) 50 (26.2%) 36 (18.8%) 191 (100%)
Table 18: Importance to choose right by nationality.
USA NL Total
For
this
pro
duct
it is
im
port
ant t
o ch
oose
rig
ht. Completely Agree 76 (41.5%) 42 (22.5%) 118 (31.9%)
Mostly Agree 71 (38.8%) 60 (32.1%) 131 (35.4%)
Slightly Agree 26 (14.2%) 30 (16.0%) 56 (15.1%)
Slightly Disagree 9 (4.9%) 17 (9.1%) 26 (7.0%)
Mostly Disagree 0 (0%) 20 (10.7%) 20 (5.4%)
Completely Disagree
1 (.5%) 18 (9.6%) 19 (5.1%)
Total 183 (100%) 187 (100%) 370 (100%)
Table 19: Importance to choose right by product type.
Importance
Total
Very Rather Neither Not
Prod
uct t
ype
FMCG-Food
27 (18.9%) 47 (32.9%) 26 (18.2%) 43 (30.1%) 143 (100%)
Fashion 31 (35.2%) 35 (39.8%) 12 (13.6%) 10 (11.4%) 88 (100%)
Electronics 21 (47.7%) 16 (36.4%) 4 (9.1%) 3 (6.8%) 44 (100%)
Other 37 (40.7%) 32 (35.2%) 13 (14.3%) 9 (9.9%) 91 (100%)
Total 116 (31.7%) 130 (35.5%) 55 (15.0%) 65 (17.8%) 366 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XIX
Table 20: Product knowledge and nationality.
USA NL Total
I kn
ew a
lot a
bout
the
prod
uct.
Completely Agree 63 (50.4%) 23 (12.3%) 86 (27.6%)
Mostly Agree 37 (29.6%) 41 (21.9%) 78 (25.0%)
Slightly Agree 21 (16.8%) 47 (25.1%) 68 (21.8%)
Slightly Disagree 4 (3.2%) 40 (21.4%) 44 (14.1%)
Mostly Disagree 0 (0%) 26 (13.9%) 26 (8.3%)
Completely Disagree 0 (0%) 10 (5.3%) 10 (3.2%)
Total 125 (100%) 125 (100%) 187 (100%)
Table 21: Product knowledge and importance.
I knew a lot about the product.
Completely agree
Rather agree
Slightly agree
Slightly disagree
Disagree Total
For
this
pro
duct
it is
impo
rtan
t to
choo
se r
ight
.
Completely agree
45 17 16 7 4 89
(50.6%) (19.1%) (18.0%) (7.9%) (4.5%) (100%)
Rather agree 27 43 23 12 10 115
(23.5%) (37.4%) (20.0%) (10.4%) (8.7%) (100%)
Slightly agree 7 11 16 10 3 47
(14.9%) (23.4%) (34.0%) (21.3%) (6.4%) (100%)
Slightly disagree
1 3 9 7 4 24
(4.2%) (12.5%) (37.5%) (29.2%) (16.7%) (100%)
Disagree 6 2 6 9 16 39
(15.4%) (5.1%) (15.4%) (23.1%) (41.0%) (100%)
Total 86 76 70 45 37 314
(27.4%) (24.2%) (22.3%) (14.3%) (11.8%) (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XX
Table 22: Assortment evaluation and nationality.
American Dutch Total
I w
as s
atis
fied
wit
h th
e of
fere
d am
ount
of
cho
ice.
Completely Agree 66 (52.8%) 53 (28.8%) 119 (38.5%)
Mostly Agree 39 (31.2%) 34 (18.5%) 111 (35.9%)
Slightly Agree 10 (8%) 34 (18.5%) 44 (14.2%)
Slightly Disagree to Completely Disagree
8 (8%) 25 (13.6%) 35 (10.3%)
Total 125 (100%) 184(100%) 309 (100%)
Table 23: Assortment evaluation and satisfaction with choice.
Satisfaction with choice
Total
Completely Mostly Less positive
Eva
luat
ion
asso
rtm
ent
Completely satisfied 81 (48.5%) 30 (27.5%) 8(25.0%) 119 (38.6%)
Mostly satisfied 56 (33.5%) 47 (43.1%) 8 (25.0%) 111 (36.0%)
Slightly satisfied 15 (9.0%) 20 (18.3%) 9 (28.1%) 44 (14.3%)
Not satisfied 15 (9.0) 12 (11.0%) 7 (21.9%) 34 (11.0%)
Total 167 (100%) 109 (100%) 32 (100%) 308 (100%)
Table 24: Assortment evaluation and satisfaction with choice by nationality.
Satisfaction with choice
Completely Mostly Less positive Total
USA
Eva
luat
ion Very positive 54 (72.0%) 10 (27.8%) 2 (14.3%) 66 (52.8%)
Rather positive 14 (18.7%) 21 (58.3%) 4 (28.6%) 39 (31.2%)
Worse 7 (9.3%) 5 (13.9%) 8 (57.1%) 20 (16.0%)
Total 75 (100%) 36 (100%) 14 (100%) 125 (100%)
NL
Eva
luat
ion Very positive 27 (29.3%) 20 (27.4%) 6 (33.3%) 53 (29.0%)
Rather positive 42 (45.7%) 26 (35.6%) 4 (22.2%) 72 (39.3%)
Worse 23 (25.0%) 27 (37.0%) 8 (44.4%) 58 (31.7%)
Total 92 (100%) 73 (100%) 18 (100%) 183 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXI
Table 25: Assortment evaluation and knowledge.
Assortment Evaluation
Very good Rather good Worse Total I
knew
a lo
t abo
ut th
e pr
oduc
t. Completely Agree 36 (61.0%) 14 (23.7%) 9 (15.3%) 59 (100%)
Mostly Agree 20 (33.3%) 21 (35.0%) 19 (31.7%) 60 (100%)
Slightly Agree 14 (25.0%) 23 (41.1%) 19 (33.9%) 56 (100%)
Slightly Disagree 10 (23.3%) 19 (44.2%) 14 (32.6%) 43 (100%)
Mostly Disagree 8 (32.0%) 10 (40.0%) 7 (28.0%) 25 (100%)
Completely Disagree 4 (36.4%) 4 (36.4%) 3 (27.3%) 11 (100%)
Total
92 (36.2%) 91 (35.8%) 71 (28.0%) 254 (100%)
Table 26: Assortment evaluation and product knowledge by nationality.
Assortment evaluation
Very positive
Rather positive
Less positive Total
USA
‘I k
new
a lo
t ab
out t
he
prod
uct’
Completely agree
27 (73.0%) 6 (16.2%) 2 (5.4%) 37 (100%)
Mostly agree 6 (31.6%) 7 (36.8%) 5 (26.3%) 19 (100%)
Less agreement 2 (15.4%) 4 (30.8%) 6 (46.2%) 13 (100%)
Total 35 (52.2%) 18 (26.9%) 14 (20.9%) 67 (100%)
NL
‘I k
new
a lo
t abo
ut th
e pr
oduc
t’
Completely agree
9 (37.5%) 8 (33.3%) 7 (29.2%) 24 (100%)
Mostly agree 12 (29.3%) 14 (34.1%) 15 (36.6%) 41 (100%)
Slightly agree 12 (25.5%) 18 (38.3%) 17 (36.2%) 47 (100%)
Slightly disagree
10 (25.6%) 19 (48.7%) 10 (25.6%) 39 (100%)
Disagree 12 (33.3%) 14 (38.9%) 10 (27.8%) 36 (100%)
Total 55 (29.4%) 73 (39.0%) 59 (31.6%) 187 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXII
Table 27: Assortment evaluation and decision importance.
Assortment evaluation
Very positive
Rather positive
worse Total
For
this
pro
duct
it is
im
port
ant t
o ch
oose
the
righ
t on
e.
Completely Agree 52 (54.7%) 25 (26.3%) 18 (18.9%) 95 (100%)
Mostly Agree 32 (30.5%) 41 (39.0%) 32 (30.5%) 105 (100%)
Slightly Agree 18 (36.0%) 20 (40.0%) 12 (24.0%) 50 (100%)
Slightly Disagree 4 (17.4%) 10 (43.5%) 9 (39.1%) 23 (100%)
Mostly Disagree 5 (25.0%) 11 (55.0%) 4 (20.0%) 20 (100%)
Completely Disagree
9 (50.0%) 5 (27.8%) 4 (22.2%) 18 (100%)
Total 120 (38.6%) 112 (36.0%) 79 (25.4%) 311 (100%)
Table 28: Assortment evaluation and decision importance by nationality.
Assortment evaluation
Very positive
Rather positive
Less positive Total
USA
‘For
this
pro
duct
it
is im
port
ant t
o ch
oose
the
righ
t on
e.’
Completely agree
37 (67.3%) 14 (25.5%) 4 (7.3%) 55 (100%)
Mostly agree 19 (43.2%) 18 (40.9%) 7 (15.9%) 44 (100%)
Slightly agree and less
10 (38.5%) 7 (26.9%) 9 (34.6%) 26 (100%)
Total 66 (52.8%) 39 (31.2%) 20 (16.0%) 125 (100%)
NL
‘For
this
pro
duct
it
is im
port
ant t
o ch
oose
the
righ
t on
e.’
Completely agree
15 (37.5%) 11 (27.5%) 14 (35.0%) 40 (100%)
Mostly agree 13 (21.3%) 23 (37.7%) 25 (41.0%) 61 (100%)
Slightly agree 11 (35.5%) 15 (48.4%) 5 (16.1%) 31 (100%)
Disagree 15 (27.8%) 24 (44.4%) 15 (27.8%) 54 (100%)
Total 54 (29.0%) 73 (39.2%) 59 (31.7%) 186 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXIII
Table 29: Decision ease and remembered assortment size.
(I) Ease** (J) Ease** Mean Difference (I-J) SE p
1 2 -,960* ,452 ,035
3 -1,902* ,525 ,000
4 -1,328* ,568 ,020
2 1 ,960* ,452 ,035
3 -,942* ,433 ,030
4 -,368 ,483 ,447
3 1 1,902* ,525 ,000
2 ,942* ,433 ,030
4 ,574 ,552 ,299
4 1 1,328* ,568 ,020
2 ,368 ,483 ,447
3 -,574 ,552 ,299 Notes: * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
** Making the decision was very easy (1), rather easy (2), neither easy nor difficult (3), difficult (4).
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXIV
Table 30: Decision ease and choice set size for Americans.
(I) EASE** (J) EASE** Mean Difference (I-J) SE p
1 2 -,624 ,340 ,068
3 -1,519* ,444 ,001
4 -1,299* ,461 ,005
2 1 ,624 ,340 ,068
3 -,895* ,420 ,035
4 -,675 ,438 ,125
3 1 1,519* ,444 ,001
2 ,895* ,420 ,035
4 ,220 ,523 ,675
4 1 1,299* ,461 ,005
2 ,675 ,438 ,125
3 -,220 ,523 ,675
Notes: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
**Making the decision was very easy (1), rather easy (2), neither easy nor
difficult (3), difficult (4).
Table 31: Decision importance and decision ease.
Decision ease
Total Very easy Rather easy Neither Difficult
‘For
this
pro
duct
it is
im
port
ant t
o ch
oose
th
e ri
ght o
ne.’
Very 37 (55%) 36 (21%) 22 (28%) 24 (39%) 119 (32%)
Rather 16 (24%) 70 (42%) 24 (31%) 22 (36%) 132 (35%)
Neither 8 (12%) 27 (16%) 11 (14%) 11 (18%) 57 (15%)
Not 6 (9%) 35 (21%) 21 (27%) 4 (7%) 66 (18%)
Total 67 (100%) 168 (100%) 78 (100%) 61 (100%) 374 (1005)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXV
Table 32: Product knowledge and decision ease.
Decision ease
Total Very easy Rather easy Neither Difficult
I kn
ew a
lot a
bout
the
prod
uct.
Completely agree 28 29 10 19 86
Mostly agree 10 41 16 11 78
Slightly agree 4 40 19 6 69
Slightly disagree 3 19 14 9 45
Mostly disagree 3 12 8 4 27
Completely disagree 1 2 3 5 11
Total 49 143 70 54 316
Table 33: Decision ease by nationality.
USA NL Total
Ease Very easy 54 (29.5%) 13 (6.9%) 67 (18.0%)
Rather easy 76 (41.5%) 91 (48.1%) 167 (44.9%)
Neither 28 (15.3%) 49 (25.9%) 77 (20.7%)
Difficult 25 (13.7%) 36 (19.0%) 61 (16.4%)
Total 183 (100%) 189 (100%) 372 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXVI
Table 34: Satisfaction with the made choice and decision ease by nationality.
Ease
Total Very easy
Rather easy Neither Difficult
USA
Sati
sfac
tion
w
ith
choi
ce Very 44 48 12 6 110
Rather 9 22 10 12 53
Not so much 1 6 6 7 20
Total 54 76 28 25 183
NL
Satis
fact
ion
wit
h ch
oice
Very 7 53 18 16 94
Rather 5 32 22 16 75
Not so much 1 7 10 3 21
Total 13 92 50 35 190
Table 35: Satisfaction with the made choice and considering purchase deferral by nationality.
Considered not buying
Total No Yes
USA Satisfaction Very 91 (61.9%) 19 (52.8%) 110 (60.1%)
Rather 43 (29.3%) 10 (27.8%) 53 (29.0%)
Not so much 13 (8.8%) 7 (19.4%) 20 (10.9%)
Total 147 (100%) 36 (100%) 183 (100%)
NL Satisfaction Very 64 (59.3%) 29 (38.2%) 93 (50.5%)
Rather 38 (35.2%) 34 (44.7%) 72 (39.1%)
Not so much 6 (5.6%) 13 (17.1%) 19 (10.3%)
Total 108 (100%) 76 (100%) 184 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXVII
Table 36: Satisfaction with the made choice and considering postponing the decision by nationality.
Considered Postponing
Total No Yes
USA Satisfaction Very 86 (63.2%) 24 (51.1%) 110 (60.1%)
Rather 38 (27.9%) 15 (31.9%) 53 (29.0%)
Not so much 12 (8.8%) 8 (17.0%) 20 (10.9%)
Total 136 (100%) 47 (100%) 183 (100%)
NL Satisfaction Very 74 (56.5%) 18 (34.0%) 92 (50.0%)
Rather 44 (33.6%) 28 (52.8%) 72 (39.1%)
Not so much 13 (9.9%) 7 (13.2%) 20 (10.9%)
Total 131 (100%) 53 (100%) 184 (100%)
Table 37: Satisfaction with choice and product knowledge.
Satisfaction
Total Very Rather Less
I kn
ew a
lot a
bout
the
prod
uct.
Completely agree 68 (79.1%) 13 (15.1%) 5 (5.8%) 86 (100%)
Mostly agree 45 (57.7%) 27 (34.6%) 6 (7.7%) 78 (100%)
Slightly agree 27 (39.7%) 30 (44.1%) 11 (16.2%) 68 (100%)
Slightly disagree 17 (38.6%) 22 (50.0%) 5 (11.4%) 44 (100%)
Disagree 15 (40.5%) 14 (37.8%) 8 (21.6%) 37 (100%)
Total 172 (55.0%) 106 (33.9%) 35 (11.2%) 313 (100%)
Appendix F: Study 2; Extra Information Cross-Cultural Comparison XXVIII
Table 38: Satisfaction with choice and choice importance by nationality.
Satisfaction
Very Rather Less Total
USA
Impo
rtan
ce Very 56 (73.7%) 13 (17.1%) 7 (9.2%) 76 (100%)
Rather 40 (56.3%) 23 (32.4%) 8 (11.3%) 71 (100%)
Less 14 (38.9%) 17 (47.2%) 5 (13.9%) 36 (100%)
Total 110 (60.1%) 53 (29.0%) 20 (10.9%) 183 (100%)
NL
Impo
rtan
ce Very 26 (61.9%) 12 (28.6%) 4 (9.5%) 42 (100%)
Rather 31 (52.5%) 23 (39.0%) 5 (8.5%) 59 (100%)
Less 36 (42.4%) 37 (43.5%) 12 (14.1%) 85 (100%)
Total 93 (50.0%) 72 (38.7%) 21 (11.3%) 186 (100%)
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXIX
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents
Table 39: Ability to express identity by acceptance little variety basic goods.
For basic products (such as milk, flour, sugar and water) no product
brand variation is needed.
Total Agree Disagree
Prod
uct c
hoic
es e
nabl
e m
e to
sho
w w
ho I
am
.
Completely agree 8 (10.0%) 4 (5.1%) 12 (7.5%)
Mostly agree 14 (17.5%) 14 (17.7%) 28 (17.6%)
Slightly agree 23 (28.8%) 33 (41.8%) 56 (35.2%)
Slightly disagree 19 (23.8%) 8 (10.1%) 27 (17.0%)
Mostly disagree 11 (13.8%) 8 (10.1%) 19 (11.9%)
Completely disagree 5 (6.3%) 12 (15.2%) 17 (10.7%)
Total 80 (100%) 79 (100%) 159 (100%)
Table 40: Choice identity and self-expression.
The products I buy have a large influence on my life.
Total
Completely Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Mostly Disagree
Prod
uct c
hoic
es e
nabl
e m
e to
sho
w w
ho I
am
. Completely agree
14 (42.4%) 15 (32.6%) 5 (13.2%) 6 (14.3%) 40 (25.2%)
Slightly agree
12 (36.4%) 17 (37.0%) 15 (39.5%) 11 (26.2%) 55 (34.6%)
Slightly disagree
5 (15.2%) 6 (13.0%) 9 (23.7%) 8 (19.0%) 28 (17.6%)
Mostly disagree
2 (6.1%) 8 (17.4%) 9 (23.7%) 17 (40.5%) 36 (22.6%)
Total 33 (100%) 46 (100%) 38 (100%) 42 (100%) 159 (100%)
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXX
Table 41: Benefits associated to choice by gender.
Like choosing
Increases freedom
Increases decision quality
Enables doing better
Increases control
Increases happiness
men
Completely agree
15.6% 15.2% 17.9% 12.8% 12.7% 13.9%
Mostly agree 46.8% 38.0% 32.1% 38.5% 26.6% 27.8%
Slightly agree 20.8% 25.3% 21.8% 19.2% 30.4% 27.8%
Slightly disagree
11.7% 8.9% 17.9% 20.5% 13.9% 12.7%
Mostly disagree 2.6% 8.9% 7.7% 6.4% 7.6% 13.9%
Completely disagree
2.6% 3.8% 2.6% 2.6% 8.9% 3.8%
n 77 79 78 78 79 79
wom
en
Completely agree
11.4% 11.5% 5.1% 5.1% 3.8% 3.8%
Mostly agree 24.1% 24.4% 16.5% 16.5% 20.0% 15.0%
Slightly agree 26.6% 38.5% 26.6% 32.9% 32.5% 33.8%
Slightly disagree
16.5% 16.7% 27.8% 31.6% 21.3% 22.5%
Mostly disagree 11.4% 1.3% 16.5% 10.1% 17.5% 15.0%
Completely disagree
10.1% 7.7% 7.6% 3.8% 5.0% 10.0%
n 79 78 79 79 80 80
stat
isti
cs df 5 5 5 5 5 5
N 156 157 157 157 159 159 χ2 15.1 12.2 16.1 15.1 9.8 12.6 p .010 .032 .007 .010 .080 .027
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXXI
Table 42: Assortment evaluation and appropriateness categorization.
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
Total
Completely agree Slightly agree
Mostly disagree
All
alte
rnat
ives
w
ere
plac
ed
toge
ther
. Completely agree 56 (74.7%) 10 (13.3%) 9 (12.0%) 75 (100%)
Mostly agree 26 (65.0%) 13 (32.5%) 1 (2.5%) 40 (100%)
Slightly agree 13 (68.4%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 19 (100%)
Mostly disagree 8 (50.0%) 1 (6.3%) 7 (43.8%) 16 (100%)
Total 103 (68.7%) 27 (18.0%) 20 (13.3%) 150 (100%)
Table 43: Assortment evaluation and exceeding variety expectations.
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
Total
Completely agree
Slightly agree
Mostly disagree
The
sto
re(s
) of
fere
d m
ore
vari
ety
than
I
expe
cted
.
Completely agree 26 (81.3%) 4 (12.5%) 2 (6.3%) 32 (100%)
Mostly agree 26 (78.8%) 5 (15.2%) 2 (6.1%) 33 (100%)
Slightly agree 27 (75.0%) 8 (22.2%) 1 (2.8%) 36 (100%)
Slightly disagree 12 (46.2%) 9 (34.6%) 5 (19.2%) 26 (100%)
Mostly disagree 13 (50.0%) 2 (7.7%) 11 (42.3%) 26 (100%)
Total 104 (68.0%) 28 (18.3%) 21 (13.7%) 153 (100%)
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXXII
Table 44: Assortment evaluation and product availability.
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
Total
Completely agree
Slightly agree
Mostly disagree
The
pro
duct
I
wan
ted
was
not
th
ere.
Mostly agree 6 (37.5%) 7 (43.8%) 3 (18.8%) 16 (100%)
Slightly disagree 27 (61.4%) 5 (11.4%) 12 (27.3%) 44 (100%)
Completely disagree 72 (76.6%) 16 (17.0%) 6 (6.4%) 94 (100%)
Total 105 (68.2%) 28 (18.2%) 21 (13.6%) 154 (100%)
Table 45: Assortment evaluation and special offers.
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
Total
Completely Agree
Slightly Agree
Mostly Disagree
Spec
ial o
ffer
s in
flue
nced
my
choi
ce. Completely agree 17 (70.8%) 5 (20.8%) 2 (8.3%) 24 (100%)
Mostly agree 25 (92.6%) 2 (7.4%) 0 (0%) 27 (100%)
Slightly agree 16 (66.7%) 5 (20.8%) 3 (12.5%) 24 (100%)
Slightly disagree 15 (55.6%) 9 (33.3%) 3 (11.1%) 27 (100%)
Completely disagree 31 (64.6%) 4 (8.3%) 13 (27.1%) 48 (100%)
Total 104 (69.3%) 25 (16.7%) 21 (14.0%) 150 (100%)
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXXIII
Table 46: Assortment evaluation and increased expectations.
I was satisfied with the offered amount of choice.
Total
Completely Agree
Slightly Agree
Mostly Disagree
The
am
ount
of
alte
rnat
ives
av
aila
ble
incr
ease
d m
y ex
pect
atio
ns. Completely agree 39 (76.5%) 9 (17.6%) 3 (5.9%) 51 (100%)
Slightly disagree 25 (80.6%) 5 (16.1%) 1 (3.2%) 31 (100%)
Mostly disagree 20 (52.6%) 8 (21.1%) 10 (26.3%) 38 (100%)
Completely disagree
20 (62.5%) 5 (15.6%) 7 (21.9%) 32 (100%)
Total 104 (68.4%) 27 (17.8%) 21 (13.8%) 152 (100%)
Table 47: Difficulties deciding and self-efficacy.
I believe I am capable of making great decisions.
Total
Completely agree Mostly agree Slightly agree
How
oft
en d
o yo
u ha
ve d
iffi
culty
de
cidi
ng b
etw
een
alte
rnat
ives
?
Never 15 (39.5%) 18 (47.4%) 5 (13.2%) 38 (100%)
Sometimes 28 (43.1%) 25 (38.5%) 12 (18.5%) 65 (100%)
Regularly 7 (19.4%) 15 (41.7%) 14 (38.9%) 36 (100%)
Often 2 (14.3%) 7 (50.0%) 5 (35.7%) 14 (100%)
Total 52 (34.0%) 65 (42.5%) 36 (23.5%) 153 (100%)
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXXIV
Table 48: Drawbacks to deciding factor loadings per gender.
All Men Women
Eigenvalue 2.250 2.224 2.259
Choosing between the alternatives was frustrating. .828 .843 .806
Making the decisions was stressful. .792 .818 .765
I felt overwhelmed by the amount of products available. .651 .666 .644
I wasted time choosing between the alternatives. .717 .634 .780
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 49: Decision difficulty and process satisfaction.
I feel satisfied with my decision process.
Total
Completely Agree Mostly Agree Slightly Agree
Mak
ing
the
deci
sion
was
...
Very easy 8 (72.7%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (9.1%) 11 (100%)
Rather easy 31 (40.8%) 36 (47.4%) 9 (11.8%) 76 (100%)
Less easy 19 (26.8%) 36 (50.7%) 16 (22.5%) 71 (100%)
Total 58 (36.7%) 74 (46.8%) 26 (16.5%) 158 (100%)
Table 50: Satisfaction made choice and positive surprise.
I am satisfied with the choice I made.
Total Completely
Agree Mostly Agree
Mostly Disagree
I w
as p
ositi
vely
su
rpri
sed
by th
e pr
oduc
t.
Completely Agree 23 (92.0%) 2 (8.0%) 0 (0%) 25 (100%)
Mostly Agree 26 (51.0%) 24 (47.1%) 1 (2.0%) 51 (100%)
Slightly Agree 21 (42.0%) 22 (44.0%) 7 (14.0%) 50 (100%)
Mostly Disagree 8 (26.7%) 14 (46.7%) 8 (26.7%) 30 (100%)
Total 78 (50.0%) 62 (39.7%) 16 (10.3%) 156 (100%)
Appendix G: Study 2; Extra Information Analysis Dutch Respondents XXXV
Table 51: Positive surprise and increased expectations.
The amount of alternatives available increased my expectations.
Total
Completely agree
Slightly agree
Slightly disagree
Mostly disagree
Completely disagree
I w
as p
ositi
vely
sur
pris
ed
by th
e pr
oduc
t. Completely agree
10 (40.0%)
0 (0%)
4 (16.0%)
5 (20.0%)
6 (24.0%)
25 (100%)
Mostly agree
6 (12.2%)
7 (14.3%)
12 (24.5%)
14 (28.6%)
10 (20.4%)
49 (100%)
Slightly agree
6 (12.0%)
13 (26.0%)
12 (24.0%)
13 (26.0%)
6 (12.0%)
50 (100%)
Mostly disagree
6 (20.0%)
2 (6.7%)
4 (13.3%)
8 (26.7%)
10 (33.3%)
30 (100%)
Total 28 (18.2%)
22 (14.3%)
32 (20.8%)
40 (26.0%)
32 (20.8%)
154 (100%)
Personal Affirmation in Lieu of Oath
„I hereby confirm that this master thesis was independently authored by myself,
using solely the referred sources and support. I additionally assert that this thesis
has not been part of another examination process and that it has not yet been
published in any kind.”
León, May 24th 2012
Iris van Hees