The joint effects of choice assortment and regulatory focus on choice behavior

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Past research presents contrasting views regarding the effect of assortment size on consumer decision making. Research has suggested that large assortments provide a diverse range of choices to consumers and thus increase their choice confidence levels and likelihood of making choices. Other research, however, has suggested that large assortments may have a negative impact on consumers' choice confidence and choice likelihoods because of cognitive load and anticipatory post-purchase regret. The current research aims to address these contrasting conclusions by examining the issue from the motivational goal perspective. Specifically, it is demonstrated that when consumers' regulatory orientations are promotion-focused, an increase in size of an alignable (non-alignable) assortment has a positive (negative) impact on their choice confidence levels and choice likelihood. In contrast, when consumers' regulatory orientations are prevention-focused, an increase in assortment size can have positive impacts on choice confidence levels and choice likelihood irrespective of whether the assortment is alignable or non-alignable. The findings are demonstrated in an experimental setting using a 2 (Consumer's self-regulatory focus: Promotion vs. Prevention) × 2 (Assortment type: Alignable vs. Non-alignable) × 4 (Size of assortment: 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 vs. 5) “between-subjects using an ANCOVA design” with “choice confidence” and “choice likelihood” being the dependent measures.

Highlights

► Regulatory focus interacts with assortment alignability and assortment size. ► Prevention focused consumers favor large non-alignable assortments. ► Prevention focused consumers favor large alignable assortments also. ► Promotion focused consumers do not favor large non alignable assortments. ► Promotion focused consumers favor large alignable assortments only.

Introduction

Recent studies (e.g., Gourville & Soman, 2005) have examined the role of alignability in choosing from assortments. An alignable assortment consists of options that vary along a single comparable dimension. In contrast, a non-alignable assortment consists of options that vary along non-comparable or unique dimensions. For example, a set of otherwise identical automobiles that vary in terms of engine size (“with one having a 2.2 liter engine, another having a 2.6 liter engine and a third having a 3.0 liter engine”) constitutes an alignable assortment, whereas a set of automobiles that vary in terms of non-comparable or distinct features (“such as one having a sun roof, the other having a leather interior and the third having an alarm system”) can be said to constitute a non-alignable assortment (Gourville & Soman, 2005, p. 383). Importantly, not considering price, making a choice from an alignable assortment requires tradeoffs within a single, comparable attribute. Choosing from a non-alignable assortment, on the contrary, requires a trade-off across multiple non-comparable attributes.

How does an increase in assortment size, whether alignable or non-alignable, affect consumer choice behavior? Extant literature suggests that there may be both positive and negative influences. Larger assortments generally provide greater diversity of choices and therefore have greater ability to satisfy consumers (Anderson, 2006). Accordingly, retailers who offer diverse choices are able to generate greater sales volumes compared to competitors who offer a narrower range of choices (Bown, Read, & Summer, 2003). Further, Berger, Draganska, and Simonson (2007) demonstrate that providing a high level of variety within a product category can lead to increased market share of a brand. There are other benefits of having many options to choose from. For instance, an assortment consisting of a range of options with unique characteristics enables consumers to engage in more direct comparisons, thus heightening their choice confidence (Hutchinson, 2005). Choosing from a wide range of choices also satiates the desire for novelty and reduces the level of choice uncertainty (Ariely & Levav, 2000).

Gourville and Soman (2005) suggest that consumers experience higher cognitive load and higher anticipatory post-purchase regret if the assortment from which they need to make a choice is non-alignable (vs. alignable). Specifically, for a given assortment size, more mental steps are needed to solve a choice conflict in a non-alignable assortment [e.g., “Do I value a sunroof or a leather interior or an alarm system?” (Gourville & Soman, 2005, p. 389)] than in an alignable assortment (e.g., “Do I need an engine with a higher or lower mileage?” (Gourville & Soman, 2005, p. 389)). As assortments become bigger, the difference in choice effort between a non-alignable and an alignable assortment increases. In addition, unlike choosing from an alignable assortment, choosing from a non-alignable assortment requires a consumer to forgo one attribute and select another. Thus, for a given assortment size, a non-alignable assortment, compared to an alignable assortment, produces significantly greater anticipatory post-purchase regret for consumers. As the non-alignable assortment becomes bigger, this regret is magnified. Thus, it has been suggested that an increase in the size of a non-alignable assortment negatively affects consumer purchase incidence, whereas an increase in the size of an alignable assortment positively affects consumer purchase incidence.

Given the divergent views in the literature on the effect of assortment size on consumer choice decisions, it is important to identify and understand the conditions under which the beneficial and adverse consequences from an increase in assortment size are likely to occur. The current research contributes to this effort by studying the influence of consumers' motivational orientations or goals on consumer choice behavior with increases in assortment size. Specifically, we propose that a consumer's regulatory focus (promotion or prevention) interacts with assortment alignability (alignable or non-alignable) to determine whether an assortment size increase would have a positive or negative impact on choice behavior. By doing so, our paper also extends Gourville and Soman's (2005) paper. While their article introduced assortment alignability as a moderator that influences the relationship between assortment size and consumer choice processes, the current research moves forward and examines consumers' regulatory focus as a moderator that affects the relationship between assortment alignability, assortment size and consumers' choice processes.

Section snippets

Literature review

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) suggests that when making a purchase decision, consumers may display one of two basic motivational orientations: a promotion-focused or a prevention-focused orientation. Individuals with a promotion-focused inclination are likely to focus on achievement and on maximizing their gains. In contrast, individuals with a prevention-focused inclination are likely to focus on safety and on minimizing losses. Furthermore, a focus on promotion makes the presence or

Alignable assortment, variation in assortment size and consumers' regulatory focus

Suppose an energy drink brand has five brand variants: E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5. The alignable features in an assortment of size two are as follows:

Non-alignable assortment, variation in assortment size and consumers' regulatory focus

Consider a non-alignable assortment of size two of an energy drink as depicted in Table 1c.

Method

We employed a 2 (Consumer's self-regulatory focus: Promotion vs. Prevention) × 2 (Assortment type: Alignable vs. Non-alignable) × 4 (Size of assortment: 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 vs. 5) between-subjects design. The participants were 275 undergraduates from an Asian business school.

Analysis of findings

There were 252 completed responses. To classify the participants as being promotion- or prevention-focused, we adopted a procedure that is similar to what has been used in past research (Zhao & Pechmann, 2007). Specifically, each participant's responses on the promotion and prevention measures (α = 0.83 for promotion-focus and 0.77 for prevention-focus) were averaged. A measure of dominant regulatory focus was then created by subtracting the prevention score from the promotion score.

General discussion

The current article makes a significant contribution to the literature on assortment size and consumer behavior. A comparison can be drawn between our paper and that of Gourville and Soman (2005) in which the main intention was to test the interaction effects of assortment size, assortment alignability and consumer post-purchase regret/cognitive load in making decisions on consumer choice likelihood. This article demonstrates that something other than regret and choice difficulty, specifically

Managerial implications and future research

Past research suggests that promotion-focus (prevention-focus) is generally nurtured in individualistic (collectivistic) countries (Aaker and Lee, 2001, Zhao and Pechmann, 2007). Our findings imply that it might be useful to tailor assortment types and sizes to different cultures and countries. Companies operating in a predominantly individualistic consumer culture might benefit more from highlighting alignable positive differences among products than from highlighting non-alignable positive

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editor, the area editor and the two reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. The authors also thank Professor Mark Spence for his helpful suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Amrit Kaur for her assistance with proofreading.

References (23)

  • J.L. Aaker et al.

    ‘I’ seek pleasures and ‘We’ avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (2001)
  • C. Anderson

    The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more

    (2006)
  • D. Ariely et al.

    Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (2000)
  • J. Berger et al.

    The influence of product variety on brand perception and choice

    Marketing Science

    (2007)
  • N.J. Bown et al.

    The lure of choice

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

    (2003)
  • A. Chernev

    Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice

    Journal of Consumer Psychology

    (2004)
  • A. Chernev

    Choosing versus rejecting: The impact of goal task compatibility on decision confidence

    Social Cognition

    (2009)
  • E. Crowe et al.

    Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision making

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1997)
  • R. Dhar et al.

    The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (1999)
  • G.J. Fitzsimons

    Death to dichotomizing

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (2008)
  • J.T. Gourville et al.

    Overchoice and assortment type: When and why variety backfires

    Marketing Science

    (2005)
  • Cited by (19)

    • Disentangling the respective impacts of assortment size and alignability on perceived assortment variety

      2021, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, alignable attributes such as fat content or packaging format are not considered. Moreover, assortment alignability has mainly been considered along a unique attribute, of being alignable or nonalignable (Gourville and Soman, 2005; Lee and Lee, 2016; Som and Lee, 2012), which limits ecological validity. On markets, assortments are neither purely alignable nor nonalignable (Griffin and Broniarczyk, 2010; Herrmann et al., 2009), but rather are a mix and vary along several attributes of any type, as can be observed in many product categories (Fasolo et al., 2009).

    • The interplay of brand-line assortment size and alignability in the sales of brand-lines and line-extensions of frequently purchased products

      2020, Journal of Business Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      This principle was challenged by Gourville and Soman (2005, p. 386) for nonalignable brand-lines: “when brand assortment is nonalignable, a brand’s market share will decrease with assortment size”. The strong positive main effect of line size explains our result, whereas it is not significant in Gourville and Soman (2005) and Som and Lee (2012). Our market-based results therefore confirm and complement studies that established the positive influence of category/line assortment size on sales, but which did not control for alignability (Borle et al., 2005; Kekre & Srinivasan, 1990; Reddy et al., 1994).

    • Shaping consumer preference using alignable attributes: The roles of regulatory orientation and construal level

      2019, International Journal of Research in Marketing
      Citation Excerpt :

      The effect of participants' regulatory orientations on their differential reliance on alignable versus nonalignable attributes can be accounted for by the differences in their ability and motivation to process information. For those with a prevention orientation who pursue their goals with vigilance and strive to guard against missteps (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Pham & Avnet, 2004; Som & Lee, 2012; Zhou & Pham, 2004), their tendency to set goals in terms of the minimal performance they aim to attain (Brendl & Higgins, 1996) renders the unambiguity of superiority and ease of justification afforded by alignable attributes an important consideration when evaluating competing options (Shafir et al., 1993). Further, their inclination to construe information at a concrete, low level highlights surface details (Arts et al., 2011; Lee, Fujita, Deng, & Unnava, 2017), which should prompt them to emphasize the easier-to-process alignable attributes that are readily comparable.

    • Consumer power and choice deferral: The role of anticipated regret

      2018, International Journal of Research in Marketing
    • The role of product newness in activating consumer regulatory goals

      2016, International Journal of Research in Marketing
    • Regulatory focus in economic contexts

      2013, Journal of Economic Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      As a consequence, individuals in a prevention focus are inclined to use less risky and more conservative tactics in pursuing a goal compared to individuals in a promotion focus, who tend to follow opportunities even at a high risk for mistakes. On a behavioral level, these motivational strategies can influence which type of alternatives individuals with different regulatory foci prefer or choose (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Florack & Hartmann, 2007; Florack & Scarabis, 2006; Florack, Scarabis, & Gosejohann, 2005; Higgins, 2002; Lee & Aaker, 2004; Roy & Ng, 2012; Som & Lee, 2012) or whether they stick with established and familiar options or choose new and unconventional alternatives (Herzenstein, Posavac, & Brakus, 2007; Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999; Shalvi et al., 2013). Returning to Sue and her goal to buy a new car, regulatory focus theory predicts that, if Sue were a predominantly prevention-focused buyer she would consider a car that offers high security standards more attractive than a car that has much horsepower.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research is based on a Master's degree dissertation at the NUS Business School, National University of Singapore.

    1

    Tel.: + 65 6516 3168, + 65 6516 3058.

    View full text