The effects of scope of attention of consumers, assortment structures and product involvement on location of product choices

(1)

1

The effects of scope of attention of consumers, assortment

structures and product involvement on location of product

choices

By

RICK BAKKER

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Marketing

February 2016

Abeelstraat 55

9741 ED Groningen

(06) 42511050

R.V.Bakker@student.rug.nl

Student number: 2010259

Supervisor: Sebastian Sadowski

(2)

2 Table of content Introduction p. 3 Theoretical framework p. 4 Assortment structures p. 4 Scope of attention p. 5 Interaction effect p. 6

Product involvement and interaction effects p. 7

Methods p. 8

Pre-test p. 8

Procedure p. 9

Results p. 11

Discussion p. 12

Limitations and future research p. 14

References p. 16

Appendices p. 20

Abstract

The increasing size of assortments has made it important for marketers to understand how consumers choose products from an assortment. The aim of this research was to investigate the interplay between assortment structures, scope of attention of consumers and product involvement on the location of products that consumers choose. An experiment was conducted and the results showed that there is no significant interplay between the proposed constructs. This study has suggested improvements for future research to investigate the proposed effects in a more controlled way.

Key words

(3)

3

Introduction

(4)

4 proposed constructs. Once the theoretical framework is introduced the methodology that is used to test the theoretical framework will be described. This article will conclude with a discussion of the findings and limitations of the study.

Theoretical framework

Assortment structures

(5)

5 more than products in the center of the assortment due to the sequential, instead of simultaneous, processing of the products in the assortment. This translates to the following hypothesis:

H1: Consumers will choose the central products more as compared to the edge products in an evidently equivalent assortment.

H2: Consumers will choose the edge products more as compared to the central products in a non-equivalent assortment.

Scope of attention

(6)

6 H3: Consumers with a narrow scope of attention will choose the products in the center more as

compared to the products on the edges in an assortment.

On the other hand, consumers with a broad scope of attention will process the assortment more broadly and will consider more options that could satisfy their needs. Also, research suggests that consumers with a broad scope of attention want more variety when choosing between safe alternatives (Kahn and Isen, 1993). Concluding: consumers with a broad scope of attention seek more variety, visually process more stimuli from their environment and consider more options which results in the fourth hypothesis:

H4: Consumers with a broad scope of attention will choose the products on the edges more as compared to the products in the centre of an assortment.

Interaction effect between scope of attention and assortment structure

As seen in the previous sections, the structure of an assortment and the scope of attention of consumers might influence the location of product choices that consumers make in assortments. In this study it is expected that there is an interaction effect between the scope of attention of consumers and the assortment structure from which they have to choose products. It is expected that the assortment structure will not influence the location of products that consumers with a narrow scope of attention choose. Consumers with a narrow scope of attention focus on the center of their environment and will choose the first option that fulfills their needs (Tyler & Tucker, 1982). This means that these consumers only focus on the center of both the assortment structures and will not engage in active sequential processing of the assortment but will choose the first option that fulfills their needs. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H5: Consumers with a narrow scope of attention will choose the central options more as compared to the edge options in the equivalent and non-equivalent assortments.

(7)

7 conceptual processing. Based on the research on the influence of assortment structures (Bar-Hillel, 2015) it is expected that consumers with a broad scope of attention will choose the central products more in the evidently equivalent assortment, due to the simultaneous processing of the products. In the non-equivalent assortment consumers with a broad scope of attention are more likely to process the product information sequentially and therefore it is expected that products on the edges of the assortment are more likely to be chosen.

H6: Consumers with a broad scope of attention will choose the central options more as compared to the edge options in the equivalent assortment and will choose the edge options more as compared to the central options in the non-equivalent assortment.

The moderating role of product involvement

As shown in the section of assortment types, the way consumers process product information influences their decisions regarding the location of products that they choose from complex

assortments. This leads to the belief that product involvement could moderate the influence of scope of attention and assortment structure of the location of product choice. Product involvement is defined as: “A person's perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and interests” (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Rickins and Bloch, 1986; Celsi and Olson, 1988). Consumers with high product involvement (vs low product involvement) perceive the product as highly relevant (vs little relevant) to them based on their needs, values and interests. The perceived relevance of products to consumers influences the way consumers process information regarding the products. Consumers who are highly involved with a product spend more time and energy when deciding which product to buy than consumers who have a low product involvement (Richins and Bloch, 1986; Schmidt and Spreng, 1996). Furthermore, Montore-Rios, Luque-Martinez and Rodriguez-Molina (2008) found that consumers with high product involvement are likely to process information in depth. Also,

consumers with high product involvement are more motivated than consumers with low product involvement to search for information and compare attributes of products (Ling-yee, 1997). Based on the line of research on the topic of product involvement it can be concluded that highly involved consumers spend more time searching for product information, spend more time thinking and think more in depth when contemplating their decision on which product that they want to buy than low involved consumers. This makes highly involved consumers more likely to process product

(8)

8 the products in the center of the assortment. It is expected that this effect will hold for consumers with a narrow or a broad scope of attention and in the evidently equivalent and non-equivalent assortment due to the fact that highly involved consumers perceive the products as very relevant and important to them. Therefore:

H7: Consumers with high product involvement choose the edge options more as compared to the central options in assortments, regardless of the scope of attention and the assortment structure.

Consumers who perceive the products in the assortments from which they have to choose as little relevant and not very important to them have low product involvement. These consumers are not motivated to process the products in depth and thus sequentially, which means the expected interaction effect between scope of attention and assortment structure should not be influenced for consumers with low product involvement. Therefore:

H8: Consumers with a narrow scope of attention and low product involvement will choose the central options more as compared to the edge options in the equivalent and non-equivalent assortments. H9: Consumers with a broad scope of attention and low product involvement will choose the central options more as compared to the edge options in the equivalent assortment and will choose the edge options more as compared to the central options in the non-equivalent assortment.

Methods

Pre-test

(9)

9 suggest that due to the high variance there will be an even distribution of participants with both high and low involvement. Therefore were these products used in the experiment to test the interplay between assortment structure, scope of attention and product involvement.

Procedure

This study used a 2(broad vs narrow scope of attention between subjects)x2(evidently equivalent vs non-equivalent assortment within subjects) mixed factorial design. Students at the University of Groningen were approached in order to recruit participants. These students were informed that their performance in a game of pick-up sticks, also known as Mikado, would be measured and they would additionally be asked to complete a survey. Half of the participants, who should have a narrow scope of attention, were informed that their performance in a game of pick-up sticks was measured and that they could win a monetary reward, but first they needed to make their product choices in both the evidently equivalent and non-equivalent assortments. The other half of participants, who should have a broad scope of attention, played the pick-up sticks game first and then made their choices in both the evidently equivalent and non-equivalent assortment structures. All participants were asked to complete the rest of the survey, which included manipulation checks, after they made their choices from the assortment structures. The last part of the survey included age, gender, nationality, education level and income (Appendix 4). They were completely debriefed, thanked and dismissed.

Independent variables Scope of attention

(10)

10 There were 20 sticks and participants were paid €0,40 per stick they collected, making the total amount that a participant could earn €8.

Assortment structure

In order to manipulate the evidently equivalent assortment an assortment of chocolates has been developed, as this product produced the highest variance on the product involvement dimension (Appendix 5). For the non-equivalent assortment condition an assortment of coffee has been developed (Appendix 6). For both assortment structures five unique assortments were developed, in order to cancel out any product preferences that participants might have for certain products.

Product involvement

To measure the construct of product involvement the scale developed by Laurent and Kapferer (1985) was used (Appendix 1). The questionnaire consists of the factors product class involvement and purchase-decision involvement. Both factors are measured with three questions which were rated on a 9-point Likert-scale where a 1 means extremely disagree and 9 means extremely agree.

Dependent variable

The coding of the location of product choices that consumers make can be found in a table (Appendix 7). A 1 score implies that the location of the product is central in the assortment whereas a 7 score implies that the location of the product is on the edges of the assortment. The coding of the dependent variable is build in such a way that moving horizontally or vertically to the center is given more weight. When a participant chooses horizontally and vertically central the score will be given the most weight.

Manipulation checks

The time was kept to check how long it took participants to make a choice from each the assortment structures. When a participant took a long time to make a decision it is more likely that the participant viewed the assortment as more complex and engaged in sequential processing instead of simultaneous processing.

(11)

11 developed by Walsh and Mitchell (2005) was used. The underlying assumption was that a high score on perceived similarity would suggest that the assortment would be evidently equivalent. A low score on the perceived similarity scale suggests that the assortment is non-equivalent. The product familiarity of participants with the two product categories was measured using the scale developed by Coupey, Irwin and Payne (1998). This manipulation check was added to see if high product familiarity created other choices than low product familiarity. Furthermore, the behavior approach system (BAS) and behavior avoidance system (BIS) was measured, as Carver and White (1994) argue that these behavior motivations systems are the foundation of all human behavior. Lastly, the emotions of participants were measured during the experiment (Bradley and Lang, 1994).

Results

Eighty four students (39 female, 45 male; Mage = 25.44 years, SD = 10.21 years) were recruited at the University of Groningen who on average earned €3,20 as reward. The vast majority of participants were Dutch (77,4%), a few German (4,8%) and the remaining participants had other nationalities. None of the participants were able to guess the purpose of the experiment.

The paired-sample T-test manipulation check for the similarity of the products showed that the products in the non-equivalent assortment (M = 6,506, SD = 1,605) were perceived as significantly more similar (t(83) = 3,609, p = 0,001) than the products in the evidently equivalent assortment (M = 5,905, SD = 1,816). The paired-sample T-test manipulation check for assortment complexity showed that the non-equivalent assortment (M = 6,266, SD = 1,553) was perceived as significantly more complex (t(83) = 2,757, p = 0,007) than the evidently equivalent assortment (M = 5,786, SD = 1,766). A paired-sample T-test manipulation check for the average time a participant took choosing from an assortment showed that participants took more seconds to make their decision from the non-equivalent assortment (M = 24,667s, SD = 15,668) than from the evidently non-equivalent assortment (M = 17,357s, SD = 10,628) (t(83) = 4,095, p = 0,000). These manipulation checks show mixed results for a successful manipulation of the assortment structures. The manipulation check for similarity of products showed that the manipulation of assortments was not successful, however the manipulation checks for assortment complexity and the average time a participant took to make their decision indicate that the manipulation of the assortments was successful.

(12)

12 (F(1,160) = 0,742, p = 0,390) and product involvement (F(1,160) = 0,064, p = 0,801) were not significant. The results indicate that there is no interaction effect between the scope of attention, assortment structures and product involvement (F(1,160) = 0,995, p = 0,320). Based on these results it can be concluded that there is no significant interplay between scope of attention, assortment structures and product involvement. Participants with a narrow scope of attention (vs broad scope of attention) show a slight preference for products in the center of the assortment (vs on the edges of the assortment).

Another 3-way ANOVA was performed to study the interplay between scope of attention, product involvement and assortment structures on the average time a participant took while making a choice from the assortments. Participants with a broad scope of attention (M = 24,146s) took significantly more time F(1,160) = 12,069, p = 0,001) making their decision than participants with a narrow scope of attention (M = 17,478s). Furthermore, participants with high product involvement (M = 23,009) took significantly more time F(1,160) = 5,245, p = 0,023) making their decision than participants with low product involvement (M = 18,614). Also, participants took significantly longer F(1,160) = 14,798, p = 0,000) to make their decision from the non-equivalent assortment (M = 24,503) than the evidently equivalent assortment (M = 17,120). Results revealed that there is a significant (F(1,160) = 5,331, p = 0,022) interaction effect between scope of attention, product involvement and assortment structures on the average time a participant took while making their decision. This result is driven by participants with a broad scope of attention and high product involvement who took significant (F(1,160) = 24,475, p = 0,000) more time (M = 35,773s) choosing from the non-equivalent assortment than participants with a broad scope of attention and low product involvement ( M = 17,048s)(Appendix 16). These results are somewhat in line with the expectations of this research, since it was expected that participants with high product involvement would engage in sequential processing of the assortment. The fact that these participants took more time while making their decision suggests that it is more likely that these participants indeed engaged in sequential, instead of simultaneous, processing of the non-equivalent assortment.

Discussion

(13)

(14)

14 The large assortments could have played another role which could explain the insignificant results. In the research of Bar-Hillel (2015) the edge aversion effects described were found in studies who used small assortments. In the studies of Christenfeld (1995) and Shaw, Bergen, Brown and Callagher (2000) participants faced small assortments of three products, rather than an large assortment of sixty-four products. This might indicate that edge aversion effects only exist in small assortments and these effects may not arise in large assortments.

The average time (M = 24,667) participants took while making their decision from the non-equivalent assortment has a relative high standard deviation (SD = 15,668) which could be due to time pressure that some participants may have felt. Usually participants were waiting for a lecture in the plaza of the university or were working on assignments. Some participants could have felt time pressure, to go to the lecture or finish the assignment on time, and this time pressure may have resulted in participants quickly scanning the products in the assortments rather than in depth processing (Payne, Bettman and Johnson, 1988). It was expected that participants would engage in sequential processing of the products of this assortment, but half of the participants made their decision within twenty-one seconds. This seems a short time period to process all sixty-four products in the assortment sequential and in depth, which could explain the insignificant results.

Limitations and future research

A limitation of this study is the rather small sample size, due to time restrictions and data collection in a time period in which the university was closed. Future research could overcome this limitation by using a larger sample size. Another limitation is the fact that participants made their choice based on a picture of an assortment on paper, rather than an actual assortment in a store. If participants would have made their decisions from an assortment in a real life store, the results could have been different. For example, research has shown that an in an evidently equivalent assortment products which are easier to grab are more likely to be picked by consumers (Bar-Hillel, Peer and Acquisti, 2014). In a real life store this means that consumers pick products which are on eye level more often than products on the bottom or top of an assortment (Dreze, Hoch and Purk, 1995). Future research could overcome this limitation by conducting a study in an actual store.

(15)

15 Future research could use a pre-test to design better assortments. The manipulation checks for this study showed that participants viewed the non-equivalent assortment as more similar than the evidently equivalent assortment. With the use of a pre-test the evidently equivalent assortment should be manipulated in such a way that it is perceived as more similar than the non-equivalent assortment. Furthermore, the evidently equivalent assortment should be less complex than the non-equivalent assortment. The products used in the research should make sure there are different levels of product involvement among participants. The pre-test could test varying the sizes of the assortments, from half the current assortments to double the current assortments and check if this influences the location of products that consumers choose.

This research has suggested that choice overload effects could have influenced the results, due to the overwhelmingly large assortment which could demotivate and frustrate the participants to the point where participants would randomly select a product. In an effort to reduce these choice overload effects future research could induce positive affects among participants. Positive affected participants felt more positive about large assortments compared to neutral participants (Spassova & Isen, 2013). When participants feel more positive about a large assortment they are less likely to get demotivated and frustrated and the results could be in line with the expectations stated in this research. Alternatively, Townsend and Kahn (2014) found that textual components in addition to visual components in an assortment motivate consumers to spend more time processing and process the options in an assortment in a sequential manner. This resulted in reduced consumer dissatisfaction and perceived assortment complexity, both antecedents of choice overload effects. Future research could use these findings to stimulate sequential processing of the non-equivalent assortment and reduce choice overload effects by using textual components in addition to visual components.

Conclusion

(16)

16

References

Areni, C. S., & Kim, D. (1993). The influence of background music on shopping behavior: classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Advances in consumer research, 20(1), 336-340.

Attali, Y., & Bar‐Hillel, M. (2003). Guess where: The position of correct answers in multiple‐choice test items as a psychometric variable. Journal of educational measurement, 40(2), 109-128.

Bar-Hillel, M. (2015). Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays A Conundrum Solved.

Perspectives on psychological science, 10(4), 419-433.

Bar-Hillel, M., Peer, E., & Acquisti, A. (2014). “Heads or tails?”—A reachability bias in binary choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1656. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of consumer research, 210-224.

Chatterjee, S., & Heath, T. B. (1996). Conflict and loss aversion in multiattribute choice: The effects of trade-off size and reference dependence on decision difficulty. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 67(2), 144-155.

Christenfeld, N. (1995). Choices from identical options. Psychological science, 6(1), 50-55.

Crowley, A. E. (1993). The two-dimensional impact of color on shopping. Marketing letters, 4(1), 59-69.

Crowley, A. E., & Hasty, R. W. (1983). The effects of color in store design. Journal 01 retailing, 59 (1), 21-45.

(17)

17 Deng, X., Kahn, B. E., Unnava, H. R., & Lee, H. (2016). A “wide” variety: effects of horizontal versus vertical display on assortment processing, perceived variety and choice. Journal of marketing

research. In press

Dreze, X., Hoch, S. J., & Purk, M. E. (1995). Shelf management and space elasticity. Journal of

Retailing, 70(4), 301-326.

Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2007). Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 16(5), 250-254.

Ert, E., & Fleischer, A. (2014). Mere position effect in booking hotels online. Journal of travel

research, 311-321.

Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., Özelsel, A., & Denzler, M. (2006). Enactment of approach and avoidance behavior influences the scope of perceptual and conceptual attention. Journal of experimental social

psychology, 42(2), 133-146.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). Cultivated emotions: Parental socialization of positive emotions and self-conscious emotions. Psychological inquiry, 9(4), 279-281.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 136(5), 875-893.

Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011). Attentional consequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects. Emotion, 11(6), 1358-1367.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1122-1131.

Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(6), 1413-1426. Isen, A. M., Niedenthal, P. M., & Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of positive affect on social categorization. Motivation and emotion, 16(1), 65-78.

(18)

18 Kahn, B. E., & Isen, A. M. (1993). The influence of positive affect on variety seeking among safe, enjoyable products. Journal of consumer research, 257-270.

Kahn, B. E., & McAlister, L. (1997). Grocery revolution. Addison-Wesley.

Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of marketing

research, 41-53.

Ling-Yee, L. (1997). Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual environmental commitment: The moderating role of consumer demographics and product involvement. Journal of

international consumer marketing, 9(4), 31-53.

Mantrala, M. K., Levy, M., Kahn, B. E., Fox, E. J., Gaidarev, P., Dankworth, B., & Shah, D. (2009). Why is assortment planning so difficult for retailers? A framework and research agenda. Journal of

retailing, 85(1), 71-83.

McClure, P. J., & West, E. J. (1969). Sales effects of a new counter display. Journal of advertising

research, 9(1), 29-34.

McKenna, M. L. (1966). The influence of in-store advertising. On knowing the consumer, 114-125. Milliman, R. E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. The

journal of marketing, 86-91.

Muratore, I. (2003). Involvement, cognitive development and socialization: three antecedents of the child's cents-off sensitivity. Journal of product & brand management, 12(4), 251-266.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 460-469.

Oppewal, H., & Koelemeijer, K. (2005). More choice is better: Effects of assortment size and composition on assortment evaluation. International journal of research in marketing, 22(1), 45-60. Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., & Smith, D. C. (1989). The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: The role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of

consumer research, 15(4), 422-433.

(19)

19 Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of consumer research, 13(2), 280-285.

Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 104(1), 383-388.

Schmidt, J. B., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). A proposed model of external consumer information search.

Journal of the academy of marketing science, 24(3), 246-256.

Shaw, J. I., Bergen, J. E., Brown, C. A., & Gallagher, M. E. (2000). Centrality preferences in choices among similar options. The Journal of general psychology, 127(2), 157-164.

Spassova, G., & Isen, A. M. (2013). Positive affect moderates the impact of assortment size on choice satisfaction. Journal of retailing, 89(4), 397-408.

Te’eni-Harari, T., Lehman-Wilzig, S. N., & Lampert, S. I. (2009). The importance of product involvement for predicting advertising effectiveness among young people. International journal of

advertising, 28(2), 203-229.

Townsend, C., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The “visual preference heuristic”: The influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. Journal of

consumer research, 40(5), 993-1015.

Tyler, S. K., & Tucker, D. M. (1982). Anxiety and perceptual structure: individual differences in neuropsychological function. Journal of abnormal psychology, 91(3), 210-220.

Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V. W. (2005). Consumer vulnerability to perceived product similarity problems: scale development and identification. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 140-152.

Walters, R. G., & Jamil, M. (2003). Exploring the relationships between shopping trip type, purchases of products on promotion, and shopping basket profit. Journal of business research, 56(1), 17-29. Wilkinson, J. B., Mason, J. B., & Paksoy, C. H. (1982). Assessing the impact of short-term supermarket strategy variables. Journal of marketing research, 72-86.

(20)

20

Appendices

Appendix 1, product involvement scale by Laurent and Kapferer (1985)

Questions Score, measured on a 9-point Likert scale A product class involvement

… is very important to me

For me, … do not matter (reverse coded) … are an important part of my life

B purchase-decision involvement

I choose my … very carefully Which … I buy matters to me a lot

Choosing … is an important decision for me

Appendix 2, demographics

Question Measurement scale

Age Ratio scale

Gender Nominal scale

Nationality Free text

Occupation Free text

Appendix 3, Evidently equivalent assortment products

Product Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s Alpha

Chocolates 5,158 1,764 0.925

Photo camera’s 5,991 1,642 0.929

Televisions 6,706 1,390 0.897

Computer monitors 5,611 1,591 0.940

(21)

21

Non-equivalent assortment products

Product Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s Alpha

Tea 5.174 1.859 0.926 Headphones 5.650 2.106 0.949 Smartphones 7,841 1,006 0.934 Coffee 4,817 2,293 0.977 Tablets 5,254 2,226 0.954 Appendix 4, demographics.

Question Measurement scale

Age Ratio scale

Gender Nominal scale

Nationality Free text

Education level Nominal scale, ranging from elementary school to masters degree

Income level Nominal scale, ranging from €0-€10.000 to

(22)

22

(23)

23

(24)

24

Appendix 7, Coding of variables in equivalent and non-equivalent assortments.

7 6 5 4 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 3 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 3 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 4 5 6 7

Appendix 8, measuring decision difficulty using statements from Chatterjee and Heath (1996).

Statement Scale

It was difficult to make a choice from the chocolate (coffee) assortment

9-point Likert-scale

It was simple to make a choice from the chocolate (coffee) assortment

I am likely to regret my decision form the chocolate (coffee) assortment

Appendix 9, measuring perceived product similarity using Walsh and Mitchell (2005)

Statement Scale

Most chocolates (coffee) were very similar, making it difficult to distinguish them

Because of the great similarity of chocolates (coffee), it is difficult to detect differences

(25)

25

Appendix 10, measuring product familiarity using statements developed by Coupey, Irwin, and Payne (1998)

Statement Scale

I am familiar with chocolates (coffee) 9-point Likert-scale I am familiar with the product features of

chocolates (coffee)

Appendix 11, measuring how often consumers use the products.

Statement Scale

I often eat chocolates (drink coffee) 9-point Likert-scale I normally do not eat chocolates (drink coffee) 9-point Likert-scale

Appendix 12, measuring choice satisfaction using the scale developed by Oliver (1980)

Statement Scale

I am satisfied with the chocolate (coffee) I picked 9-point Likert-scale If I had to choose again, I would choose the

same chocolate (coffee)

The chocolate (coffee) I picked was a wise choice 9-point Likert-scale I feel bad about the chocolate (coffee) I picked 9-point Likert-scale I think I picked the right chocolate (coffee) 9-point Likert-scale I am not happy about the chocolate (coffee) I

picked

Appendix 13, measuring assortment complexity using statements from Van Herpen and Pieters (2007)

Statement Scale

The chocolate (coffee) assortment was complex 9-point Likert-scale The chocolate (coffee) assortment was

overwhelming

(26)

26 The chocolate (coffee) assortment was easy 9-point Likert-scale

The chocolate (coffee) assortment complicated 9-point Likert-scale The chocolate (coffee) assortment was simple 9-point Likert-scale

Appendix 14, BIS/BAS motivations measured using statements from Carver and White (1994)

Statement Scale

A person's family is the most important thing in life.

Even if something bad is about to happen to me, I rarely experience fear or nervousness.

I go out of my way to get things I want. 9-point Likert-scale When I'm doing well at something I love to keep

at it.

I'm always willing to try something new if I think it will be fun.

How I dress is important to me. 9-point Likert-scale When I get something I want, I feel excited and

energized.

Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit. 9-point Likert-scale When I want something I usually go all-out to

get it.

I will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun.

It's hard for me to find the time to do things such as get a haircut.

If I see a chance to get something I want I move on it right away.

I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know somebody is angry at me.

When I see an opportunity for something I like I get excited right away.

(27)

27 happen I usually get pretty "worked up."

I often wonder why people act the way they do. 9-point Likert-scale When good things happen to me, it affects me

strongly.

I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something important.

I crave excitement and new sensations. 9-point Likert-scale When I go after something I use a "no holds

barred" approach.

I have very few fears compared to my friends. 9-point Likert-scale It would excite me to win a contest. 9-point Likert-scale I worry about making mistakes. 9-point Likert-scale

Appendix 15, measuring emotions using statements from Bradley and Lang (1994)

Statement Scale

Unhappy vs Happy 9-point Bi-polar scale

Annoyed vs Pleased 9-point Bi-polar scale

Unsatisfied vs Satisfied 9-point Bi-polar scale Melancholic vs Contented 9-point Bi-polar scale

Despairing vs Hopeful 9-point Bi-polar scale

Bored vs Relaxed 9-point Bi-polar scale

Relaxed vs Stimulated 9-point Bi-polar scale

Calm vs Excited 9-point Bi-polar scale

Sluggish vs Frenzied 9-point Bi-polar scale

Dull vs Jittery 9-point Bi-polar scale

Sleepy vs Wide awake 9-point Bi-polar scale

Unaroused vs Aroused 9-point Bi-polar scale

Controlled vs Controlling 9-point Bi-polar scale Influenced vs Influential 9-point Bi-polar scale

Cared for vs In control 9-point Bi-polar scale

Awed vs Important 9-point Bi-polar scale

Submissive vs Dominant 9-point Bi-polar scale

(28)

28

Appendix 16, average time participants took, measured in seconds, to make a decision in both assortment structures. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Evidently equivalent assortment Non-equivalent assortment