We’re more likely to decide when the options are sensibly restricted
Though some choice aids decision-making, too much of it leads to regret, deferral and lower satisfaction.
Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358.
The study
249 supermarket customers were invited to one of two tables, displaying either 24 jams or 6 jams. They were then asked how attractive the jams were and observed as to whether they bought one.
The results found that though customers considered the 24 jams more attractive, they were far more likely to buy when there were only 6 jams to choose from.
Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358.
Key Takeaways
Reduce choice difficulty. If customers are time-poor, reduce the number of dimensions along which your products are compared. Present choices in an organised, non-random order, especially with visual layouts.
Tidy up choice relationships. Highlight one dominant option, align the attributes along which products are compared, and eliminate products from your range that overly complement each other to decrease deferral and increase purchase likelihood.
Adapt to product expertise. Who is your audience? To what extent can they weigh up the benefits of each possible choice? Experts prefer more choice and the lesser-informed crave less.
Build around intent & focus. Intent: are they buying or merely browsing? If browsing, they’re not making a decision, and are less likely to feel overloaded. Focus: a single purchase or a bundle? Bundlers want more options, but Singles want fewer.
In further detail
We’re more likely to decide when the options are sensibly restricted
Though some choice aids decision-making, too much of it leads to regret, deferral and lower satisfaction.
Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358.
The study
249 supermarket customers were invited to one of two tables, displaying either 24 jams or 6 jams. They were then asked how attractive the jams were and observed as to whether they bought one.
The results found that though customers considered the 24 jams more attractive, they were far more likely to buy when there were only 6 jams to choose from.
Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358.
Key Takeaways
Reduce choice difficulty. If customers are time-poor, reduce the number of dimensions along which your products are compared. Present choices in an organised, non-random order, especially with visual layouts.
Tidy up choice relationships. Highlight one dominant option, align the attributes along which products are compared, and eliminate products from your range that overly complement each other to decrease deferral and increase purchase likelihood.
Adapt to product expertise. Who is your audience? To what extent can they weigh up the benefits of each possible choice? Experts prefer more choice and the lesser-informed crave less.
Build around intent & focus. Intent: are they buying or merely browsing? If browsing, they’re not making a decision, and are less likely to feel overloaded. Focus: a single purchase or a bundle? Bundlers want more options, but Singles want fewer.
In further detail
We’re more likely to decide when the options are sensibly restricted
The study
249 supermarket customers were invited to one of two tables, displaying either 24 jams or 6 jams. They were then asked how attractive the jams were and observed as to whether they bought one.
The results found that though customers considered the 24 jams more attractive, they were far more likely to buy when there were only 6 jams to choose from.
In detail
Scarcity
We value things more when they’re in limited supply
Social Proof
We copy the behaviors of others, especially in unfamiliar situations
Prospect Theory
A loss hurts more than an equal gain feels good
Reciprocity
We’re hardwired to return kindness received
Framing
We make very different decisions based on how a fact is presented
Loss Aversion
We feel more negative when losing something than positive when we gain it
Self-Expression
We constantly seek out ways to communicate our identity to others
Default Effect
We tend to accept the option pre-chosen for us
Anchoring
What we see first affects our judgement of everything thereafter
Autonomy Bias
We have a deep-seated need to control our situations
Fast & Slow Thinking
We make knee-jerk spontaneous decisions that can cause regretful damage
Status Quo Bias
We tend to stick with our previous choices, even if the alternatives might be better
Dynamic Norms
We’re more likely to change if we can see a new behavior developing
Salience
Our choices are determined by the information we're shown