The Effect of Intuition and Reasoning on Choice Overload

Felipe Gerenda*, Leandro M. Tonetto** * Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), [email protected] ** Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), Zooma Consumer Experience, [email protected]

Abstract: Choice overload refers to the fact that, at a certain threshold, the increased amount of alternatives to which the individual may be exposed in a decision task compromises the resultant satisfaction, both with the choice process and product. Despite the ability shown by several empirical studies in replicating the occurrence of choice overload in distinct contexts, the variability in the results related to the threshold at which the number of alternatives undermines satisfaction is notable. A critical literature review suggests that the “effect” of choice overload is not placed only on the amount of alternatives presented to the individual, but yet, on the 2 forms through which the decision task is processed – one being rational, effortful and conscious, and the other being intuitive, automatic and unconscious. Thus, in this paper, the authors state a theoretical background, based on cognitive and design, and a research agenda related to the fact that choosing different kinds of products demands different ways of processing information. Higher user involvement with the task of deciding which product to buy might be related to System 2 operations, while low user involvement might evoke System 1 operations. These two types of information processing can help understanding why many variations on the Choice Overload research have been reported.

Key-Words: Choice overload, decision making, reasoning, intuition.

1. Choice Overload Effect The choice overload effect (18) consists in the fact that the abundance of product options may eventually lead to negative consequences among users, such as reduced motivation for choosing or decreased satisfaction with the choice made. Despite the fact that related literature shows consistent studies about the effect, many of the aspects that sustain it remain uncertain, e.g., the threshold from which the number of alternative begins to compromise one’s experience. Horovitz (15) mentions several examples that reaffirm the emergence of choice overload in contemporary society. In 1977, Dreyer's ice cream shop offered its customers 34 different flavors. In 2004, however, the brand offered over 250 options. Starbucks² has over 19 thousand ways to serve a simple cup of coffee. The author also reports that the juice brand Tropicana, which offered only 2 juice flavors in the 90’s, had come to offer 24 variations in 2004. It is important to note that the assumption that it is impossible to harm the consumer by broadening the set of alternatives offered is established as a basic premise by the classical theories of economics (3). Nevertheless, the benefits of this proliferation of variety of products is gaining prominence as a research topic for over a decade (27). Throughout this period, theorists in the field of psychology have been identifying that, when the number of alternatives exceeds a certain limit, it might have a negative impact on consumers, such as regret, dissatisfaction, disappointment, decreased motivation to make a choice, and reduced levels of consumption. There is not yet a consensus among researchers regarding which factor – when associated with the

1 number of alternatives presented – may cause a decrease in satisfaction. Some argue that it is the perceived complexity of the decision making process; others, that it is the difficulty of discerning between alternatives; or, yet, the difficulty of giving up other options (27). The various manifestations of the relationship between the high quantity of alternatives and the subsequent decrease in the individual’s satisfaction have been reported in the literature as the too-much-choice effect (16, 18), choice overload (4,5), or hyperchoice (24). Despite the different nomenclature, these terms are characterized by the same driving factors and consequences, to which this study refers to as "choice overload." Scheibehenne et al. (27) published a meta-analysis of the leading articles on the choice overload effect written between 2000 and 2010. The author categorized the analyzed studies in order to statistically assess the consistency of their results, identifying the subjects surveyed, and also their commonalities and dissociations. Thus, Scheibehenne’s paper represents a milestone on the academic discussion over the subject, considering that, through the compilation of the results found in 8 years’ worth of studies, it was able to point out some aspects of the choice overload effect whose explanation remained opened or inconsistent. The understanding of both the choice overload effect itself and the several variables already tested (satisfaction, regret, perceived complexity, etc.) allows the deepening of this study through the use of theories and knowledge within the field. For instance, understanding the brand’s offer through the concept of the Product-Service-System (which joins, in a systemic and symbiotic relationship, both products and services as a united offer) provides a higher range of values and features that can be studied (2). Thus, in order to understand the evolution that has been going on since Scheibehenne’s publication, the present authors performed a research on the academic articles related to the choice overload effect at Capes Database (a foundation of the Brazilian Ministry of Education, available at http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/)1, more specifically about studies published in the past 5 years (2009 – 2013). A few terms used when referring to the choice overload effect in the literature were raised (choice overload, too-much-choice effect, hyperchoice, paradox of choice, provision of choice), and then researched on the databases. The research has found 44 papers that contemplate the concept in the past five years. Thus, the reading of the texts presented 11 articles with experiments relevant to the discussion of the choice overload effect. In order to understand the topics and peculiarities recently discussed about this topic, a summary of the analyzed articles is presented below. This review states that, although choice overload has been studied for over a decade, several essential aspects for the complete understanding of the effect are still unsolved (i.e what originates choice overload). Different ways of approaching and investigating the effect have presented little consistency in regards to its replicability and generalizability. Thus, as indicated by Scheibehenne et al (27) and Messner and Wänke (23), experimental researches about the effect, when performed in laboratory, may influence the participants to overthinking about their decisions, using a reasoning system that is not as common in our daily life decisions. Kahneman (20) argue that “intuition” is the processing system that guides us throughout our daily activities, being effortless, automatic

1The database leads to SciVerseScienceDirect (Elsevier), OneFile (GALE), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), MEDLINE (NLM), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), SpringerLink, Emerald Management eJournals, American Psychological Association (APA), ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education), Arts & Sciences (JSTOR), IEEE Periodicals, Cambridge Journals (Cambridge University Press), SAGE Journals, INFORMS Journals, Wiley Online Library, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), SpringerLink Open Access, NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) and IEEE (CrossRef).

2 and unconscious. This idea is sustained by easily identifiable situations, like buying a well-known brand’s new product, choosing low involvement products or choosing which route to take while walking home from work. The existence of this duality of the mind may be the reason why so much variance - and even inconsistency - has been presented over the last decade of choice overload studies. When using the rational system, individuals consciously evaluate alternatives and possible results, however, the conscious cognitive effort has its limits (10) – eventually leading to choice overload. On the other hand, the intuitive system is unconscious and runs based on automatic associations, processing route that may avoid the overload effect. Thus, to better understand the proposal of the processing system as a moderator of the choice overload effect, besides the review of the latest articles related to this theme, a posterior chapter presents an overview of the concept of “intuition” and “reasoning”, as well as the recent academic discussions regarding the behavior, functioning processes, and relation between these two ways of thinking. Such synthesis and understanding of the studies conducted in the last five years may serve as the basis for the presentation of a research agenda for the field of design itself (found in “Discussion and Conclusions”), adding the choice overload and cognitive processing to its scope – an opportunity to deepen and develop the theory, seeking to answer questions still unsolved regarding the effect.

2. Recent Literature Review Reed et al. (26) investigated the decision-making process involving the conscious choice for large or small sets of alternatives, exploring the boundaries of perceived advantages in large sets of alternatives, when there was the possibility of comparing these groups with other groups of less variety. The authors conducted an experiment in which participants were exposed to a hypothetical situation that consisted in choosing a residence for themselves. The participants were requested to select, among three different groups of alternatives, the one that they considered to be most relevant to their decision making. Eight different scenarios were presented sequentially to the participants, with a fixed composition in terms of grouping: one option composed by a single residential alternative; a limited option composed by two alternatives; and one extensive option composed by more than two alternatives. It’s important to note that the extensive option was the subject of manipulation by the researchers, ranging geometrically in each of the eight scenarios, and resulting in the offer of 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192 and 384 programs respectively. Research results consistently showed the fact that the single alternative option was selected in less than 5% of cases, demonstrating that the individual seeks a minimum set of alternatives to feel safe about their decision. Yet, as predicted, the experiment showed the inverse relationship between the geometric increase in the number of alternatives from the extensive set, and their respective preference: when composed by three alternatives, the extensive set was chosen as the preferred one in 86% of the cases; when the number options was increased to six, the preference for the extensive set dropped to 46%. This negative relationship becomes more evident as the number of alternatives increases, thus presenting the premise that the attractiveness of large sets of alternatives has indeed a threshold. As a second analysis of the experiment, researchers investigated the relationship between the participant’s profile as a maximizer or a satisficer, and the decisions made. A maximizer can be characterized as an individual prone to invest greater effort in the search for the best option possible and, in opposition, a satisficer is not

3 concerned about the possibility of finding a better alternative, thus ending the decision-making process when facing an option that addresses its minimum criteria for satisfaction (28). It is noteworthy that, although Reed et al. (26), have not identified any significant differences regarding the pattern of choices among distinct sets of alternatives, the authors reported a notable increase in the degree of regret with the decisions made by the maximizers. As mentioned by Medvec et al. (22), refuted alternatives became the target of counterfactual thinking (what could have been), whose reverie and uncertainties that permeate this kind of thoughts influence posterior regret about the decision. Also investigating the differences between maximizers and satisficers concerning the decision-making strategy, Dar-Nimrod et al. (6) analyzed the relation between this personality trait and the individual's willingness to sacrifice resources in order to have access to a wider range of alternatives. To accomplish that, the authors conducted three experiments based on a single rationale: offer the respondent the possibility to choose between two groups of alternatives, being one group composed by a limited set of options, and the other one by a greater variety of options. In the first study, a hypothetical situation was presented to respondents, in which they had to imagine that they were out of cleaning supplies for their homes. As an alternative to replenish their supply of cleaning products, the respondents were given two options: they could go to a small store near their homes, which offered four alternatives for each item from their shopping list, or they could drive to a large supermarket that was about 25 minutes away from their homes, but that had 25 alternatives for each product on their shopping list. The second experiment by Dar-Nimrod et al. (6) was conducted under similar premises, and it consisted of choosing chocolates among two groups – of 6 or 30 products –, considering that by choosing the group with a wider set of options, the participants were required to fill in an additional questionnaire. Both experiments were consistent in their results when identifying an increased possibility of choosing the wider sets of option for each additional point on the maximization scale - 6% per point in the first study, and 5.5% in the second. Additionally, a questionnaire was applied in order to assess the level of satisfaction with the chosen product (adapted from 18), which revealed that the maximizers’ average satisfaction level with their choices was significantly lower than the satisficers’. The authors state that, while maximizers are more likely to make sacrifices to enjoy a wider range of options, they are at the same time unable to predict the posterior drop in their satisfaction. It is relevant to acknowledge that this drop in satisfaction and regret was also mentioned by Reed et al. (26). Iyengar and and Kamenica (17) have focused their studies on the strategies of decision making applied to complex sets of alternatives. The experiments reported in their paper indicated that, when the individual's decision making is based on more extensive sets of alternatives, a consistent trend for choosing simplified and easier to understand options is observed. Two experiments were conducted in order to lead to this conclusion. In the first experiment, participants were given a menu of binary bets related to the toss of a coin (for example: $1 for heads, $ 9 for tails). In order to evaluate the search for "simplicity" in the decision task, the researchers added a non-degenerative option, characterized as an event of a certain gain (for example: the participants would gain $ 5 for both outcomes). Then, respondents were divided into two distinct groups: the first group could choose from three bet options, including the non-degenerative type, while the second one was presented with eleven bet options, also including the non-degenerative type as one of the options. The experiment results showed a noticeable preference for certain gain in the event of a greater range of alternatives - which characterizes the

4 choice overload - with 63% preference of respondents compared to 16% reported in the group of three alternatives. A second experiment was conducted by the authors, evaluating the possibilities related to the toss of a six-sided dice, increasing the amount of possible events to six. A non-degenerative alternative was placed between two groups – 3 and 11 alternatives respectively. With almost identical results to the first experiment (57% of preference when facing 11 alternatives, 16% when presented to 3 choices) the authors suggested that choice overload may direct the individual to choose simpler alternatives – stating that the perceived choice complexity may act as a predictor of the effect. Greifeneder et al. (13) argue that the perceived complexity may be influenced not only by the number of products involved, but also by the amount of attributes presented for each artifact. Thus, presenting pens as the product to be appraised, the authors segmented the participants into six different groups, varying simultaneously the number of products (6, 15 or 30) and the attributes of each pen (1 or 6). In the one attribute condition products varied only in color, however, when six attributes were presented to the respondent, the pen’s description varied it width, color of ink, product life and resistance to light ink – presenting four alternatives for each attribute. After selecting a product from the set, participants were asked to rate their satisfaction in regards to the selected product - measured through a 9-point Likert scale - aiming to identify the decrease in satisfaction that characterizes the choice overload effect. A second experiment was conducted with different products (MP3 players), also varying the number of alternatives (6 or 30) and attributes (4 or 9) involved in the decision task The experiments were successful in terms of replicating the choice overload effect. The authors emphasize that when only the number of alternatives differed, the effect of choice overload wasn’t clear - or even nonexistent - with greater decreases in satisfaction reported when facing a large number of both products and attributes. The authors claim that the perceived complexity of alternatives is not linear, being influenced by prior knowledge of the decision maker in regards to the product or situations that is being appraised. This context of familiarity as an influence over choice overload effect can be evidenced in four studies analyzed in this literature review. Soyer and Hogarth (30) investigated the effect in monetary donations to non- governmental organizations (NGOs), aiming to study the relationship between familiarity and monetary amount donated. Divided among three groups of possible donation recipients (respectively 3, 8 and 16 NGOs), respondents were led to believe that they were participating in a study unrelated to the donation topic. They were told that at the end of the research, they would be participating in a lottery worth a small amount of money – which could be fully or partially donated to some non-governmental institutions. After making their decision on how much to donate, the participants were questioned about their familiarity with all organizations of recipients shown to them, ranging from 0 (never heard of) to 3 (very famous NGO). As a result, as the number of potential recipients increased, the donations were centered on familiar institutions to the participants - which means that the choice overload increases the tendency of choosing a familiar alternative, a “simple choice” as reported by Iyengar and Kamenica (17). The second study related to the familiarity is presented by Park and Jang (25), which investigated choice overload in tourism. The authors developed different scenarios composed by two destinations (Orlando and Acapulco) and five sets of alternate tour package for each destination (1, 3, 10, 20 and 30) – presented separately, totalizing 10 scenarios. The authors did a preliminary research that identified that Orlando could be considered a familiar destination and Acapulco unfamiliar. Results showed no significant influence of familiarity over the effect

5

– different results from what was found by other authors (27,30). However, when facing 20 alternatives, it was reported an increase in the likelihood of non-choice – as evidenced in Reed et al. (26) and Wan Yun et al. (32). In these cases of choice overload – leading to no-choice events – it is noteworthy that “simple” alternatives may stand out (17). In a similar study, Wan et al. (32) investigated the decision process over sets of digital cameras and PDAs (personal digital assistants), manipulating the amount of products (12, 20, 32 and 40) and also the number of attributes of each product (5 vs 10). The optimal decision was represented by the sum of the best attributes, whereas the proximity to this optimal decision was evaluated as the "decision quality" - methods by Häbul and Trifts (14). It is noteworthy that a higher familiarity with the product - a measured through a Likert agreement scale – results in an increased decision confidence, and also decreases the time required to choose a product. In general, as the number of products and attributes was increased, the longer the individual took to make a choice. However, when the number of choices got to a specific threshold, the decision time dropped drastically. This data reinforces the idea that choice overload may decrease the effort and commitment with the decision process - as also reported by Reed et al. (26). Wan et al. (32) reported that as the number of attributes and products increased, the "quality of the decision" was compromised as well – which means a greater distance between the decision made and the “optimal” alternative. This same distancing was also reported done by Kristin Diehl and Cait Poynor (21), presenting to their respondents a hypothetical situation in which they should choose a camcorder to give it as a gift to a coworker – with groups divided among 2 or 8 product alternatives, each one described through 4 valued attributes (weight, resolution, zoom and memory). Comparing the results of the decision made over 8 or 32 alternatives, the study revealed consistent data pointing that a higher number of choices will lead to a less optimal decision. As an alternative approach to the decision optimization, Claude Messner and Michaela Wänke (23) investigated such possibility based on the unconscious thought theory (UTT) - which postulates that when the conscious attention is withdrawn from the decision that is being made, the information processing continues unconsciously. Thus, the cognitive effort is performed through general rules of influence based on experience and memory, leaving the individual less vulnerable to bias related to conscious thought - as, for example, overweighting irrelevant characteristics of the product. To investigate choice overload through this premise, the analysis was done by comparing three different forms of decision-making: spontaneous, conscious and unconscious. The spontaneous choice version consisted on the immediate choice of a Lindt chocolate over a set of 6 or 24 varieties. In order to induce the unconscious processing, the authors adopted the procedure used and tested by Dijksterhuis et al. (7), in which participants were asked to solve anagrams for 5 minutes before making a decision. On the conscious group the individuals should write a justification for their decision. At the end of the research, the respondents were questioned about their satisfaction, regret and frustration through a 7-point Likert Scale. As a result, the conscious and spontaneous groups reported less satisfaction with the selected product when it was chosen from the larger set (24 varieties). However, stands out the fact that participants induced to distraction rated the product from the larger set of alternatives more favorably – putting in check the choice overload effect. It was also evidenced a negative correlation between satisfaction and frustration or regret. These findings suggest that these three variables related to the decision process behave differently – representing an opportunity for future investigations.

6

Associated with the “familiarity” idea, the effect of recommendation tools over the choice overload effect was investigated. Bollen et al. (8) analyzed individuals' satisfaction while choosing between movies with the support of intelligent recommendation tools – manipulating the size of the set of recommendations as well as their quality. Respondents’ preferences were assessed previously to the research. Three sets of recommendations were built: a top-5, with 5 movies highly related to the users’ preference; a top-20, following the top-5 logic, but with 20 films instead of 5; and a Lin-20, consisting of the top-5 movies plus 10 nominations, each one spaced by 100 levels in the recommendation ranking (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 99, 199, 299, 399 and so on) – growing apart of the individual’s preferences. After visualizing the film list, the participant had to choose one movie. Confirming previous results from the literature, the authors found that choice satisfaction is a result of two opposing forces: a positive effect related to the attractiveness of the set, and a negative effect associated to the choice difficulty. It is noteworthy that an excess of attractive options can compromise the decision-making task, while choosing an option from appealing sets was described as more difficult. This report can be related to the difficulty in discerning between equally attractive alternatives - one of the main factors identified in the literature as responsible for the choice overload effect (27). Finishing this review of the latest academic research on choice overload, Goodman et al. (12) also conducted a study involving product recommendation while studying the choice overload effect. The authors proposed that recommendation signals (as “bestselling product” or “award winning product”) may impair the decision making process in occasions when the individual has well developed preferences. To the first experiment, the authors conducted a previous survey to identify the consumer’s preferences related to the product being chosen (teas). Respondents were then asked to choose one among four teas, repeating this task after this first choice – but on this second moment choosing one between 24 choices. In this second choice-group, recommendation signs were distributed among the products, revealing that individual’s with established preferences reported higher difficulty in the decision. The increased difficulty was reported when the recommendation sign was placed in products contrasting to individual’s preferences – otherwise, the signal just reinforced the respondent’s predilection. This effect was not addressed by participants with less established preferences. A second experiment was carried out with the objective of establishing the connection between signaling and an increase in the number products being considered while making the decision. Twenty energy bars were presented to the participants, with two different investigation groups: the control group had no recommendation sign over the 20 products, and the second group had “top rated” signs over products indicated by an online retailer. Participants were then instructed to touch all the products that they were taking in consideration while making their decisions, revealing that the usage of recommendation signs increased the consideration set of the individual. It is relevant to point out that products without signaling were added to the consideration set due to its similarity with the signalized options. As the previous experiment, this effect was only reported on the conflicting recommendation variant. It is important to highlight that after this analysis of recent publications on the choice overload effect - and also with support of Scheibehenne’s [26] et al. metanalysis - no consent was reported over the effect’s origins or moderators. Scheibehenne et al. points out that, in laboratory researches, the individuals are aware that they are being evaluated. Thus, the authors argue that this awareness leads the individual to an excessive cognitive reasoning, feeling that they need to be able to justify their answers. This excessive cognitive effort may be one valuable approach to understanding the difficulties in providing generalizations over the choice overload effect, as

7 well as the difficulties in replicating this bias. Thus, this approach may be better understood through the premise of the duality of the human mind studied in psychology for almost one century, which is based on the idea of the mind being composed by a rational system, as well as an intuitive system, each one with its own individual process and mechanisms. The next section aims to provide details concerning the characteristics and operations of each one of these systems, in an effort to facilitate the understanding of how this duality may contribute to the investigation of the choice overload effect.

3. Cognitive Processing Systems: A Bias in The Choice Overload Studies The quest for understanding how humans make decisions arose in the 40s, based on the possibility of humans being great decision makers, extremely rational and strict followers of probabilistic rules - not influenced by feelings or . Although considered incomplete models, they were the basis for the development of the modern descriptive theories, which aims to understand how the human beings truly make decisions in their daily lives. Following this research tradition, Simon and Kahneman - Nobel prize winners - comes in their studies seeking to understand how the human mind makes decisions in different contexts, dealing with everyday problems and limited information. Relating to this research on the foundations of judgment and decision making processes, it has been witnessed on the last decades a growing body of research exploring the idea of a duality in the human mind - whose components are commonly referred to as "intuition" and "rationality" (11). The premise of this duality has been widely studied through different branches of psychology. The evolution of this concept posits as an adaptive system that organizes the individual's experience in an automatic, intuitive and effortless way. It is worth highlighting the work of three important authors as a basis for the development of modern theories related to the duality of cognitive processing: Epstein, Sloman and Kahneman. Epstein (9) argues that the consciousness about the duality of the human mind is already incorporated into our communication and language, differing two basics forms of knowledge: one associate with feelings, and the other with intellect. As an example, when you are in doubt between two alternatives – the first being extremely reliable, and the second perceived as a great source of pleasure - the popular saying mentions this event as a conflict between "mind and heart". Kahneman (20), in addiction, distinguishes reasoning and intuition as the two different ways through which human beings think and makes decisions. Reasoning is the processing activated to compute the product of 17 x 258, fill out a form or consult a map – requiring considerable cognitive effort and performed under the individual's consciousness. In contrast, intuition relates to occasions such as the reluctance to eat a cockroach shaped chocolate – a spontaneous and unconscious reaction. Kahneman (20) highlights the relationship between the accessibility of the information and the intuitive processing, stating that this accessibility is highly correlated to memory. The reference point influences the mnemonic accessibility of the information – inputs to the intuitive system. In the previous example, the phrase based on positive terms - as "got right" – access memories of pleasant results, as opposed to the sentence constructed with negative terms (31). The authors conclude that the intuitive system ends up generating input data to the rational system – over which will be held the deliberate and conscious effort. Thus, the intuitive system may be consider the main actor of the decision making process, not only responsible for the automatic and mechanical responses, but is also the foundation for the rational information processing (20).

8

Complementing the premise of the information accessibility as essential to judgment and decision making, Sloman (29) suggests the duality of cognitive processing through two systems: the associative, as the name suggests, processes information based on its similarity, reference point dependent; and the rule-based system, characterized by its systematic capability, demanding consciousness and cognitive effort – very similar to the concept of rational system (20) and intellect-based system (9). According to Sloman, the rule-based system is capable of codifying and inferring facts, as in example, while stating that John loves Mary, reasoning that Mary also loves John. Such derivations will be clustered together and generate a systematic set of rules, which on turn, will be the base of the “rational” thinking. This concept was worked and developed by several authors and theoretical ramifications – which may have little or no reference to each other (11). Evans (10) reports that, despite the existence of different nomenclatures and approaches, the simple distinction between conscious and unconscious processes is a consensus. It is important to highlight that the nomenclature used by Stanovich and West (33), proposing the terms System 1 and System 2 to refer to these processes, is - in the recent literature - the most commonly used by choice overload’s theorists. Besides its neutrality, the term "system" implies on a broader set of processes than the term “processing” – limited to only one step of all different processes performed within the systems 1 and 2. Table 1 summarizes some of the main characteristics of each system reported on literature. Table 1: Frankish, Evans (2008, p.15).

System 1 System 2 Evolutionarily ancient Evolutionarily recent Unconscious, preconscious Conscious Shared with animals Single the human Implicit knowledge Explicit knowledge Automatic Controlled Fast Slow Parallel Sequential High capacity Low capacity Intuitive Reflective Contextualized Abstract Pragmatic Logical Associative Rule-based Independent of general intelligence Related to general intelligence

Dual-processing theorists have a tendency to summarize the first system as a set of implicit and unconscious processes and, in opposition, the second system as a set of explicit and conscious processes (10). The learnings provided by the understanding of the duality of the mind may help to unveil some of the unsolved matters related to the choice overload effect – i.e the origins and moderators of the overload effect. The necessity of justifying one’s choices – reported by Scheibehenne et al. [26] – may be associated with the reasoning system, in which the consciousness and cognitive demand may increase the probability of identifying the overload effect. On the other hand, the intuitive system – most commonly used in the individual’s daily decisions – is automatic and unconscious, thus, its effortless mechanisms may be able avoid the overload effect. Thus, the following chapter discusses how the different processes that sustain each system may affect the choice overload effect and its studies – as well as the ways in which design may research and benefit from this groundbreaking knowledge.

9

4. Discussion and Conclusions At this point, it is important to reinforce that the choice overload effect might be a result from the type of information processing system activated when the user is actually making a decision. In artificial environments, like some of those where experiments are developed, data suggests that participants might feel like they have a reason to make a decision. Thus, induced to decide using System 2, the choice overload effect could be detected in decision tasks that it would not actually occur in real life. Having as starting point the literature review presented in this paper, the authors suggest a research agenda, indicating variables of interest in design research that can be measured or manipulated in further experiments and respective theoretical implications: (a) The independent variables manipulated in the experiments are the actual size of the choice set and the characteristics of products. (b) Dependent measures that have shown some impact suffered from the experimental manipulations are the difficulty in differentiating choices and in making decisions, and the perception of having too many choices, since, in large choice sets, it may be difficult to distinguish preferred outcomes. Satisfaction, regret and certainty in having made a good choice are also variables affected by the manipulation of the choice set. (c) Moderating effects are desire for variety and preferenceof having large choice sets that increase the possibility of finding a suitable option. This can be related to the motivation of acting trough one’s own will. Also, it is worth mentioning the anticipated regret from the prospective view of the consequences from not making a satisfactory decision and the previous preferences moderating the choice overload effect, since previously established behaviour patterns indicate automatic decisions, avoiding the perception of overload of choices. System 2 works slowly, serially and takes a lot of effort from users. Its characteristic of working as a demanding cognitive mechanism, in experimental conditions, might induce the occurrence of the choice overload effect. It is reasonable to think that too much choice may be a problem when deciding which car to buy or which apartment to rent. On the other hand, how difficult can it be to choose among a few brands of dental floss, ordinary pens or jars of jam? How strong would be the influence of too many choices of common everyday products over variables such as difficulty in differentiating choices and in making decisions, the perception of having too many choices, satisfaction, regret and certainty in having made a good choice? User involvement, in these simple tasks related to everyday situations, can be ruled by the simplicity of previous habits and preferences, process guided by System 1. Thus, manipulating choice sets of simple products asking for participants’ concentration and effort in solving experimental tasks might induce them to decide using System 2, process that can lead experimentalists to detect the choice overload effect in artificial tasks and environments. Over the past 5 years, not a lot of progress has been reported in this research field. The same questions regarding what too much choice would be are still unsolved. It seems that the definition of what too many choices are not on the actual amount of choices, but on the type of information process employed in a decision task. Therefore, designers would be benefited from the understanding of how to frame choice sets that facilitate System

10

1’s actions, since they can enhance their designs to provide better decision experiences, not affected by choice overload.

6. References [1] Baines, S. T. et al. (2007)State-of-the-Art in Product Service Systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, Journal of. Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 221 No.10, p.1543-1552.

[2] Bernartzi, Shlomo; Thaler, Richard H. (20010Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Saving Plans. The American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No.1, p.79-98.

[3] Chernev, Alexander. (2003)Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes. Journal of Personality and , Vol. 84, No.1.p.151-162.

[4] Chernev, Alexander. (2003) When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 30, No.2.p.170-183.

[5] Dar-Nimrod, Ilan; Rawn, Catherine D.; Lehman, Darrin; Schwartz, Barry. (2009) The Maximization paradox: The Costs of Seeking Alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 46, No. 5-6, p. 631-635.

[6] Dijksterhuis, Ap; Olden, Zeger Van. (2006)On the Benefits of Thinking Unconsciously: Unconscious Thought Can Increase Post-Choice Satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 42, p.627-631.

[7] Bollen, Dirk; Knijmemburg, Bart P.; Willemsen, Martijn C; Graus, Mark.(2010) Understanding Choice Overload in Recommender Systems.RecSys2010, September 26-30, Barcelona, Spain.

[8] Epstein, Seymor. (1994) Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious. American , Vol. 49, p. 709-724.

[9] Evans, Jonathan. (2008) Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition. Annu.Rev. Psychol., Vol.59, p.-255-278.

[10] Frankish, Keith; Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. (2009) The Duality of the Mind: An Historical Perspective. In: In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford University Press, cap. 1, p.1-33.

[11] Goodman, Joseph; Broniarczyk, Susan M. Griffin, Jill G.; Mcalister, Leigh. (2012) Help or hinder? When recommendation signage expands considerations sets and heightens decision difficulty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.06.003.

[12] Greifeneder, Rainer; Scheibehenne, Benjamin; Kleber, Nina. (2009) Less may be more when choosing is difficult: Choice complexity and too much choice. Acta Psychologica, No.133, p.45-50.

[13] Häbul, Gerald; Trifts, Valerie. (2000) Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids. Marketing Science, Vol. 19, p. 4-21.

[14] Horovitz, Bruce. (2004) You want it your way.USATODAY.com, available in: http://usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2004-03-04-picky_x.htm. Accessed in Feb. 13th.

[15] Huberman, Gur; Iyengar, Sheena; Jiang, Wei. (2007) Defined contribution pension plans: Determinants of Participation and Contribution Rates. Journal of Financial Services Research, 31(1), p. 1-32.

[16] Iyengar, Sheena; Kamenica, Emir. (2010) Choice proliferation, simplicity seeking, and asset allocation. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 94, p. 530-539.

[17] Iyengar, Sheena; Lepper, M. (2000) When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No.79, p. 995-1006.

11

[18] Jonas, Wolfgang; Morelli, Nicola; Münch, Juliane. (2008) Designing a Product Service System in a Social Framework: Methodological and Ethical Considerations. In: Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference, Sheffield Hallam University.

[19] Kahneman, Daniel. (2003) Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), p.1449-1475.

[20] Diehl, Kristin; Poynor, Cait. (2007) Great Expectations?!Assortment Size, Expectations and Satisfaction.Journal of Marketing Research, Marshall School of Business Working Paper No. MKT 24-09. Available at SSRN: http>//ssrn.com/abstract=1353643.

[21] Medvec, V. H.; Madey, S. F.; Gilovich, T. (1995) When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 4, p. 603-610.

[22] Messner, Claude; Wänke, Michaela. (2010) Unconscious information processing reduces information overload and increases product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, No. 21, p. 9-13.

[23] Mick, David Glen; Broniarczyk, Susan M.; Haidt, Jonathan. (2004) Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose, Choose: Emerging and Prospective Research on the Deleterious Effects of Living in Consumer Hyperchoice. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, p. 207-211.

[24] Park, Jeong-Yeol; Jang, SooCheong.(2012) Confused by Too Many Choices? Choice Overload in Tourism. Tourism Management, p. 1-12.

[25] Reed, Derek D.; Kaplan, Brent A.; Brewer, Adam T. (2012) Discounting the Freedom to Choose: Implications for the Paradox of Choice. Behavioral Processes, Vol. 90, p.424-427.

[26] Scheibehenne, Benjamin; Greifeneder, Rainer; Todd, Peter M. (2010) Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta- Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), p. 409–25.

[27] Schwartz, Barry; Ward, Andrew; Monterosso, John; Lyubomirsky, Sonja; White, Katherine; Lehman, Darrin R. (2002) Maximizing versus : is a Matter of Choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 5, 1178-1197.

[28] Sloman, Steven A. (2011) Two Systems of Reasoning, In: Thomas Gilovich, Dale Grif. n, e , eds., Heuristics and biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 379– 396.

[29] Soyer, Emre; Hogarth, Robin M. (2011) TheSize and Distribution of Donations: Effects of Number of Recipients.Judgement and Decision making, Vol. 6, No. 7, p. 616-628.

[30] Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series, Vol. 211, No. 4481, p.453-458.

[31] Wan, Yun; Menon, Satya; Ramaprasad, Arkalgud. (2009) The Paradoxical Nature of Electronic Decision Aids on Comparison-Shopping: The Experiments and Analysis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, p.80-96.

[32] Stanovich, Keith E.; West, Richard F. (2000) Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, Vol.23, No.5, p.645-665.

12