Skip to main content
Log in

The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In two studies, we show that features shared by products (common features) do not cancel out during the decision-making process but in fact are consequential as they decrease desire for delay in decision making. In study 1, we show that as the amount of available information about product features increases, decision delay decreases in spite of the additional information being identical across the products. Further, we also find that this effect is partially mediated by information adequacy. In study 2, we show that despite the overall difficulty of making decisions under avoidance–avoidance versus approach–approach conflict, an increase in common features decreases decision delay under both conflict conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the terms “identical” and “common” interchangeably in the manuscript.

  2. Information can describe both common and unique features. We define a common feature as an attribute on which all alternatives within a consideration set have the same value. For example, if two computers have the same screen size, then screen size is a common feature. Alternatively, a feature that has competitively different values in a consideration set is defined as a unique feature. For example, if one of the two computers has voice-recognition technology and the other does not, or if the two computers have a different price, then those aspects are unique features.

  3. Information adequacy refers to the information’s ability to help diagnose which alternative is the better option. Alternatively, it may also refer to whether the information is enough to make an informed choice. We feel that both these processes might be at play simultaneously. We thank the editor for the suggestion.

  4. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for identifying the alternative possibility.

  5. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for identifying the possibility of this confound and also suggesting it as an interesting research idea for the future.

References

  • Agarwal, M. K., & Chatterjee, S. (2003). Complexity, uniqueness, and similarity in between-bundle choice. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(6), 358–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers’ decision making and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 233–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). In T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Consumer decision making. Handbook of Consumer Behaviour (pp. 50–84). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruine De Bruin, W., & Keren, G. (2003). Order effects in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1/2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, T. A., & Wanke, M. (2006). The reduced and enhanced impact of shared features on individual brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 31(3), 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (1997). The effect of common features on brand choice: Moderating role of attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 304–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2001). The impact of common features on consumer preferences: A case of confirmatory reasoning. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupey, E. (1994). Restructuring: Constructive processing of information displays in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., Yzerbyt, V. Y., and Leyens, J.-P. (1995). Dilution of stereotype-based cooperation in mixed-motive interdependence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(November), 575–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A. (2004). Regression with social data: Modelling continuous and limited response variables. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M. (1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fein, S., and Hilton, J. L. (1992). Attitudes towards groups and behavioral intentions toward individual group members: The impact of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 (March), 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeth, G. J., Levin, I. P., Chakraborty, G., and Levin, A. M. (1991). Consumer evaluation of multi-product bundles: An information integration analysis. Marketing Letters, 2 (January), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 186–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, J. L., & Fein, S. (1989). The role of typical diagnosticity in stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995). Cancellation and focus: The role of shared and unique features in the choice process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(4), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison on preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Pre-decision conflict and post-decision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Berning, C. K. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load: Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn, C. A. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 11(1), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F. R., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (1993). Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation, and the set-size effect in preference judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L., & Staelin, R. (1987). Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 200–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. In J. R. Busemeyer, R. Hastie, & D. S. Medin (Eds.), Decision making from the perspective of cognitive psychology (pp. 385–418). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., and Ross, L. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (November), 2098–2110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, N. H. (2004). Decision making in information-rich environments: The role of information structure, Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 473–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 419–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K., Jain, A. K., & Lagakos, S. W. (1982). The information overload controversy: An alternative viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. T., and Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search revisited: Theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 263–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, T. E. (1984). Buyer response to variations in product information load. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 300–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagpal, A., & Krishnamurthy, P. (2008). Attribute conflict in consumer decision making: The role of task compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 696–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., and Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13 (April), 248–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., & Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 438–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammon, D. L. (1977). “Information load” and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(3), 148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troutman, M. C. and Shanteau, J. (1976). Do consumers evaluate products by adding or averaging attribute information? Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (September), 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79 (July), 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (July), 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3 (November), 358–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Venkatesh, R., and Chatterjee, R., (2007). Reservation price as a range: An incentive-compatible measurement approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), 200–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Wyer, R. S. (2002). Comparative judgment process: The effects of task objectives and time delay on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanke, M. (1996). Comparative judgments as a function of the direction of comparison versus word order. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(3), 400–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anish Nagpal.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 1 The two common features are: lens zoom and screen size
Table 2 Approach–approach conflict conditions
Table 3 Avoidance–avoidance conflict conditions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagpal, A., Khare, A., Chowdhury, T. et al. The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features. Mark Lett 22, 405–421 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9132-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9132-z

Keywords

Navigation