For a long time it was assumed that we should work towards having as many choices as possible. In a society based on liberalism and individual freedom, this is to be expected. We all know the ice cream stalls that advertise the largest variety of ice cream varieties. This way there is of course the greatest chance that your favorite ice cream flavor will be included. Previous studies have shown that people are indeed dissatisfied in most cases if they are not given any choice. Research has shown that when people have to make a complex choice, they often choose “not to choose” (Shafir et al, 1993) and continue to think about it after the choice (Payne, 1982). Barry Schwartz (2000) developed a theory in which he says that a little choice may make you happier than no choice, but that too much choice can make you at least as unhappy as no choice. The options have increased recently and several scientists believe that this does not always improve the satisfaction of the people who have to make those choices. In this paper we focus on one part of the increase in choice: The size of the range in supermarkets on consumer satisfaction. The range is the total amount of choice of one product in a store. By a large range we mean many different objects of a kind. Consumer satisfaction is a difficult variable to measure. We define it here as the satisfaction as assessed by the consumer himself after using the product. In this study, positive feelings such as happiness and joy also fall under satisfaction. What is the effect of the size of the range on consumer satisfaction?
How are choices made?
For a long time it was thought that people make their choices rationally. One would look at both the pros and cons and also be aware of what he wants and needs. However, a number of studies show that people are not always so rational. For example, in an experiment, a group of students were asked what they would do if they were offered a five-day vacation the day before they received their exam results. (Shafir et al, 1994). If they have not passed the exam, they must catch up after 2 months. They can choose to buy a ticket, decline the ticket, or pay $5 to make the decision the next day after they get their exam results back. 61% of respondents want to know the results of the exam before buying a ticket and only 32% buy the ticket immediately. Two other groups of people are asked the same question but what they would do if they had passed the exam (group 1) or had not passed it (group 2). In these groups, 54% and 57% respectively choose to buy a ticket. Rationally speaking, it is actually very strange that 61% would be willing to pay $5 to postpone the decision while choosing the holiday regardless of the test result (Shafir et al, 1994). We also now know that supermarkets are laid out in such a way that the more expensive products are at eye level. This has to do with the fact that we are more likely to choose something that we have observed before. We see products at eye level more often and appear more familiar, making us more likely to choose them (Constantino & Daw, 2010).
Range size and satisfaction
The size of the range appears to have a number of effects on consumer shopping behavior. First of all, people are often attracted to large collections with a wide variety of products. A stall with 24 jam flavors attracted more spectators than a stall with 6 jam flavors. However, of the consumers who were in the stall with 6 varieties, 30% purchased a jar of jam, while this was only 3% of the consumers in the stall with 24 varieties (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). This research shows that although consumers are attracted to large selections, they are more likely to purchase in limited quantities. However, it says nothing about consumer satisfaction.
As the range increases, three problems arise that have a direct effect on consumer satisfaction. First, it is difficult to impossible to obtain enough information to feel like you can make an informed choice. Secondly, expectations often increase. If you can choose from 20 loaves of bread, the chance that your ideal bread will be included is greater than if you have to choose from 2 loaves. Third, people blame themselves when a choice turns out to be less than perfect. This is also because with so much choice, the perfect choice should have been among them. If they don’t like the choice, people see themselves as the only identifiable culprit. (Schwartz et al, 2002)
These problems often manifest in decisions not to choose or regret. Not choosing occurs when the amount of choice becomes so large that people keep postponing the decision and ultimately just don’t make it at all. In addition, it also occurs when expectations are very high and the voter feels a lot of responsibility. Not choosing is closely related to ‘opportunity cost’. This involves looking at how much you hand in and how much you gain from it. When you make a choice, you also choose not to choose the alternatives. The choice between two things that are not alike, one of which you clearly prefer, takes little effort and is very rewarding. The choice between two things that are very similar takes more effort and yields less. For example, when choosing vegetables for dinner, you can choose beets or lettuce. If you don’t like beets, that choice is quickly made. However, the choice between iceberg lettuce and lamb’s lettuce can be more difficult and it also yields less because whatever you choose, you will like it both (Schwartz et al, 2002). Regret occurs when people think that they could have made a better choice from the alternatives offered. Since people often do not make their choices rationally and are therefore not aware of all the possibilities, it is not surprising that people experience regret more quickly as the amount of choice increases (Botti & Iyengar, 2004).
A larger range would help if someone knows exactly what they want. If you are looking for a specific object, there is a chance that that object is included in a larger range. In other words: if you are looking for a bag of pepper chips, you will not be bothered by all the other chip flavors on the shelves. If people don’t know exactly what they are looking for, more choice often doesn’t make them happier. When people have to choose from a number of things, none of which are highly valued, people are often more satisfied with what they are allocated if someone else makes the choice for them. In short: If a person does not want to have any of the options and has no knowledge about the options but still has to take one home with him, then he is more satisfied if someone else makes that choice for him (Botti & Iyengar, 2004). Lack of knowledge of the products is often the case in the supermarket.
Consumer satisfaction depends on many different factors. Both too little and too much choice makes consumers dissatisfied. There should be a number in between that indicates the perfect size of the range. This can be depicted in an inverted U-shaped graph (Desmeules, 2002). The graph consists of 3 parts. The first part is an increasing line of satisfaction (positiveness of consumption experience) as people get more choices (variety). This is because they are offered more choices, so that the desired options are among them. The second part is maximum consumer satisfaction. If the range becomes even larger, the line will decrease. This is due to the above factors. If this graph were actually correct and exact numbers could be added to the two vertical lines, then each assortment could be reduced to the ,perfect, size (Part 2 of the graph).
Maximizers and Satisficers
Schwartz divides humanity into two groups: Maximizers and Satisficers. Maximizers are people who always want the best. They tend to want to consider all options before making their choice, and they continue to think about it even after the choice has been made. They compare themselves a lot with others and are not satisfied with their own social position. People who scored high on the maximizer scale also scored high on low self-esteem, pessimism and depression. Satisficers are people who are happy with ,good enough,. They do set a standard, but as soon as they find something that meets it, they choose and are satisfied (Schwartz et al, 2002). All people are both maximizers and satisficers, often depending on the different areas of their lives. For example, they may only want the best school for their children, but are quickly satisfied with dinner.
When the choice becomes large, this has little effect on satisficers. If they find something they like, they no longer concern themselves with the other options. If maximizers have to make a choice from a large range, it will cost them a lot of time and energy because they prefer to first gain information about each object. They then want to compare all objects with each other and also want to know which people chose which products. After their choice, they continue to think about it because the chance that there was a better option increases as the range increases. Maximizers usually make the best choice, objectively speaking (most economical/best suited to their wishes), but are a lot less satisfied with this than satisficers.
Desmeules’ graph therefore seems to mainly apply to maximizers. For satisficers it would continue in a horizontal line from the highest point. For satisficers, there would therefore be no maximum size of the range and, if you only look at consumer satisfaction, you would opt for a large range. However, this has negative consequences for maximizers. It is difficult to determine how many maximizers and how many satisficers there are, because for many people this changes per object. It is also difficult to determine where part 1, part 2 (and for maximizers part 3) of the graph starts.
Conclusion
When it comes to choice and no choice, people are more satisfied with having a choice. However, having too many choices can lead to post-choice paralysis and regret. This can be demonstrated with an inverted-U-shaped graph. Stores would do well to sit right at the top, in part 2 of the chart. However, this is difficult because the graph looks different for everyone and the top is very difficult to determine. For part of the population, the so-called satisficers, it is not a problem if you expand the range slightly. If there is one good option, this group is satisfied. For another part of the population, the maximizers, too large a range causes dissatisfaction after purchase.
Future research may result in numbers being added to Desmeules’ graph so that the ranges can be adapted to the consumer. The connection between consumer satisfaction and consumer purchasing behavior should also be considered , as that is perhaps a connection that most chain stores are more interested in.