IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v38y2022i3p620-635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What you see is what you get, and what you don't goes unsold: Choice overload and purchasing heuristics in a horticulture lab experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron Staples
  • Bridget K. Behe
  • Patricia Huddleston
  • Trey Malone

Abstract

Though choice overload has been extensively studied in packaged products, fewer studies have explored these phenomena in minimally packaged agribusiness products such as potted plants. This matters as these products are heterogeneous not only across product categories but also within the same plant genus, changing the baseline cognitive load for consumer decision‐making. This study uses eye‐tracking technology to explore how increases in the number of options presented in potted plant retail displays affects visual attention and consumer choice by expanding cognitive load. In a within‐subjects design, participants completed six choice tasks, indicating their likelihood to buy their most preferred alternative. As display size increased, participants ignored a larger percentage of the display, engaged in common choice patterns, and spent a lower percentage of their gaze sequence fixated on their selected alternative. [EconLit Citations: C91, D91, Q13]

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron Staples & Bridget K. Behe & Patricia Huddleston & Trey Malone, 2022. "What you see is what you get, and what you don't goes unsold: Choice overload and purchasing heuristics in a horticulture lab experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 620-635, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:38:y:2022:i:3:p:620-635
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21736
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21736?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grebitus Carola & Roosen Jutta & Seitz Carolin Claudia, 2015. "Visual Attention and Choice: A Behavioral Economics Perspective on Food Decisions," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 73-81, January.
    2. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    3. Erjen van Nierop & Dennis Fok & Philip Hans Franses, 2008. "Interaction Between Shelf Layout and Marketing Effectiveness and Its Impact on Optimizing Shelf Arrangements," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1065-1082, 11-12.
    4. Kevin L. Sample & Henrik Hagtvedt & S. Adam Brasel, 2020. "Components of visual perception in marketing contexts: a conceptual framework and review," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 405-421, May.
    5. Atalay , Selin & Onur Bodur , H. & Rasolofoarison , Dina, 2012. "Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice," HEC Research Papers Series 978, HEC Paris.
    6. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    7. Raymond J. Folwell & D. Andy Moberg, 1993. "Factors in retail shelf management impacting wine sales," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(6), pages 595-603.
    8. Huddleston, Patricia T. & Behe, Bridget K. & Driesener, Carl & Minahan, S., 2018. "Inside-outside: Using eye-tracking to investigate search-choice processes in the retail environment," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 85-93.
    9. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    10. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    11. Selin Atalay & H. Onur Bodur & Dina Rasolofoarison, 2012. "Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice," Post-Print hal-00758534, HAL.
    12. Orquin, Jacob L. & Bagger, Martin P. & Lahm, Erik S. & Grunert, Klaus G. & Scholderer, Joachim, 2020. "The visual ecology of product packaging and its effects on consumer attention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-195.
    13. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities, and cognitive load," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 49-65.
    14. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar, 2015. "The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 97-119.
    15. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    16. Jonah Berger & Michaela Draganska & Itamar Simonson, 2007. "The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 460-472, 07-08.
    17. Marit E. Kragt, 2013. "Stated and Inferred Attribute Attendance Models: A Comparison with Environmental Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 719-736, September.
    18. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    19. A. Selin Atalay & H. Onur Bodur & Dina Rasolofoarison, 2012. "Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(4), pages 848-866.
    20. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    21. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    22. Graham, Dan J. & Orquin, Jacob L. & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2012. "Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 378-382.
    23. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    24. Ellen J Van Loo & Rodolfo M NaygaJr & Danny Campbell & Han-Seok Seo & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Using eye tracking to account for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 333-365.
    25. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    26. Trey Malone & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "A simple diagnostic measure of inattention bias in discrete choice models," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 455-462.
    27. Alicia Rihn & Hayk Khachatryan & Benjamin Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2016. "Consumer preferences for organic production methods and origin promotions on ornamental plants: evidence from eye-tracking experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 599-608, November.
    28. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Mitigating Choice Overload: An Experiment in the U.S. Beer Market," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 48-70, February.
    29. Vincenzina Caputo & Ellen J. Van Loo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Comparing Serial, and Choice Task Stated and Inferred Attribute Non†Attendance Methods in Food Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 35-57, February.
    30. Benjamin L. Campbell & Alicia L. Rihn & Julie H. Campbell, 2021. "Impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on plant purchasing in Southeastern United States," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 160-170, January.
    31. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2017. "The excessive choice effect meets the market: A field experiment on craft beer choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 8-13.
    32. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    33. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    34. Jacob L Orquin & Sonja Perkovic & Klaus G Grunert, 2018. "Visual Biases in Decision Making," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 523-537, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ellen J Van Loo & Carola Grebitus & Rodolfo M Nayga & Wim Verbeke & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "On the Measurement of Consumer Preferences and Food Choice Behavior: The Relation Between Visual Attention and Choices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 538-562, December.
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Jacob L Orquin & Sonja Perkovic & Klaus G Grunert, 2018. "Visual Biases in Decision Making," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 523-537, December.
    4. Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Using Mixed Logit Based Models to Control Attribute Nonattendance in Choice Experiments," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304547, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    6. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    7. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Bansal, Prateek & Kim, Eui-Jin & Ozdemir, Semra, 2024. "Discrete choice experiments with eye-tracking: How far we have come and ways forward," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    9. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    11. Roose, Gudrun & Vermeir, Iris, 2023. "Putting spatial product presentation cues on the map: Review and research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(PA).
    12. Orquin, Jacob L. & Bagger, Martin P. & Lahm, Erik S. & Grunert, Klaus G. & Scholderer, Joachim, 2020. "The visual ecology of product packaging and its effects on consumer attention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 187-195.
    13. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    14. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "An analysis of process-tracing research on consumer decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-320.
    18. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    19. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    20. Kremena Valkanova, 2024. "Markov Stochastic Choice," Papers 2410.22001, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:38:y:2022:i:3:p:620-635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.