The Role of the Brand on Choice Overload

  • Raffaella MisuracaEmail author
  • Francesco Ceresia
  • Ursina Teuscher
  • Palmira Faraci


Current research on choice overload has been mainly conducted with choice options not associated with specific brands. This study investigates whether the presence of brand names in the choice set affects the occurrence of choice overload. Across four studies, we find that when choosing among an overabundance of alternatives, participants express more positive feelings (i.e., higher satisfaction/confidence, lower regret and difficulty) when all the options of the choice set are associated with familiar brands, rather than unfamiliar brands or no brand at all. We also find that choice overload only appears in the absence of brand names, but disappears when all options contain brand names—either familiar or unfamiliar. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.


Choice overload Brand Consumer decisions Decision-making 



  1. Chernev A (2003) When more is less and less is more: the role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. J Consum Res 30:170–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chernev A, Böckenholt U, Goodman J (2015) Choice overload: a conceptual review and meta-analysis. J Consum Psychol 25:333–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deci E (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deci EL, Nezlek J, Sheinman L (1981) Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. J Pers Soc Psychol 40:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart J Econ 75:643–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fasolo B, Misuraca R, McClelland GH (2003) Individual differences in adaptive choice strategies. Res Econ 57:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fasolo B, Carmeci FA, Misuraca R (2009) The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: when choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychol Market 26:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glass DC, Singer JE (1972a) Urban stress: experiments on noise and social stressors. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Glass DC, Singer JE (1972b) Behavioral aftereffects of unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events: although subjects were able to adapt to loud noise and other stressors in laboratory experiments, they clearly demonstrated adverse aftereffects. Am Sci 60:457–465Google Scholar
  11. Haynes GA (2009) Investigating the dynamics of choice overload. Psychol Market 26:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Inbar Y, Botti S, Hanko K (2011) Decision speed and choice regret: when haste feels like waste. J Exp Soc Psychol 47:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79:995–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iyengar SS, Huberman G, Jiang W (2004) How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401 (k) retirement plans. Pension Des Struct New Lessons Behav Finance 83–95:84–87Google Scholar
  15. Iyengar SS, Wells RE, Schwartz B (2006) Doing better but feeling worse looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychol Sci 17:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacoby J, Speller DE, Berning CK (1974a) Brand choice behavior as a function of information load: replication and extension. J Consum Res 1:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacoby J, Speller DE, Kohn CA (1974b) Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. J Mark Res 11:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kapferer JN, Laurent G (1988) Consumer brand sensitivity: a key to measuring and managing brand equity. In: Leuthesser L (ed) Defining, measuring and managing brand equity. Market Sci Inst, Cambridge, pp 12–15Google Scholar
  19. Langer EJ, Rodin J (1976) The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. J Pers Soc Psychol 34:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Misuraca R, Fasolo B (2018) Maximizing versus satisfying in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”. Pers Individ Differ 121:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Misuraca R, Teuscher U (2013) Time flies when you maximize—maximizers and satisfiers perceive time differently when making decisions. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 143:176–180Google Scholar
  22. Misuraca R, Faraci P, Gangemi A, Carmeci FA, Miceli S (2015) The decision making tendency inventory: a new measure to assess maximizing, satisfying, and minimizing. Pers Individ Differ 85:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Misuraca R, Teuscher U, Carmeci FA (2016a) Who are maximizers? Future oriented and highly numerate individuals. Int J Psychol 51:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Misuraca R, Teuscher U, Faraci P (2016b) Is more choice always worse? Age differences in the overchoice effect. J Cogn Psychol 28:242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mogilner C, Rudnick T, Iyengar SS (2008) The mere categorization effect: how the presence of categories increases choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. J Consum Res 35:202–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nenkov GY, Morrin M, Schwartz B, Ward A, Hulland J (2008) A short form of the maximization scale: factor structure, reliability and validity studies. Judgm Decis Mak 3:371–388Google Scholar
  27. Reutskaja E, Hogarth RM (2009) Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: when “goods satiate”. Psychol Market 26:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr Gen Appl 80:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2009) What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychol Market 26:229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J Consum Res 37:409–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schulz R, Hanusa BH (1978) Long-term effects of control and predictability-enhancing interventions: findings and ethical issues. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:1194–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why more is less. Ecco, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Shah AM, Wolford G (2007) Buying behavior as a function of parametric variation of number of choices. Psychol Sci 18:369–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor SE (1989) Positive illusions: creative self-deception and the healthy mind. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor SE, Brown JD (1988) Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull 103:193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raffaella Misuraca
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Francesco Ceresia
    • 1
  • Ursina Teuscher
    • 3
  • Palmira Faraci
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political Science and International RelationsUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWashington State UniversityVancouverUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  4. 4.Facoltà di Scienze Umane e SocialiUniversità di Enna “Kore”EnnaItaly

Personalised recommendations