Search for: All records

Abstract When consumers select bundles of goods, they may construct those sequentially (e.g., building a bouquet one flower at a time) or make a single choice of a prepackaged bundle (e.g., selecting an already-complete bouquet). Previous research suggested that the sequential construction of bundles encourages variety seeking. The present research revisits this claim and offers a theoretical explanation rooted in combinatorics and norm communication. When constructing a bundle, a consumer chooses among different choice permutations, but when selecting amongst prepackaged bundles, the consumer typically considers unique choice combinations. Because variety is typically overrepresented among permutations compared to combinations, certain consumers (in particular, those with similar attitudes toward items that could compose a bundle) are induced by these different numbers of pathways to variety to display more or less variety-seeking behavior. This is in part explained by the variety norms communicated by different choice architectures, cues most likely to be inferred and used by those who are indifferent between the potential bundle components and thus looking for guidance. Across 5 studies in the main text and 11 in the web appendix, this article tests this account and offers preliminary exploration of newly identified residual effects that the pathways-to-variety account cannot explain. 

In predicting what others are likely to choose (e.g., vanilla ice cream or tiramisu), people can display a commonness fallacy—overestimating how often common (but bland) options (e.g., vanilla ice cream) will be chosen over rarer (but exciting) options (e.g., tiramisu). Given common items are often chosen merely because they are frequently offered, not because they are preferred (tiramisu is rarely offered as a dessert), commonness is not necessarily diagnostic of future choice. Studies 1a and 1b document the commonness fallacy in forecasts of single and repeated choices. Study 2 replicates it in an incentivecompatible choice context. Studies 3 and 4 uncover when and why perceived commonness is relied upon. Perceived commonness is spontaneously used as a guide when forecasting others’ choices (as though people blur what has been chosen with what people will choose), but not when forecasting what others would be pleased to receive. Choice forecasters leaned upon perceived commonness over and above many other cues, including their own choices, the goods’ prices, and even how much others were thought to like each option. Upon conscious reflection, choice forecasters abandon commonness and gravitate toward more normatively defensible input. Studies 5 and 6 used correlational and experimental methods, respectively, to examine antecedents of the commonness fallacy. Study 7 illustrates a literally costly consequence: A 2-part marketplace simulation study found amateur sellers’ reliance on perceived commonness prompted them to systematically misprice goods.