Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice under restrictions

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nearly every decision a person makes is restricted in some way. While we are painfully aware of some of these restrictions, others go largely undetected. This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding how restrictions interact with situational and individual characteristics, as well as goals to influence behavior. Implications for overlooked research opportunities in choice modeling are presented and discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  • Adams, J. G. U. (1985). Risk and freedom—The record of road safety regulations. Nottingham: Bottesford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions in business market. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen, A. R. (1975). The disadvantaged consumer. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. L., & Srinivasan, T. C. (1995). Studying consideration effects in empirical choice models using scanner panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 30–41 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. M., & Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2001). Marketing and public accomodation: A retrospective on title III of the Americans with disabilities act. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(2), 297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. I. (2005). Building understanding of the domain of consumer vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 128–139 (December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatwright, P., & Nunes, J. C. (2001). Reducing assortment: An attribute-based approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 50–63 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatwright, P., & Nunes, J. C. (2004). Correction note for ‘Reducing Assortment: An Attribute-Based Approach’. Journal of Marketing, 68, 50–63 (July).

    Google Scholar 

  • Botti, S., & Iyengar, S. S. (2004). The psychological pleasure and pain of choosing: When people prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 312–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2006). When choosing is not deciding: The effect of perceived responsibility on satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 211–219 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L., & Gilbert, C. G. (2007). How managers’ everyday decisions create or destroy your company’s strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 243–275). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S. M. (2008). Product assortment. In C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 755–779). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Chapter 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S. M., Hoyer, W. D., & McAlister, L. M. (1998). Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category: The impact of item reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 166–177 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., & Feinberg, F. (2002). How does choice affect evaluations? Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 331–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Option attachment: When deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 15–29 (June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). Obesity and the calorie underestimation bias: A psychophysical model of fast-food meal size estimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 84–99 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 170–183 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2005). Feature complementarity choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 348–359 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dréze, X., Hoch, S. J., & Purk, M. E. (1994). Shelf management and space elasticity. Journal of Retailing, 70(4), 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, P. H., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1987). Phantom choices: The effects of unavailable alternatives on decision making, technical Report 87–2. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (2005). Overchoice and assortment type: When and why variety backfires. Marketing Science, 24(3), 382–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.-M., Henderson, G. R., & Williams, J. D. (2005). Courting customers: Assessing consumer racial profiling and other marketplace discrimination. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(1), 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., Dellaert, B., & Usta, M. (2007). Ironic effects of personalized product recommendations on subjective consumer decision outcomes. Working Paper.

  • Häubl, G., & Murray, K. B. (2003). Preference construction and persistence in digital marketplaces: The role of electronic recommendation agents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1&2), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., & Murray, K. B. (2006). Double agents: Assessing the role of electronic product-recommendation systems. Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, M., & Iles, J. (2002). The establishment and enforcement of codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–46). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. P., & Stamey, M. (1990). The homeless in America: An examination of possessions and consumption behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 303–321 (December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Hill, R. P. (2000). On human commoditization and resistance: A model based upon Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Psychology & Marketing, 17(6), 469–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). Choices and its consequences: On the costs and benefits of self-determination. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 71–96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B. E., & Baron, J. (1995). An exploratory study of choice rules favored for high-stakes decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B. E., & Lehmann, D. R. (1991). Modeling choice among assortment. Journal of Retailing, 67, 274–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 519–533 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (vol. 15, pp. 192–240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant of customer preferences towards frequency program rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 155–170 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 39–58 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer, P. (1987). Markets with consumer switching costs. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer, P. (1995). Competition when consumers have switching costs: An overview with applications to industrial organization, macroeconomics, and international trade. Review of Economic Studies, 62(4), 515–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology and Marketing, 8, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. (1992). Scarcity’s enhancement of desirability: The role of naïve economic theories. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419–430 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales, A. C., Kahn, B. E., McAlister, L., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2005). Perception of assortment variety: The effects of congruency between consumers’ internal and retailers’ external organization. Journal of Retailing, 81(2), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K., & Häubl, G. (2007). Explaining cognitive lock-in: The role of skill-based habits of use in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 77–88 (June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2006). The endowed progress effect: How artificial advancement increases effort. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 504–512 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozanne, J., Hill, R. P., & Wright, N. (1998). Juvenile delinquents’ use of consumption as cultural resistance: Implications for juvenile reform programs and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 185–196 (Fall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 503–518 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1997). Enterprise one-to-one: Tools for competing in the interactive age. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(0), 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing less preferred experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 1–15 (June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1991). Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 429–440 (November).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 99–111 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddarth, S., Bucklin, R. E., & Morrison, D. G. (1995). Making the cut: Modeling and analyzing choice set restriction in scanner panel date. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 255–266 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 434–446 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szrek, H., & Baron, J. (2007). The value of choice in insurance purchasing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(5) 529–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E. (1979). Hospital patient behavior: Reactance, helplessness, or control? Journal of Social Issues, 35, 156–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214 (Summer).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179 May 2003 (Papers and Proceedings).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. P., & Soldow, G. F. (1988). A rules-based approach to competitive interaction. Journal of Marketing, 52, 63–74 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2006). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. American Management Journal, 48, 1143–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbany, J. E. (2005). Inspiration and cynicism in values statements. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 169–182 (December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhallen, T. M. M. (1982). Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2, 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhallen, T. M. M., & Robben, H. S. J. (1995). Unavailability and the evaluation of goods. Kyklos: International Review for Social Sciences, 48(3), 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B. (2006a). Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. New York: Bantam-Dell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B. (2006b). Nutritional gatekeepers and the 72% solution. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(9), 1324–1326 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can low-fat nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 605–617 (November).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice. Marketing Science, 17(4), 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P. T., Welner, B. (1981). When people ask ‘why’ questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 650–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London Business School, Sussex Place, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4SA, United Kingdom

    Simona Botti

  2. University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Susan Broniarczyk

  3. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2R6

    Gerald Häubl

  4. Villanova School of Business, Bartley Hall Rm 1045, Marketing, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    Ron Hill

  5. University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Yanliu Huang

  6. University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33124, USA

    Barbara Kahn

  7. Dartmouth College, 100 Tuck Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755-9050, USA

    Praveen Kopalle

  8. George E. Warren Professor of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Donald Lehmann

  9. University of Notre Dame, Mendoza College of Business, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA

    Joe Urbany

  10. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Brian Wansink

Authors
  1. Simona Botti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Broniarczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerald Häubl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ron Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yanliu Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Barbara Kahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Praveen Kopalle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Donald Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Joe Urbany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Brian Wansink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald Lehmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Botti, S., Broniarczyk, S., Häubl, G. et al. Choice under restrictions. Mark Lett 19, 183–199 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9035-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9035-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation