ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Consumer choice of retail shopping aids

Chiu-chi Angela Changa,, Raymond R. Burkeb
a
Department of Marketing and Management, Shippensburg University, 1871 Old Main Drive, Shippensburg, PA 17257, USA
b
Marketing Department, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA

Abstract

This research investigates how consumer and product category attributes affect consumer interest in using various shopping aids.
Research hypotheses were proposed based on a contingency framework of the relationship between consumer characteristics (i.e.,
purchase need, product knowledge, and brand preference heterogeneity) and shopping aid solutions (expanded selection, additional
product information, personalization, and evaluative information). The findings demonstrated the importance of considering consumer
characteristics when retailers design and provide shopping aids for consumers to facilitate purchase completion.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Shopping aids; Retail technology; Purchase deferral

1. Introduction and expand the available selection of merchandise.

Many consumers visit stores, walk the aisles, but end up
leaving empty handed. While some are browsers, examin-
ing a store’s merchandise without a current intention to
buy (Bloch and Richins, 1983), others have salient needs
that are not being satisfied by the retail environment.
People defer their purchases for a variety of reasons,
including the desired product being out of stock (Andersen
Consulting, 1996), insufficient product information, un-
satisfactory product selection, and difficulty in evaluating
alternatives (Huffman and Kahn, 1998), among others.
Delays can occur at various stages of the decision-making
process (Corbin, 1980; Greenleaf and Lehmann, 1995).
Obstacles are often encountered at the alternative evalua-
tion stage, manifested as conflict or preference uncertainty
(Dhar, 1997; Luce, 1998; Tversky and Shafir, 1992).
In recent years, retailers have looked for technology
solutions to help address these issues. They have deployed
kiosks, interactive displays, handheld shopping devices,
and computer-enabled grocery carts to assist with store
navigation, provide detailed product information, offer
personalized product recommendations and promotions,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 717 477 4068; fax: +1 717 477 1691.
E-mail addresses: ccchan@ship.edu (C.A. Chang),
rayburke@indiana.edu (R.R. Burke).
Unfortunately, many applications of retail shopping aids
have failed. In some cases, these aids do not address the
specific questions and concerns of consumers. In others, the
technologies attempt to do so many things that they
confuse consumers. The results of a national consumer
survey by Burke (2002) suggest that technology applica-
tions must be tailored to the unique requirements of
consumer segments and product categories. For example, it
was found that consumers prefer to use an information/
ordering kiosk or handheld shopping assistant when
shopping in information-intensive categories (such as
consumer electronics and books), whereas a self-scanning
device that can display product prices and speed checkout
is preferred for replenishment categories (such as groceries
and office supplies).
The retail industry could benefit from theoretical and
empirical research that helps to identify which technologies
or shopping aids consumers will be most likely to use in
specific contexts, and assesses the impact of these shopping
aids on purchase conversion and consumer satisfaction.
The findings would allow retailers to reduce purchase
postponement and increase product sales, customer satis-
faction, and repeat patronage. Consumer satisfaction with
the decision process has been found to be a significant
contributor to consumers’ overall satisfaction judgments
(Fitzsimons et al., 1995).

0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.12.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
340 C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
This paper develops and tests a conceptual framework
describing how the unique characteristics of consumers—
specifically, their need state, product knowledge, and
perception of preference heterogeneity—influence their
selection of shopping aids. The research focuses on four
shopping aids: expanded product selections, personalized
recommendations, additional product information (de-
tailed product specifications), and overall evaluative rat-
ings. These applications were selected because they can
help to address the root causes for delaying purchase, such
as insufficient product information, limited product offer-
ings, and evaluation uncertainty (cf. Corbin, 1980). By
facilitating the customer’s decision process, they can
enhance the shopping experience and increase decision
satisfaction (cf. Westbrook et al., 1978). The goal is to
provide retailers with the tools to effectively convert
consumers’ needs and desires into purchase.
2. Background
2.1. Consumer deferral decisions
Researchers have taken two main approaches to
investigating the issue of decision deferral. The first is
concerned with the stages in the decision process leading up
to choice. The research indicates that consumers may
decide to delay decisions in order to search for additional
alternatives or product information or to deliberate the
purchase decision. Consumers may also decide not to
purchase any of the available products. Corbin (1980)
identifies ambiguity, uncertainty, and unacceptability as
the barriers at the beginning, middle, and final stages of the
choice-making process, respectively. In particular, she
identifies four delay options that include: (1) inspecting
further alternatives; (2) tapping external sources of
information; (3) deliberation; and (4) waiting for a goal
object to become available. Greenleaf and Lehmann (1995)
identify several reasons for substantial consumer delay in
purchasing durable goods (defined as ‘‘when at least one
month elapses between need recognition and purchase’’),
including perceived risk, lack of advice or consent, and
procedural uncertainty. These authors emphasize the value
of studying delay at each stage in the process rather than
examining only total delay time.
A second stream of research focuses on the effects of
choice set composition on decision deferral. Tversky and
Shafir (1992) suggest that the search for additional choice
alternatives is determined not only by the value of the best
available option but also by the difficulty of choosing
among the options under consideration (i.e., conflict). Luce
(1998) argues that consumers will avoid decisions when
they are forced to cope with negative emotion (arising from
dealing with tasks involving high levels of trade-off
difficulty). Further, Dhar et al. demonstrate the effects of
task variables on purchase deferral, including task diffi-
culty/preference uncertainty, time pressure, and overall
attractiveness of the alternatives (Dhar, 1997; Dhar and
Nowlis, 1999; Dhar and Sherman, 1996).
2.2. Consumer information environments
Retail shopping aids have the potential to enhance the
customer shopping experience and reduce decision deferral,
but only if (1) consumers choose to use these aids and (2)
the information supports rather than detracts from the
decision process. Unfortunately, there has been little prior
research on the first issue. The available literature suggests
that shoppers will be most likely to use technology-based
shopping aids when they are easy to use and perceived as
useful (e.g., Davis et al., 1989).
On the second point, several studies have investigated
the impact of the information environment on decision
quality. The results indicate that more information is not
always better. Jacoby et al. (1974) show that consumers
who are given additional product information feel more
satisfied and less confused, but they actually make poorer
purchase decisions. Keller and Staelin (1987) find an
inverted U-shaped relationship between the amount of
information available and decision effectiveness. Bettman
(1975) mentions that ‘‘two or three summary attributes
would need to be used. . . because of the limitations in
consumers’ ability to combine many attributes into an
overall rating’’ (p. 174).
Similarly, more choice alternatives do not necessarily
improve the objective quality of decisions. An increased
number of alternatives contributes to task complexity and
the use of simplifying decision heuristics (Payne et al.,
1993). Even though freedom to choose is highly valued,
providing people with too many choice options can
produce negative effects (Iyengar and Lepper, 2000;
Schwartz, 2004).
It is also important to consider the presentation format.
In a field experiment on unit price information, Russo
(1977) demonstrated that consumers were better at
processing the information when it was organized in a list.
It appears that consumers may benefit most from moderate
amounts of information, presented in a clear, organized
fashion.
Prior research on the value of retail shopping aids has
produced mixed results. On the one hand, Todd and
Benbasat (1992) find that respondents who are given a
decision aid minimize their effort in a decision task; in
other words, decision makers do not translate the saved
effort into greater information usage or increased decision
performance. On the other hand, Haubl and Trifts (2000)
demonstrate that in a customizable electronic shopping
environment, use of a recommendation agent or a
comparison matrix generally leads to an increase in the
quality of consumers’ consideration sets, as well as
enhanced decision quality.
This study investigates the influence of customer
characteristics on the selection of various types of shopping
aids. The focus is on the type of aid selected rather than on
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
the specific execution. The desired information could be
delivered through high-tech (e.g., kiosk, handheld shop-
ping device) and/or conventional (e.g., sales associates)
means.
3. Conceptual framework
This research considers three consumer characteristics
relevant to the choice of shopping aids: (1) the consumer’s
salient need or purchase goal at the moment of entering the
store, (2) his or her knowledge of the product category, and
(3) the perceived degree of preference heterogeneity
(variation in tastes) across consumers.
Purchase needs are often expressed in general terms early
in the decision process, becoming more specific as the
consumer moves closer to making a purchase. Having a
‘‘broad need’’ means that consumers have not yet decided
on a specific brand or model; instead, they have a general
intention to buy in the product category. In this case, in-
store decision making and sales assistance (including retail
shopping aids) will play an important role in resolving
whether and which item consumers would buy. Conversely,
‘‘specific need’’ refers to purchases where consumers enter
the store planning to buy a specific brand or model. This
preference may be the result of brand loyalty, inertia,
personal recommendations, prior research (e.g., the Inter-
net), or simple decision rules (e.g., ‘‘buy the cheapest
brand’’), among other reasons.
For shoppers with specific needs, the main obstacles to
purchase are often product price and availability; i.e., the
product may be too expensive, it may not be carried by the
retailer, or it may be out of stock. Shoppers with more
general needs may encounter a variety of purchase barriers
depending on their personal knowledge and the availability
of product information. Knowledgeable consumers are
able to attend to, comprehend, and analyze relevant
product information, while less knowledgeable consumers
are likely to ‘‘subcontract’’ their decisions, relying on
others’ evaluations and recommendations (Rosen and
Olshavsky, 1987). If consumers have heterogeneous pre-
ferences, then the recommendations need to address their
unique needs (cf. Feick and Higie, 1992).
The value of retail shopping aids depends on their ability
to provide the necessary assistance to various types of
consumers who encounter specific obstructions to purchase
completion. Specific hypotheses relating consumer char-
acteristics to choice of different shopping aids are proposed
in the next section.
3.1. Hypotheses
3.1.1. Expanded selection
When consumers have a specific product in mind, the
purchase process should be a simple matching process.
However, people may encounter obstacles at various stages
in the shopping process, including product availability
(desired items are out-of-stock or not carried by the
341
retailer), navigation (items are difficult to locate), and
fulfillment (long queues and waiting time, form of payment
not accepted, product unaffordable). In this research, the
focus is on the first obstacle: products being out-of-stock.
Except for highly loyal shoppers or people searching for a
brand-specific promotion, most consumers are likely to
seek out acceptable substitutes rather than incur the costs
of switching stores or delaying or canceling the purchase
(Emmelhainz et al., 1991).
For shoppers who plan to buy a specific item, the
chances of finding that item will increase when the retailer
provides a more extensive product assortment, either by
offering a greater physical selection of merchandise or
providing access through a shopping aid, such as a product
locator or online shopping kiosk. In the event that the
consumer cannot obtain the desired alternative and must
look for a substitute, the availability of an expanded
selection should increase the probability that the consumer
will find an acceptable substitute. In contrast, if consumers
do not have a specific brand in mind, perhaps because they
have limited product knowledge and/or difficulty evaluat-
ing the alternatives, then a large assortment may actually
cause confusion and be detrimental to the buying decision
(cf. Huffman and Kahn, 1998).
In sum, expanded selection should be most helpful to
consumers who have a specific brand in mind, increasing
their chances of finding the desired product.
H1: Consumers with a specific brand need will be more
likely to choose to use shopping aids providing expanded
selection than shoppers with more broadly defined needs.
3.1.2. Additional product information
For consumers who enter a store with a broadly defined
need, product choice will be determined by the information
search and alternative evaluation that takes place within
the store. An important factor in this process is product
category knowledge. Urbany et al. (1989) find that
respondents with low knowledge uncertainty (i.e., high
product knowledge) and high choice uncertainty (i.e., a
broadly defined need) conduct the most extensive searches.
Alba and Hutchinson (1987) report that consumers with
prior knowledge are better able to comprehend product-
related messages, generate accurate simplifications of
technical information, and infer the relationships between
technical or attribute information and product benefits. In
contrast, consumers with little or no prior knowledge may
have difficulty assessing the benefits of their search, and the
high costs of information acquisition and processing may
lead them to use heuristics instead of relevant information.
Studies have also demonstrated that prior knowledge
can facilitate the selective encoding and processing of
information and reduce information overload. Experts are
better than novices at focusing their attention on relevant
and important information (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987),
and selectively attending to some alternatives and not
others (Huffman and Kahn, 1998). Because of their greater
processing abilities, one would expect that knowledgeable
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
342 C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
consumers would be more likely to use additional product
information offered at the point of purchase.
H2: Consumers with more product category knowledge
will be more likely to choose to use shopping aids
providing additional product information than less knowl-
edgeable shoppers.
3.1.3. Personalization and evaluative information
Consumers with limited product category knowledge
face a challenging task in selecting between complex
products. It can be difficult to identify essential product
features, weigh the importance of various attributes, and
identify the relationship between these attributes and
overall satisfaction with the product (West et al., 1996).
Further, consumer learning from experience is constrained
by the shopper’s motivation to learn, the memory load, the
ambiguity of information, and the biasing influences of
marketing (e.g., Hoch and Deighton, 1989; Hutchinson
and Alba, 1991; Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1992). It
follows that a less knowledgeable consumer will be less
likely to rely on his or her own decision-making abilities,
instead adopting dependent or subcontracted decision
processes, such as receiving and acting on a recommenda-
tion regarding a specific alternative from a knowledgeable
referrer or agent (cf. Rosen and Olshavsky, 1987).
Empirical evidence also indicates that consumers with little
experience tend to have very little incentive to search for
information and will actually conduct only limited searches
(e.g., Moorthy et al., 1997; Punj and Staelin, 1983).
In cases where consumers have limited motivation or
ability to process information, retailers can facilitate
decision making by providing evaluative information
and/or personalized recommendations. The term ‘‘evalua-
tive information’’ is used to describe an overall rating or
judgment of a product’s value, whereas personalization
refers to a customized recommendation based on an
analysis of a consumer’s past purchase history or expressed
or inferred preference. These ratings and recommendations
serve as a shortcut or summary of information for a novice
consumer, reducing the perceived uncertainty and decision
difficulty involved in deliberation about alternatives. The
following discussion explores the conditions when each of
these shopping aids will be preferred by the consumer.
Preference heterogeneity refers to the variability in brand
preferences across consumers. In high heterogeneity
categories, there is substantial variation, typically due to
differences in attribute weightings across consumers or
different ideal levels of particular attributes (Feick and
Higie, 1992). In contrast, low heterogeneity indicates that
consumers have similar preferences, often because they
have similar attribute weightings, brand perceptions, and/
or objectively measurable standards of evaluation.
Prior research suggests that personalized recommenda-
tions will be most helpful when consumers have high
preference heterogeneity. For example, the sales manage-
ment literature reports that adaptive selling is particularly
effective when consumers have heterogeneous preferences
(i.e., different ideal points) and when the consumer
purchase decision is characterized by complicated or
differentiated products, a lack of information relevant to
the decision situation, and diverse usage situations (Weitz
et al., 1986; Wernerfelt, 1994). Similarly, Feick and Higie
(1992) report that respondents focused on and were
influenced by source similarity information for high
preference heterogeneity services (e.g., night clubs), and
by source experience information for low preference
heterogeneity services (e.g., auto mechanics).
Huffman and Houston’s (1993) research on goal-
oriented knowledge development suggests that the product
knowledge structure for selecting a goal-satisfying alter-
native consists of three types of associations: feature-to-
brand, feature-to-goal, and brand-to-goal associations.
(These associations are conceptually similar to brand-
attribute beliefs, attribute importance weightings, and
brand evaluations, respectively.) This knowledge allows
the consumer to make a sound choice between alternative
brands. Personalization typically operates by recommend-
ing proper brand-to-goal associations—identifying the
brand(s) that are most instrumental in achieving the
consumer’s unique goals. This allows the less knowledge-
able consumer to select an appropriate alternative while
bypassing the complexity and difficulty involved in
learning the feature-to-brand and feature-to goal associa-
tions. Thus, by making use of personalization, the cost for
the consumer to find products consistent with a goal is
greatly reduced.
Extending the above findings to the current context, it is
argued that consumers shopping for products in categories
with high preference heterogeneity will be most interested
in adaptive or personalized recommendations, whereas
customers shopping in categories with low preference
heterogeneity will be most interested in general recommen-
dations or overall evaluative information, such as product
ratings.
H3: Consumers will be more likely to use shopping aids
providing personalized recommendations when they per-
ceive that other shoppers have different (heterogeneous)
rather than similar (homogeneous) preferences.
H4: Consumers will be more likely to use shopping aids
providing general evaluative information when they
perceive that other shoppers have similar (homogeneous)
rather than different (heterogeneous) preferences.
It is also important to note that a less knowledgeable
consumer may not be able to make fine distinctions and
may tend to perceive categories as homogeneous (Moorthy
et al., 1997).
4. Method
A study was designed and conducted to test the
hypotheses concerning the consumer’s choice of shopping
aids (i.e., expanded selection, additional information,
personalization, and evaluative information) under the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
conditions of varying purchase need, product category
knowledge, and preference heterogeneity.
Design: Data were collected using a consumer survey in
which respondents were asked to view a selection of
products available in the retail store and to use one or more
shopping aids in their purchase decision making. Several
personal and situational factors were measured in the
study, including purchase need, consumer knowledge, and
preference heterogeneity.
Subjects: One hundred and twenty-six undergraduate
students taking an introductory marketing course at a large
mid-western university participated in the study to receive
course credit.
Selection of target product: Based on the results of a
series of pretests, Personal Digital Assistants (or PDAs)
were selected as the target product category because (1) the
category was unfamiliar to most respondents, warranting
the use of shopping aids, and (2) the products were relevant
and appealing to the student sample. Note that PDAs have
various evaluative dimensions that can be incorporated
into the personalization manipulation. Also, pretest
respondents exhibited variation in preference heterogeneity
and knowledge for this product category.
Stimulus materials: A total of seven brands of PDAs
were selected for use in the study, representing the test
store’s product assortment. These were actual brands and
models (and associated product information) available on
the market at the time of the study. Each brand description
was accompanied by a thumbnail image and included item
name, price, and a few product feature highlights.
The four shopping aids investigated in this study were
represented by four clearly labeled booklets that respon-
dents could choose to consult during the shopping trip/
decision-making process:
 The booklet for the ‘‘expanded selection’’ condition
contained seven additional products that were not sold
in the store but available for purchase by respondents.
 The booklet for the ‘‘additional information’’ condition
contained detailed supplementary product specification
information for the PDAs sold in the store.
 In the ‘‘personalization’’ condition, a contingency table
was provided showing the relationships between pre-
ferred features (with explanations) and the correspond-
ing product recommendations. The specific features
listed—ease of use, battery life, display, synchroniza-
tion, and convenience—were the same dimensions used
by Consumer Reports magazine to evaluate PDAs.
 The booklet for the ‘‘evaluative information’’ condition
listed overall product ratings (on a 0–100-point scale) of
each brand/model in the store, based on Consumer
Reports data.
Procedures and measures: Each respondent was handed a
survey upon arrival at the lab. Respondents were told that
the purpose of the study was to understand how consumers
make purchase decisions in everyday shopping situations.
343
They would be asked to shop for a PDA in an electronics
store and would have the option to use shopping aids in
their decision making. The advantages and disadvantages
of using shopping aids were briefly mentioned (i.e., making
a better decision vs. spending more time in the store) to
help clarify the available options and reduce confusion. In
addition, respondents were told that they had the option of
not making a purchase from the store, as in a real shopping
situation. Finally, respondents were asked to assume that
they had been saving for the purchase to control for
income effects.
The survey assessed each respondent’s product knowl-
edge (using measures adapted from Smith and Park, 1992),
need state (knowing or not knowing which brand/model to
buy at the outset of the shopping trip) and perceived
preference heterogeneity (using measures adapted from
Feick and Higie, 1992). Respondents then proceeded to
‘‘browse’’ the store’s selection of seven brands/models of
PDAs. After reviewing the alternatives, they were in-
structed to use at least one of four shopping aids described
on the following page of the survey. To access these aids,
respondents had to come up to the experimenter and
request a specific booklet. When they finished viewing the
contents of one or more shopping aid booklets, respon-
dents could then request the next part of the survey. (This
procedure was used to ensure that respondents were
actually exposed to and made use of the information
provided by the shopping aids.) This section of the survey
asked respondents to confirm that they reviewed the
requested shopping aid booklet(s) and offered them
another opportunity to browse the store selection before
proceeding to the final stage of the study.
Respondents were then asked if they wanted to purchase
any of the PDAs in the store. If yes, they indicated the
specific brand and model of PDA they would purchase. If
not, they were asked why and to describe their next steps
(e.g., ‘‘look for additional product alternatives,’’ ‘‘collect
more information,’’ ‘‘think further about the purchase
decision,’’ etc.). Respondents then assessed the usefulness
of the shopping aid(s) that they had used earlier (using
measures adapted from Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).
Finally, measures of satisfaction with the decision process
were taken (using scales adapted from Westbrook et al.,
1978 and Fitzsimons et al., 1995, including the dimensions
of the evaluative process, product selection, and pre-
purchase information).
5. Results
The following sections (1) provide background informa-
tion on sample characteristics and descriptive statistics on
the choice of shopping aids, (2) test the hypotheses
concerning the relationship between respondent character-
istics and the use of specific shopping aids, and (3) compare
the percentage of respondents who purchased, as well as
average decision satisfaction ratings, across the four
shopping-aid groups. Note that all measures exhibited
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
344 C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
adequate reliabilities (Cronbach’s a4:70); thus, an average
score was calculated for each latent construct (i.e., product
knowledge, preference heterogeneity, usefulness of shop-
ping aid, decision satisfaction; all on nine-point scales).
Descriptive statistics: Of the 126 participants in the
study, only 18% (n ¼ 22) owned a PDA. Sixteen percent
(n ¼ 19) of respondents reported having a desire for a
specific brand while 82% (n ¼ 103) expressed a more
general need. The former group (specific-need respondents)
had a higher level of product category knowledge than the
latter (M’s ¼ 6:53 vs. 4.29, tð120Þ ¼ 4:79, p ¼ :000).
Most respondents chose to use only one shopping aid
(74.6%, n ¼ 94), whereas 22% (n ¼ 28) used two shopping
aids and 3% (n ¼ 4) used three aids. When two or more
shopping aids were selected, we assumed that these
decisions were independent. Among the four shopping
aids, evaluative product information was used most often
(52.4%), followed by additional product information
(29.4%) and personalized product recommendations
(29.4%). Expanded selection was used least frequently
(17.5%). In terms of shopping aid usefulness, all the aids
were evaluated favorably and deemed as useful (all greater
than 7.7 on a nine-point scale). In other words, respondents
believed that the shopping aid(s) they had used could help
them make better purchase decisions in real shopping
situations.
Considering both the store’s product assortment and
information obtained from the shopping aid(s), 30%
(n ¼ 37) of the respondents decided to delay their purchase.
Most of them cited ‘‘collect more information’’ (n ¼ 17)
and ‘‘think further about the purchase decision’’ (n ¼ 9) as
their next steps for the purchase of a PDA. Only four
respondents said they would ‘‘look for additional product
alternatives,’’ and another five respondents offered other
reasons such as price concerns and online research.
Modeling choice of shopping aids: A series of logistic
regressions were conducted to identify which factors were
associated with respondents’ use of a particular shopping
aid. Shopping aid choice was modeled as a function of
consumer need state, product category knowledge, and
preference heterogeneity.
The first logistic regression revealed that the respon-
dent’s level of product knowledge had a significant impact
on his/her use of the ‘‘expanded selection’’ shopping aid
(Wald statistic ð1Þ ¼ 9:39, po:01). Consumers with high
levels of product knowledge were more likely to explore the
expanded selection than those with limited product knowl-
edge. It appears that consumers must have a sufficient
understanding of the product category before they are
willing to take on the task of evaluating a larger set of
alternatives.
While the full regression model did not show a
significant relationship between consumers’ need specificity
and the choice of the ‘‘expanded selection’’ shopping aid, a
simple w2 analysis was statistically significant; w2
ð3Þ ¼ 10:85, p ¼ :013. Those shoppers with a specific
brand/model preference and those with a preferred set of
brands were more likely to choose an expanded selection
than those who did not have a brand in mind, as predicted
by H1. The difference in the two statistical tests may be due
to the observed correlation between product knowledge
and need specificity (r ¼ :4, po:001). A cross tabulation
(with a median split on product knowledge) revealed that
high knowledge respondents were more likely to have a
specific purchase need, whereas low knowledge respon-
dents tended to have a broad need; w2 ð1Þ ¼ 14:62, po:001.
Additional research is necessary to disentangle the effects
of prior knowledge and need specificity on choice of
shopping aid. By experimentally manipulating the con-
sumer’s product category knowledge and need state, one
could measure the independent effects of these variables on
the consumer’s use of an expanded selection.
H2 predicted that consumers with high product category
knowledge would be more likely to select the ‘‘additional
product information’’ shopping aid than those with low
knowledge. While this relationship was not observed, usage
of additional detailed product information was signifi-
cantly related to preference heterogeneity (Wald statistic
ð1Þ ¼ 7:02, po:01). Those respondents who considered the
product category high in preference heterogeneity were
more likely to choose to use additional product informa-
tion than those who considered the category low in
preference heterogeneity. It appears that when people have
mixed feelings about products, they are more motivated to
‘‘drill down’’ to understand the details of product
performance.1
The use of personalized product recommendations was
not found to be significantly associated with any pre-
dictors. Therefore, H3 was not supported. As noted earlier,
this shopping aid was only used by 29.4% of respondents,
perhaps due to the difficulty of working through the
contingency table of recommendations. Also, Burke (2002)
reports that some consumers express resistance to the idea
of being told which product to buy based on their personal
information.
H4 predicted that consumers would be most likely to use
evaluative information when they perceived that other
consumers had similar preferences. This prediction was
supported (Wald statistic ð1Þ ¼ 7:33, po:01). Respondents
who considered the product category low in preference
heterogeneity were more likely to choose to use evaluative
product information than those who considered the
category high in preference heterogeneity. The findings
demonstrate that consumers will be most likely to seek out
overall product ratings when they believe that others share
the same evaluative criteria.
Overall, respondents who chose to use the aid of
additional product information had the highest purchase
rates (76%), followed by those who used evaluative
information (73%), personalization (68%), or expanded
1
Also note that the correlation between knowledge and preference
heterogeneity measures was :205 ðpo:05Þ. Higher knowledge respondents
tended to consider the product category more heterogeneous.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
selection (67%). Respondents who used additional product
information had the highest satisfaction levels (6.36),
followed by those who used expanded selection (6.23),
evaluative information (6.06), or personalization (5.98).
6. Discussion and conclusions
This research demonstrates the importance of consider-
ing consumer characteristics when designing a retail store
and selecting shopping aids to enhance the customer
experience. These aids have the potential to overcome
obstacles at various stages of the shopping process (e.g.,
insufficient product information, difficulty in evaluating
alternatives, limited product assortment), thereby increas-
ing purchase conversion rate. However, consumers are
unlikely to use these tools unless they are tailored to
shoppers’ unique characteristics and requirements (product
category knowledge, need states, and preference hetero-
geneity). This research thus contributes to our under-
standing of consumer choice of retail shopping aids and
has practical implications for retailers regarding the
effectiveness of shopping aids in various situations.
The empirical findings showed that overall product
ratings were the most popular shopping aid, probably
because they provided simple performance information for
the available set of brands, directly connecting consumers’
goals with desired outcomes. At the other extreme, the
expanded selection was the least popular option, perhaps
because it increased decision complexity in an already
challenging category.
As predicted, the results indicated that evaluative
information had the greatest appeal when preference
heterogeneity was low. In addition, low preference hetero-
geneity was associated with low product knowledge. Thus,
consumers were most interested in having access to overall
evaluative ratings when they had similar evaluative criteria
and their product category knowledge was limited. On the
other hand, the expanded selection appealed most to high
knowledge consumers, who tended to have a specific
purchase need. It appears that expertise had the effect of
mitigating information overload brought about by ex-
panded selection. Prior research suggests that, if indivi-
duals do not know what they are specifically looking for,
an excessive assortment may actually cause frustration and
have detrimental consequences for motivation (Huffman
and Kahn, 1998; Iyengar and Lepper, 2000).
The results also indicated that additional product
information was preferred by consumers who considered
the product category heterogeneous. These consumers
wanted to understand the differences between the product
alternatives to select items that addressed their unique
needs. Finally, consumer preference for personalized
recommendations was not affected by any of the consumer
characteristics investigated. This might be due to the way
personalization was operationalized in the study. No
previous purchase histories or attribute preferences were
345
used to develop the recommendations. Instead, a con-
tingency table was provided.
Overall, additional product information produced the
highest purchase conversion rates and decision satisfaction.
This, along with the finding that the majority of the
respondents who decided to delay their purchase cited
‘‘collect more information’’ as their next step, highlights
the importance of providing additional product informa-
tion, particularly in a complex and heterogeneous pre-
ference product category.
This research can be extended in several ways. First,
retailers are concerned about the impact of retail shopping
aids on consumer behavior and store loyalty. Future
research should explore the relationship between the use of
retail shopping aids and purchase conversion, decision
satisfaction, and future shopping intentions. Second,
alternative research designs should incorporate actual
shopping situations and shopping aids to gather real-world
consumer data and confirm the findings from the
laboratory experiment. Longitudinal studies may be
conducted to investigate the long-term effects of installing
in-store shopping aids on various dependent measures (e.g.,
sales, return on investment, service and merchandise
quality perception, shopping experience costs). Finally, it
would be useful to investigate how the shopping aid
adoption decision in the retail store is affected by such
factors as the consumer’s attitude toward technology,
trialability, complexity, and situational influences.
In conclusion, with the prevalence of retail shopping
aids, both low- and high-tech, manufacturers and retailers
are challenged to take full advantage of their capabilities
for enhancing the customer experience and purchase
conversion. This study demonstrates that consumer beha-
vior research can help to identify which shopping aids
consumers will be most likely to use and benefit from in
specific situations.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
Indiana University’s Center for Education and Research
in Retailing. The paper has also benefited from the
comments and suggestions of the reviewers.
References
Alba, J.W., Hutchinson, J.W., 1987. Dimensions of consumer expertise.
Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March), 411–454.
Andersen Consulting, 1996. Where to look for incremental sales gains: the
retail problem of out-of-stock merchandise. The Coca-Cola Retailing
Research Council, Atlanta.
Bettman, J.R., 1975. Issues in designing consumer information environ-
ments. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (December), 169–177.
Bloch, P.H., Richins, M.L., 1983. Shopping without purchase: an
investigation of consumer browsing behavior. In: Bagozzi, R.P.,
Tybout, A.M. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 10.
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 555–558.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
346 C.A. Chang, R.R. Burke / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2007) 339–346
Burke, R.R., 2002. Technology and the customer interface: what
consumers want in the physical and virtual store. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 30 (Fall), 411–432.
Corbin, R.M., 1980. Decisions that might not get made. In: Wallsten, T.S.
(Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of
computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.
Management Science 35 (August), 982–1003.
Dhar, R., 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of
Consumer Research 24 (September), 215–231.
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S.M., 1999. The effect of time pressure on consumer
choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research 25 (March), 369–384.
Dhar, R., Sherman, S.J., 1996. The effect of common and unique features
in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 23 (December),
193–203.
Emmelhainz, M.A., Stock, J.R., Emmelhainz, L.W., 1991. Consumer
responses to retail stock-outs. Journal of Retailing 67 (Summer),
138–147.
Feick, L., Higie, R.A., 1992. The effects of preference heterogeneity and
source characteristics on ad processing and judgments about
endorsers. Journal of Advertising 21 (Summer), 9–24.
Fitzsimons, G.J., Greenleaf, E.A., Lehmann, D.R., 1995. Decision and
consumption satisfaction: implications for channel relations. Market-
ing Studies Center Working Paper Series, No. 313, University of
California, Los Angeles, 90095.
Greenleaf, E.A., Lehmann, D.R., 1995. Reasons for substantial delay in
consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 22
(September), 186–199.
Haubl, G., Trifts, V., 2000. Consumer decision making in online shopping
environments: the effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing
Science 19 (Winter), 4–21.
Hoch, S.J., Deighton, J., 1989. Managing what consumers learn from
experience. Journal of Marketing 53 (April), 1–20.
Huffman, C., Houston, M.J., 1993. Goal-oriented experiences and the
development of knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 20
(September), 190–207.
Huffman, C., Kahn, B.E., 1998. Variety for sale: mass customization or
mass confusion? Journal of Retailing 74 (Winter), 491–513.
Hutchinson, J.W., Alba, J.W., 1991. Ignoring irrelevant information:
situational determinants of consumer learning. Journal of Consumer
Research 18 (December), 325–345.
Iyengar, S., Lepper, M.R., 2000. When choice is demotivating: can one
desire too much of a good thing. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology 79 (6), 995–1006.
Jacoby, J., Speller, D.E., Berning, C.K., 1974. Brand choice behavior as a
function of information load: replication and extension. Journal of
Consumer Research 1 (June), 33–42.
Keller, K.L., Staelin, R., 1987. Effects of quality and quantity of
information on decision effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research
14 (September), 200–213.
Luce, M.F., 1998. Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden
consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March), 409–433.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D., 1997. Consumer information
search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer
Research 23 (March), 263–277.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J., 1993. The Adaptive Decision
Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pechmann, C., Ratneshwar, S., 1992. Consumer covariation judgments:
theory or data driven? Journal of Consumer Research 19 (December),
373–386.
Punj, G., Staelin, R., 1983. A model of consumer information search
behavior for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research 9
(March), 366–380.
Rosen, D.L., Olshavsky, R.W., 1987. A protocol analysis of brand choice
strategies involving recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research
14 (December), 440–444.
Russo, J.E., 1977. The value of unit price information. Journal of
Marketing Research 14 (May), 193–201.
Schwartz, B., 2004. The paradox of choice: why more is less.
HarperCollins Publishers Inc, New York, NY.
Smith, D.C., Park, C.W., 1992. The effects of brand extensions on market
share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research 29
(August), 296–313.
Todd, P., Benbasat, I., 1992. The use of information in decision making:
an experimental investigation of the impact of computer-based
decision aids. MIS Quarterly 16 (September), 373–393.
Tversky, A., Shafir, E., 1992. Choice under conflict: the dynamics of
deferred decision. Psychological Science 6 (November), 358–361.
Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R., Wilkie, W.L., 1989. Buyer uncertainty and
information search. Journal of Consumer Research 16 (September),
208–215.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the
technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage-
ment Science 46 (February), 186–204.
Weitz, B.A., Sujan, H., Sujan, M., 1986. Knowledge, motivation, and
adaptive behavior: a framework for improving selling effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing 50 (October), 174–191.
Wernerfelt, B., 1994. On the function of sales assistance. Marketing
Science 13 (1), 68–82.
West, P.M., Brown, C.L., Hoch, S.J., 1996. Consumption vocabulary and
preference formation. Journal of Consumer Research 23 (September),
120–135.
Westbrook, R.A., Newman, J.W., Taylor, J.R., 1978. Satisfaction/
dissatisfaction in the purchase decision process. Journal of Marketing
78 (October), 54–60.