Choice Overload in the Grocery Setting: Results from a Laboratory Experiment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most basic strategic decisions a retailer must take involves determining the product assortment to offer inside the store. Despite the importance of the topic, there are two opposite strands of literature that have come up with completely different points of view. To summarize them, the first one states that the more choices, the better, while the second one states that more choices lead to weaker preferences and lower levels of satisfaction. Furthermore, the majority of studies conducted so far have focused their attention on collecting self-report measures. However, it has been argued thet self-report measures, interviews and questionnaires may have strong biases. Specifically, they are a product of psychological, sociological, linguistic, experiential and contextual variables, which may have little to do with the construct of interest. Thus, the present work intends to enrich the extant literature about the effect of ‘choice overload’ on customer satisfaction and behavior inside the store by analyzing both cognitive and unconscious responses. In order to confirm our hypothesis, an experiment, involving 171 participants, was conducted in a laboratory supermarket in Milan to test the reactions in front of a regular pastry display and a display characterized by fewer options.     
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it