Effect of Categorization on the Decision Maker Satisfaction
Field and laboratory experiments suggest that there is a strong correlation between the categories and satisfaction of the decision maker (Mogilner, Rudnick & Iyengar, 2008). The results reveal that the satisfaction of the chooser is independent of the content presented concerning the various categories of products available. As such, Mogilner et al. (2008) argue that holding other factors constant, the availability of categories have a positive impact on the satisfaction levels of the consumer who is likely to be unfamiliar with the criteria of choosing. Categorization effect is influenced by various factors that relate to the product categories. Consequently, this influences the choosing criterion of the consumer from the various varieties of commodities available thereby allowing for a greater sense of self-determination while making a choice on which product to buy (Weiss & Johar, 2013).
According to Mogilner et al. (2008), categorization of products makes it easier for customers to identify what they need without having to struggle to locate the item. For instance, in a hypothetical supermarket, assuming there is no product labeling and categorization, it would be tough for customers to locate an item. As such, this leads to time wastage as buyers have to go through all the shelves identifying what they want. However, if products that belong to the same category are put in the same location and labeled, this make things easy for the consumers and helps increase their satisfaction.
Isaac and Schindler (2013) argues that the satisfaction levels of consumers are not only cognitive, but also a perceptual process in the sense that, their various perceptions about the display of the products influences their satisfaction. As such, Isaac and Schindler (2013) posit that there is a strong connection among the categorization of products, self-determination, and customer satisfaction in the sense that each one of them influences the other in that order. Therefore, sellers should consider this factors while categorizing different products to influence buyers while making decisions on what to buy.
Subsequent Task Following a Decision
Notably, consumers across the globe encounter various commodities that can be sorted into different categories for easier identification. As such, these alignments of goods will greatly influence the way customers perceive various products, which will, in turn, influence their decision making on purchases (Ulkumen, Chakravarti, & Morwitz, 2010). One of the important tasks to perform during this stage is to organize products by taxonomic or goal-oriented categorizations. The aim of this function is to align commodities in the right order that may be attractive to the consumers thereby influencing their decision to buy the distinct commodities. Organizing commodities can be in the form of brands and by their complements or related products that derive the same satisfaction to the consumer. Outstandingly, organizing and symmetry of the products alignment have proved to be significant to the consumers. Further, the congruence between clients and the various organization schemes of the retailers have been found to influence consumers’ decision (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). Correspondingly, these externalities influence critical decision outcomes including choice, time, and satisfaction.
On the other hand, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) noted that the level of congruity that exists between the product and a more general product category schema have an impact on how consumers process information and after that, make their preferred evaluations about the product, which in turn influences their purchasing decisions. Evaluation can take place at two levels, that is, as either a complete match or as an activated product schema. As in the case of matching of the product, evaluations for a complete match are based on the product category schema while that of the mismatch relies on a more specific product schema. For example, a beverage slice, which is grouped into the category of soft drinks contains features that attribute it to the soft drink schema. However, this product category also has some other features that are excluded in the soft drink such as the real fruit juice. As such, consumers may evaluate such a product differently and make decisions that impact on the commodity sales.
Satiation Following a Decision
Fundamentally, categorization of items is critical in influencing the decision making and satisfaction by the consumers at all levels. Consumers rank their preferred products and then make a value judgment by what is provided and evaluate the level of satisfaction they obtain from the use of those commodities (Foroni & Rothbart, 2011; Weiss & Johar, 2013). For example, a client willing to buy a computer and sees some labeled as supercomputers and can afford them will go for it on the condition that the client ranks it as a supercomputer and it has features of a supercomputer. Further, the individual satisfaction of consumers is based relatively on what they have and the meanings they attach to given commodities. According to Ferraro, Escalas, and Bettman, (2011), some individuals have emotional attachments to particular goods that they obtain their satisfaction from; therefore, whenever they want to buy other commodities, they make reference to their preferences.
Further, some consumers believe that products can give them the satisfaction they deserve only if they originate from particular countries (Maheswaran, 1994). Campbell and Mohr (2011) study on negative stereotypes and its influence on conducive behavior explains this behavior. For example, there are those who consider items from Hungary as “very original” while those from China as relative fair products. As such, although China’s products dominate the market, when presented with the two commodities, rational consumers will go for the product from Hungary. Other studies show that categorization has effects on the satisfaction level based on the social entanglement of a person (Lee, Kim, & Vohs, 2011). In their view, despite making decisions concerning the product, social groups have a significant role in influencing the purchase of an item. Similarly, social groups are said to have a preference for particular products to others (Smeesters, Mussweiler, & Mandel, 2010).
Ranked List
Recent studies show that customers have some value propositions they attach to a certain categorization of goods. They believe that some groups of products are better positioned than others and that is enough to shift their decisions about particular products. The ranking is an important aspect in the businesses environment as it influences the decision making by the consumers (Isaac & Schindler, 2013). Notably, consumers have a psychological ranking of commodities that largely falls under two broad categories; cross and round-number category boundaries (Pope & Simonsohn, 2011). Under each category of ranking, customers make preferred decisions basing on what they view suitable for them. However, they display the tendency to prefer improvements in ranks that take place in the round-number category as they are goods used daily.
Further, ranked lists are believed to be informative and educative. Through consumption, consumers make decisions concerning products basing on their inclusion and position in the ranked list (Isaac & Schindler, 2013). Categorization serves an important role in facilitating the improvement of goods and services in the desired direction and enhances customer satisfaction as well as shaping the organizational decisions by attained ranks. Furthermore, categorization of products regarding ranks brings the idea of product exaggeration. Such an exaggeration has a special bearing on the on consumer evaluation regarding products and services that companies offer. For example, when a product or service is ranked low by the customers, the company will strive to generate new products that will attract them or modify the existing ones to meet the customers’ specifications and satisfaction.
References
Campbell, M. C. & Mohr, G. S., (2011). Seeing is eating: how and when activation of a negative stereotype increases stereotype-conducive behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. 38(3), 431-444. doi: 10.1086/659754.
Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R., (2011). Our possessions, our selves: Domains of self-worth and the possession-self link. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 169-177.
Foroni, F., & Rothbart, M., (2011). Category boundaries and category labels: When does a category name influence the perceived similarity of category members? Social Cognition, Guilford Publications. 29 (5), 547-576.
Isaac, M.S, & Schindler, R. M., (2013). The top-ten effect: Consumers’ subjective categorization of ranked lists. Journal of consumer research, Inc. 40(6), 1181-1202. doi: 10.1086/674546.
Lee, K., Kim, H., & Vohs, K.D., (2011). Stereotype threat in the marketplace: consumer anxiety and purchase intentions. Journal of consumer research, Inc. 38(2), 343-357. doi: 10.1086/659315.
Maheswaran, D., (1994). Country of origin as a stereotype: Effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product evaluations. Journal of consumer research. 21(2), 354-365.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M., (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research. 16(1), 39-54.
Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., & Iyengar S. S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: how the presence of categories increases choosers’ perception of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. 35(2), 202-215.
Pope, D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). Round numbers as goals: Evidence from baseball, SAT takers, and the lab. Psychological Science Cambridge, 22(1), 71-79.
Smeesters, D., Mussweiler, T., & Mandel, N. (2010). The effects of thin and heavy media images on overweight and underweight consumers: Social comparison processes and behavioral implications. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 930-949.
Ulkumen, G., Chakravarti, A., & Morwitz, V.G. (2010). Categories create mind-sets: The effect of exposure to broad versus narrow categorizations on subsequent, unrelated decisions. Journal of Marketing Research. 47(4), 659-671.
Weiss, L., & Johar G.V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don’t). Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. 40(1), 185-201. doi: 10.1086/669330.
