Choice Overload in Tourism: Moderating Roles of Hypothetical and Social Distance

Choice Overload

Unless purchases are made habitually, consumers may experience difficulty in making choices and purchase decisions, and perceptions of difficulty can lead to less satisfaction and confidence in ultimate choices (Thomas & Tsai, 2012). The literature on economics focuses on utility maximization, and it has presented the assumption that having more choice options in a product category provides consumers with advantages, increasing the chance of obtaining a more valued alternative (Jessup et al., 2009). Although it increases search costs (Greifeneder et al., 2010), a large assortment of available products allows consumers to compare options and provides a sense of overall quality distribution. This condition leads to individuals making more confident and better-informed choices (Ariely & Levav, 2000; B. E. Kahn & Lehmann, 1991), enhancing the perceived freedom of choice among consumers and their feelings of autonomy and intrinsic motivation (B. Kahn et al., 1987), ultimately improving choice satisfaction (Botti & Iyengar, 2006). However, Chen et al. (2018) suggested that assuming that the attributes of available alternatives and the options within a choice set are known to consumers is an oversimplification of underlying behavioral processes, particularly for large choice sets.

Alternative views propose that when choice is complicated by an excessive number of options, the situation is likely to generate confusion, difficulty, and complexity. Iyengar and Lepper (2000) suggested that an overabundance of choice can be demotivating, such that consumers either give up on making a choice because the pay-off magnitude does not justify the additional time (Jessup et al., 2009) or end up less satisfied with their final choice. In the tourism domain, J. Y. Park and Jang (2013) determined that the likelihood of a consumer making “no choice” increased when the number of options exceeded 22, ultimately generating a perceived sense of regret. Pan et al. (2103) found that 20 choices (of hotel) versus 5 was considered overwhelming and that consumers applied heuristics to reduce the size of the consideration set, mostly related to price or room facilities. Thai and Yuksel (2017) established self-confidence as a moderator in the relationship between choice sets and destination evaluation (as a boundary condition), with low self-confidence linked to low destination satisfaction with large choice sets.

The contradictory effects of choice set size on the choice experiences of consumers have been debated. Although the differences between attractive alternatives are reduced, the amount of product information to be evaluated increases, the choice becomes more complex, and higher cognitive effort and capability are required from consumers (Greifeneder et al., 2010; Scheibehenne et al., 2010). Scheibehenne et al. (2010) linked choice overload (product difficulty) to the approach–approach conflict, that is, the motivational dissonance felt when deciding between equally attractive options, particularly when options appear similar. In large choice sets, similarities are likely to increase as the number of options increases, making choosing more difficult because gaining an overview of options is more challenging. This situation increases the fear of making a suboptimal choice and the feeling of regret over unchosen options (Greifeneder et al., 2010; Jo et al., 2022); meanwhile, it decreases confidence in and motivation for making choices (Scheibehenne et al., 2010). When products are less familiar, which is a frequent issue in tourism-related decisions, consumers can experience difficulty in identifying attributes that should be used to make decisions. Therefore, they are unable to apply heuristics to simplify their decisions, increasing the required cognitive effort and perceived product complexity (Heitmann et al., 2007). Accordingly, the following hypothesis, which seeks to estimate the effect of choice overload in the tourism-related context, can be presented (Figure 1):

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Proposed model.

Psychological Distance

CLT suggests that psychological distance is one of the crucial determinants of how individuals construe and think of events, objects, and tasks (Trope & Liberman, 2003). This distance affects consumers’ ability to process product and service information, influencing their judgment and evaluation of objects, attitudes, and behavior, including their consumption behavior (S. Kim et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2020). Psychological distance is defined as “a subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self, here, and now” (Trope & Liberman, 2010). People apply abstract, low-level construals to represent a distant event, focusing on the primary core of the event and its desirable attributes through structured and superordinate representations. They focus less on sensory, contextual, and emotional circumstances (Karl et al., 2023), considering the trip a whole rather than concentrating on its details (Su et al., 2022). By comparison, individuals use concrete, high-level construals as representations of a proximal event, engaging with the secondary, surface level of an event and its feasibility attributes through unstructured and subordinate representations (Trope et al., 2007). Construing actions at a higher level increases attention to aspects with implications for the central meaning of an action (ends-related) compared with the (various) costs (feasibility-related) associated with “obtaining” the product (Bornemann & Homburg, 2011). In summary, CLT explains that the more psychologically distant an event is, the more it represents higher levels of abstraction.

The fundamental idea of the association between psychological distance and abstraction is that of determining the probability of people having direct experiences and exhibiting information-seeking behavior (Liberman et al., 2002; C. J. Wakslak et al., 2006), including interactions with consumers’ temporal investment in information search (Golmohammadi et al., 2020). For a proximal event, consumers search for rich and contextualizing information, perceiving an event as concrete and feasible, due to the probability that they will have a direct experience of the event. When an event is more distant, people perceive it as less available, leading to the formation of a schematic representation (or desirability) of the event and the decontextualization of details (Trope & Liberman, 2003), that is, a form of speculative thinking (L. Huang et al., 2021). Speculative thinking involves speculating about future possibilities, including instances of different psychological distances. For tourism products, consumers are frequently speculating about the benefits of visiting a destination, rather than basing their decisions on experience. Studying geographical and temporal distances, Goodman and Malkoc (2012) suggested that when an “event” is distal, fewer choices are needed because those available are likely to satisfy the same overarching goal; by contrast, proximal events lead to different perceptions depending on how similar alternatives are, with a preference for larger sets if alternatives seem less substitutable. Thus, decisions for distal “events” are based on long-term goals or value-driven; consequently, they are less variable (Bischoff et al., 2020) and risky (Breves & Schramm, 2021). H. Wang et al. (2020) also suggested that when events are distal, consumers have lower motivation and involvement in their decision-making, triggering the use of heuristics.

In general, psychological distance has four dimensions: temporal, spatial, hypothetical, and social (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Temporal distance refers to the perceived proximity of an event in time (K. Kim et al., 2008). Spatial distance refers to the degree of closeness of an object or event (Miao & Mattila, 2013). Hypothetical distance can describe the likelihood that an event will occur (the event is likely vs. unlikely), alternatives to reality (the here and now; Liberman et al., 2007), or whether something actually exists (e.g., presentation of hypothetical destinations); all these situations are linked to uncertain outcomes (F. Wang et al., 2022). Hypothetical distance has been associated with self-control, with consumers being more likely to exhibit behavior that may be construed as lack of self-control (e.g., choosing luxury goods) when hypothetical distance is distal, and thus, an “event” is unlikely (C. J. Wakslak et al., 2006). Social distance refers to the perceived proximity among social groups (Y. Hong et al., 2017). It can include the strength of relationship with traveling companion(s) and cultural distance between tourist and host (Aleshinloye et al., 2020; Su et al., 2021; Tasci et al., 2022). Xu and Jin (2020) reported that social distance affects the desire for hedonic products, such as travel products, but not for utilitarian products. Golmohammadi et al. (2020) noted that when making service decisions, consumers are likely to experience social distance (traveling companion), spatial distance (a distant destination), temporal distance (booking in advance), and hypothetical distance (likelihood of happening).

Psychological distances affect tourists’ emotional responses and satisfaction (Miao & Mattila, 2013), hotel selection (J. Kim et al., 2018), and intra-destination activities (Grinberger & Shoval, 2019). They also influence promotional strategies in the hotel industry (J. Kim et al., 2016). Several studies in the tourism context have applied the concept of psychological distance to travel planning and information search behavior. For example, Massara and Severino (2013) found that spatial distance (international vs. local/regional/national tourists) played a mediating role in forming travel experiences in relation to heritage products, and that international tourists tended to exhibit higher construal of a heritage experience than local tourists. Basoglu and Yoo (2015) reported that travelers exhibited inconsistent preferences with regard to travel decisions and temporal distance levels, with high-level construals exerting a prominent influence on travel decisions when the temporal proximity of a travel experience was distant (i.e., 6 months away vs. right now). Su et al. (2022) found that consumers who disclosed tourism goals tended to enhance their goal commitment and goal-directed behavior when temporal distance was short but not when it was long.

Recently, studies have investigated the mitigation of psychological distance effects through information presentation. Jia et al. (2021) studied temporal and spatial distances in relation to the evaluation of tourism products. They found that additional pictorial images resulted in improved product evaluations when the event was distal, but the opposite result was observed when the event was proximal. Similarly, Yan et al. (2016) found that the degree to which people engaged in visual versus verbal processing mediated the effect of psychological distance on construal level. F. Wang et al. (2022) established that an attribute appeal message was more effective than a benefit appeal message for trips in the near future or to proximate destinations.

After reviewing the relevant literature, the present study argues that although previous tourism scholars have extensively explored temporal and spatial distances, attempts to understand the roles of social and hypothetical distances in travel decision-making are less common and no previous study that investigated the moderating effects of these distances on choice overload consequences has been found. Hence, the current study focuses on the moderating effects of two less-studied dimensions of psychological distances, namely, hypothetical and social distances, on travelers’ choice evaluation.

Moderating Effects of Hypothetical and Social Distances

In the retail and restaurant settings, assortment size preference has been demonstrated to be moderated systematically by psychological distance (Goodman & Malkoc, 2012). K. Kim et al. (2008) reported separate and interactive effects on construal level and consumer evaluations. As each psychological distance was increased, construal level increased; as each psychological distance was decreased, the effects of other dimensions were increased. N. Huang et al. (2016) observed a similar effect in relation to the influence of restaurant reviews.

From the perspective of hypothetical distance, the probability of occurrence is a crucial determinant of the psychological distance of an event, and thus, it is a form of mental representation (C. Wakslak & Trope, 2009; C. J. Wakslak et al., 2006). It can also be related to whether an event or absolute distance is real or hypothetical (e.g., presentation of hypothetical destinations), and whether an event is perceived as distinct from a person’s direct experience. Most studies on hypothetical distance have focused on the probability of occurrence. An uncertain event comprises greater distance than a certain (proximal) event, implying that the lower the likelihood that an event will occur, the greater its psychological distance (Trope et al., 2007). Probability can be assumed to be related to abstraction. When an assured event becomes a direct experience (i.e., short hypothetical distance), it is considered in a concrete manner through high-level construals that stress details, along with subordinate and feasibility attributes. However, when dealing with an event that is unlikely to happen (i.e., long hypothetical distance), individuals regard it as excluded from their direct experiences, and thus, approach it with an abstract processing orientation and low-level construals that focus on superordinate goals and desirability attributes. Therefore, reducing an event’s probability leads to the event being represented by end-state (desirability) features based on values and basic beliefs. If the probability of an event increases, then the focus is on feasibility aspects (Peleg-Koriat et al., 2020). Consequently, decisions for the future are frequently more virtuous than those for the present and driven by affective concerns (Williams et al., 2014).

Social distance describes the extent to which individuals accept people outside of their own social group or community (Trope & Liberman, 2010). This acceptance level can be developed in response to feelings toward others and the degree to which a person engages in social interaction with people, reflecting the perceived difference or distance among groups/individuals. People typically act more pro-socially toward close others, attaching more emotional and value significance to benefits for friends compared with for strangers (J. Li et al., 2020), for example, increased pleasure (Laran, 2010). People who are engaged with large social distances construe a target person by using abstract and primary information, such as stereotypes and traits (Idson & Mischel, 2001). Social distance can also be regarded as affective distance, signifying the level of sympathy that a person feels for another in accordance with social relationships (Y. Hong et al., 2017) or interpersonal similarities (Liviatan et al., 2008). In this regard, social distance has been operationalized on the basis of types of personal relationship (short social distance, friends or relatives vs. long social distance, acquaintances or coworkers) (Bogardus, 1947) and frequency of interaction (Karakayali, 2009).

In the tourism context, travelers with greater psychological distance construe the abstract and increase the weighting of the desirability attributes of their trips instead of the feasibility attributes (Goodman & Malkoc, 2012). When people focus on desirability attributes and high-level construals, the desire for options, variety, and preference affirmation is also likely to be created (Todorov et al., 2007). Consequently, a preference for a large array of choices is manifested in travel decisions. Thus, when a traveler is in a situation in which he/she is unlikely to travel due to the presence of a barrier (i.e., long hypothetical distance) or goes on a trip with an unknown person (i.e., long social distance), and is confronted with a large assortment of choices, the individual feels more confident and perceives less complexity in making choices than if he/she is in a travel situation characterized by short hypothetical and social distances. Ultimately, the traveler with greater psychological distance experiences higher levels of choice satisfaction than a consumer with less psychological distance. This phenomenon probably reflects that if an event is unlikely to happen, then the choice is of less consequence. Conversely, an individual with short psychological distance focuses on feasibility attributes, implying that he/she experiences difficulty when choosing from a large choice set, which, in turn, implies a reduced preference for large choice assortments (Chernev, 2006).

In circumstances of short social distance, consumers must satisfy their own needs and those of familiar travel companions. Therefore, they are likely to consider a wider variety of product attributes, and more options will equate to more cognitive load. They may also feel a level of responsibility to their travel companions, and therefore, the choice is riskier. Accordingly, a traveler who has direct travel experience (short hypothetical distance) or goes on a trip with her/his friend weighs up concrete and feasibility concerns, and thus, encounters difficulty when making a choice from a large choice assortment. Therefore, a moderating effect of social and/or hypothetical distance is implied as follows: possible circumstances, as yet unclear, may occur, wherein the assumption that a large choice set will be desirable to tourists may not be confirmed. This moderating effect may be the result of one of two potentially contradictory effects: the trade-off between the desirability of many choices and the feasibility of evaluating them or a perception that products become more substitutable in large sets, making decision-making easier (Goodman & Malkoc, 2012) and influencing perceived choice difficulty and choice/product complexity. Thus, in a situation with greater hypothetical or social distance, travelers with a large choice set will be expected to express fewer negative evaluations (i.e., choice difficulty and complexity, and product complexity) of the choice made from available options and the choice process than those with a small choice set. Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented (Figure 1):

Accordingly, the current study explores the effects of less frequently assessed psychological distances, namely, hypothetical and social distances, in a less studied context of travel choices, which are perceived as more difficult owing to the ambiguity of outcomes. This study focuses on perceived difficulty in making a choice when purchasing travel products (choice difficulty; Scheibehenne et al., 2009), the complexity of the choice task (choice complexity; Greifeneder et al., 2010), and the evaluation task among available sets (product complexity; Heitmann et al., 2007).

Introduction

The primary purpose of Study 1 was to test the major effect of choice set size on consumer’s responses to the choice settings proposed in Hypothesis 1. Choice set sizes were manipulated in two sets, including a small set (six alternatives) and a large set (24 alternatives), as suggested by Chernev (2003b) and Fasolo et al. (2009). In particular, J. Y. Park and Jang (2013) identified a choice overload threshold of 22 choices; above this threshold, travelers are likely to feel higher levels of choice regret and make “no choice,” as opposed to when they encounter less than 22 choices. The literature on choice overload has suggested a variety of consumers’ responses to an excessive number of choices. These consequences can be classified into two types: subjective state and behavioral outcome (Chernev et al., 2015). The current study focused on process-based indicators that described the subjective state of individuals and examined changes in consumers’ internal perceptions, such as choice/product complexity and choice difficulty (Scheibehenne et al., 2010).

Method

Results

Hypothesis Testing

The participants with a large choice set were significantly more likely to have higher levels of choice difficulty [M = 4.09, t (101) = −2.20, p < .05], choice complexity [M = 4.19, t (101) = −2.5, p < .05], and product complexity [M = 3.94, t (101) = −3.46 p < .001 than the participants with a small choice set (M = 3.36, 3.34, and 2.94, respectively) (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Comparisons of Choice-Set Size on Choice Evaluations.

	Small set		Large set
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t-value
Choice difficulty	3.36	1.62	4.09	1.72	−2.20*
Choice complexity	3.34	1.79	4.19	1.62	−2.50*
Product complexity	2.94	1.48	3.94	1.45	−3.46***

*

p < .05. ***p < .001.

The tourism and marketing literature have claimed the importance of product familiarity in potentially influencing consumer choices (Chernev, 2003a; Mogilner et al., 2008). Accordingly, we checked the potential confounding effect of familiarity with the airline options between the two groups. The results exhibited no statistical difference, alleviating the concern on other exogenous variables (M = 2.98 and 2.89 for the small and large sets, respectively; t (101) = 0.54; p > .05) (J. Y. Park & Jang, 2013).

Introduction

The purpose of Study 2 was to estimate the moderating effect of hypothetical distance on the relationship between choice set size and choice evaluations (Hypothesis 2). In relation with Study 1, Study 2 evaluates perceived choice/product complexity as indicators of consumers’ inner states toward different choice sets (Heitmann et al., 2007). When a traveler is in a situation wherein he/she is less likely to travel because of a barrier (i.e., long hypothetical distance), the subjects will perceive less complexity and difficulty when evaluating products and making a choice with a large choice set.

Method

Results

Hypothesis Testing

To assess Hypothesis 2, multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was conducted on choice difficulty/complexity and product complexity with respect to a 2 (choice set: small vs. large) × 2 (hypothetical distance: nearly certain to occur vs. nearly certain not to occur) between-subjects design.

Group comparisons between small and large sets were initially conducted, and the results revealed significant differences. Consistent with Study 1, subjects exposed to a large choice set presented higher choice and product complexity (M = 3.58, 3.65) than subjects exposed to a small choice set [M = 3.07, t (194) = −2.07, p < .01 and M = 3.05, t (194) = −2.93, p < .01, respectively). However, the comparison was insignificant in choice difficulty (M = 3.26 for the small set and 3.58 for the large set, p > .05). The MANOVA results revealed a significant interaction effect between choice size and hypothetical distance (see Supplemental Appendix IV for the full MANOVA results). In particular, this two-way interaction was found to be significant for all the factors that reflected responses to choice overload, including choice difficulty [F(1, 192) = 19.97, p < .001], choice complexity [F(1, 192) = 18.45, p < .001], and product complexity [F(1,192) = 16.91, p < .01], supporting Hypothesis 2. Consistent with the findings of Study 1, the major effects of choice size were significant in the perceived complexities of choice [F(1,192) = 3.80, p ≤ .05] and product [F(1,192) = 7.44, p < .01)]. Consequently, a moderating effect of hypothetical distance was found on the relationship between choice set size and perceived complexities of choices and products.

The interaction plots illustrate the relationships of the three examined variables (Figures 2 and 3). When the participants were presented with a small choice set and given a short hypothetical distance (i.e., certain to occur), they exhibited lower values of choice difficulty [M = 2.88, t (97) = −2.05, p < .05) and complexity [M = 2.59, t (97) = −2.60, p < .01] and product complexity [M = 2.74, t (97) = −2.03, p < .05] than those who were exposed to long distance sets (M = 4.16, 4.08, and 4.11). However, the participants exposed to a large choice set were likely to provide lower values of perceived difficulty [M = 2.75, t (95) = 4.22, p < .001]/complexities of choice and product [M = 2.86, t (95) = 3.41, p < .001 and M = 3.00, t (95) = 3.68, p < .001] than those who were given a small choice set (M = 3.54, 3.42, and 3.28) when the event was not certain to occur (i.e., high hypothetical distance). Lastly, the ANOVA showed no significant difference across the four groups in terms of familiarity with the choice options of camping sites, tolerating the effect of a confounding variable (F = 0.11, p > .05).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of hypothetical distance with choice-set size on consumer evaluations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

The moderating effect of social distance with choice-set size on consumer evaluations.

Table 2 presents the analyses that compared choice evaluations between hypothetical distance within small and large choice sets. The results revealed that within the small set, travelers in long hypothetical distance assessed higher choice difficulty and complexity, and product complexity than those in the short distance setting. For the large set, participants in the short hypothetical distance exhibited higher choice difficulty and complexity, and product complexity than those in the long distance.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Comparisons of Choice Evaluation Between Hypothetical Distance Within Choice Sets.

	Small set		t-value	Large set
	Short distance	Long distance		Short distance	Long distance	t-value
Choice difficulty	2.88	3.54	−2.05*	4.17	2.75	4.22***
Choice complexity	2.60	3.42	−2.60**	4.08	2.86	3.41***
Product complexity	2.74	3.23	−2.03*	4.11	3.00	3.68***

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Subjects and Design

Similar to the previous studies, online American travelers were invited to participate in an experimental study via MTurk. Monetary benefits of US$ 0.50 were offered upon completion of the study. A total of 196 participants joined the study (40.8% female; average age = 38 years; median household income = US$30,000–39,999; 63.8% full-time employee; 50.5% completed college/university). The participants were randomly assigned to one of 2 choice sets (small vs. large) × 2 (social distance: friends vs. people met through a travel community) between-subjects experimental design. The order of choice options was randomized to avoid the potential for a confounding effect.

Procedure

The participants were asked to read the instructions and the explanation of the purpose of this study. Subsequently, they were asked to imagine that they were planning a backpacking trip to Cancun, Mexico with travel companions and must choose the best hostel to stay in. Apart from the two sets of choice assortments (6 vs. 24 available choices), the participants were engaged in one of two different backpacking scenarios with different travel companions: their friends (i.e., short social distance) versus people they met through a backpacking community website (www.backpackingtogether.com) (i.e., long social distance). Built on Bogardus’ seven categories of social distance (relative, close friends, neighbors, coworkers, co-citizens, visitors, and within border) (Bogardus, 1947), Y. Hong et al. (2017) classified acquaintances from social networking sites as constituting a large social distance, while friends constitute a small social distance. The scenarios used in this study were adopted from relevant studies, such as C. Wakslak and Trope (2009) and C. J. Wakslak et al. (2006). Furthermore, descriptions of the available hostels, such as the price (US$20 per day) and consumer star ratings (at least 4 out of 5), were provided, along with images of the facilities and information about the number of beds in each hostel. The real names of hostels in Cancun, Mexico, along with actual images, were used to represent real-life examples. Such information enabled participants to choose the best options through the application of a cognitive process. Among the 195 subjects who participated in Study 3, 94 respondents were assigned to the small choice set (six available options), while 102 participants were assigned to the large choice set (24 available options). Consistent with the previous studies, the subjects were randomly assigned to one of two choice sets (small and large sets), and the order and composition of choice sets were randomly constructed. The choice options were presented in paired columns for both small and large sets. The same size and type of font and images were used, and the order and category of information about hostel choices were consistent (see Supplemental Appendix V).

After revealing the hostel options, the participants were asked to provide a measure of their perceived choice difficulty and complexity of choice and product (Greifeneder et al., 2010; Heitmann et al., 2007; Scheibehenne et al., 2009) on a seven-point Likert scale (see Supplemental Appendix I). Finally, the participants indicated their level of familiarity with hostels in Cancun and were asked to provide their demographic information.

Results

Hypothesis Testing

Consistent with Studies 1 and 2, the manipulation check of Study 3 was successfully achieved by asking a question (i.e., how close the travel companion is) to the respondents for the manipulation check of social distance (p < .05). Group comparisons between small and large sets were initially conducted, but the results did not present significant differences. Then, MANOVA was used to test Hypothesis 3 on choice difficulty and complexity, and product complexity in terms of a 2 (choice set: small vs. large) × 2 (social distance: a friend vs. a person met through a travel community website) factorial design. The MANOVA (see Supplemental Appendix VI for the full analytical results) presented a significant interaction effect between choice set size and social distance on evaluations of consumers’ choices. In particular, this two-way interaction was significant for choice difficulty (F-value = 22.03, p < .001) and complexity (F-value = 22.03, p < .001), and product complexity (F-value = 9.22, p < .01), accepting Hypothesis 3. Apart from the interaction effects, none of the other effects were significant.

To understand the associations clearly, Figure 3 shows the interaction plots. In particular, the participants in the small choice set, with long social distance (i.e., unknown travel companion) exhibited higher values of choice difficulty [M = 4.22, t (97) = −3.33, p < .01] and complexity [M = 4.17, t (97) = −2.84, p < .01], and product complexity [M = 3.75, t (97) = −1.58, p > .05] than those exposed to short social distance (i.e., a friend) (M = 3.14, 3.22, and 3.25; p < .01). However, reverse patterns were identified in the case of the large assortment group. The participants with long social distance tended to present lower levels of choice difficulty [M = 2.96, t (95) = 3.31, p < .01] and complexity [M = 2.95, t (95) = 3.77, p < .001] and product complexity [M = 2.86, t (95) = 2.69, p < .01] than those with short social distance [M = 4.12, 4.29, and 3.75; p < .01). Notably, a large difference in participants exposed to short distance was found, regardless of choice set size.

Table 3 presents the analyses that compared choice evaluations between social distance within small and large choice sets. The results are consistent with the findings from hypothetical distance. That is, travelers in long hypothetical distance assessed higher choice difficulty and complexity, and product complexity in the small choice set. The participants in short hypothetical distance exhibited higher choice difficulty and complexity, and product complexity than those in long distance from the perspective of a large assortment set.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Comparisons of Choice Evaluation Between Social Distance Within Choice Sets.

	Small set		t-value	Large set		t-value
	Short distance	Long distance		Short distance	Long distance
Choice difficulty	3.13	4.22	−3.33**	4.12	2.96	3.31**
Choice complexity	3.21	4.17	−2.84**	4.29	2.95	3.77***
Product complexity	3.25	3.75	−1.58	3.75	2.86	2.69**

**

p < .01. ***p < .001.