L’effetto del sovraccarico di scelta: un’indagine su bambini, adolescenti, adulti e anziani

Titolo Rivista: RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA
Autori/Curatori: Raffaella Misuraca, Palmira Faraci
Anno di pubblicazione: 2020 Fascicolo: 3 Lingua: English
Numero pagine: 13 P. 845-847 Dimensione file: 258 KB
DOI: 10.3280/RIP2020-003003
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit.
Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

L’effetto del sovraccarico di scelta è stato finora studiato prevalentemente su adulti. L’unico studio condotto su fasce di età diverse dagli adulti ha fornito una prima dimostrazione del fatto che le conseguenze negative dell’avere troppa scelta non si estendono in egual misura a bambini, adolescenti, adulti e anziani. Il presente lavoro si propone di indagare ulteriormente le conseguenze negati-ve dell’avere troppa scelta su bambini, adolescenti e anziani. I dati suggeriscono che mentre gli adolescenti sono influenzati dal fenomeno in modo simile agli adulti, i bambini e gli anziani sembrano invece esserne immuni. Sono discusse le implicazioni teoriche e pratiche dei risultati e sono forniti spunti per ulteriori ricerche.

  1. Amieva, H., Phillips L., & Della Sala, S. (2003). Behavioral dysexecutive symptoms in normal aging. Brain and Cognition, 53, 129-132. DOI: 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00094-0
  2. Anderson, B. F., & Misuraca, R. (2017). Perceptual commensuration in decision tables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 544-553. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1139603
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values, 2nded. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  4. Chernev, A. (2003). Product assortment and individual decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 151-162. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.151
  5. Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 333-358.
  6. Crawford, J. D., & Stankov, L. (1996). Age differences in the realism of confidence judgments: A calibration study using tests of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 83-103.
  7. Coldwell, S. E., Oswald, T. K., & Reed, D. R. (2009). A marker of growth differs between adolescents with high versus low sugar preference. Physiology & Behavior, 96, 574-580.
  8. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
  9. Deci, E. L. (1981). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Heath.
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
  11. Desor, J. A., & Beauchamp, G. K. (1987). Longitudinal changes in sweet preferences in humans. Physiology & Bahavior, 39, 639-641. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(87)90166-1
  12. Fasolo, B., Carmeci, F. A., & Misuraca R. (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: When choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 213-228.
  13. Fasolo, B., McClelland, G. H., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Escaping the tyranny of choice: When fewer attributes make choice easier. Marketing theory, 7, 13-26. DOI: 10.1177/1470593107073842
  14. Fasolo, B., Misuraca, R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Individual differences in adaptive choice strategies. Research in Economics, 57, 219-233 (online).
  15. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics (2012). Older Americans 2012: Key Indicators of Well Being.
  16. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The Affective Heuristic in Judgment of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
  17. Furby, L., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1-44. DOI: 10.1016/0273-2297(92)90002-J
  18. Harker, W. J. (1979). Implications from psycholinguistics for secondary reading. Reading Horizons, 19, 217-221.
  19. Haynes, G. A. (2009). Investigating the dynamics of choice overload. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 204-212.
  20. Inbar, Y., Botti, S., & Hanko, K. (2011). Decision speed and choice regret: When haste feels like waste. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 533-540.
  21. Iyengar, S. S., Huberman, G., & Jiang, W. (2004). How Much Choice is Too Much? Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans. In O. S. Mitchell & S. Utkus (Eds.), Pension design and structure: New lessons from behavioral finance (pp. 83-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse-Looking for the «best» job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17, 143-150.
  23. 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, 995-1006. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511618031.017
  24. 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, 33-42. DOI: 10.1086/208579
  25. 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. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191
  26. Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, (Vol. III, pp.252-410). New York: Wiley.
  27. Markopoulos, P., Read J. C., MacFarlane, S. J., & Höysniemi J. (2008). Evaluating interactive products with and for children. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  28. Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 496-502.
  29. Misuraca, R. (2013). Troppa scelta ha veramente conseguenze negative? Una rassegna di studi empirici” (Do too many choices have negative consequences? An empirical review.). Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 35(1), 129 -153.
  30. Misuraca, R., Ceresia, F., Teuscher, U., & Faraci, P. (2019). The role of the brand on choice overload. Mind and Society, 18, 57-76.
  31. Misuraca, R., Faraci, P., Gangemi, A., Carmeci, F. A., & Miceli, S. (2015). The Decision Making Tendency Inventory: A new measure to assess maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 111-116.
  32. Misuraca, R. & Fasolo, B. (2018). Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: Disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 152-160.
  33. Misuraca, R., Miceli, S., & Teuscher, U. (2017). Three effective ways to nurture our brain: Phsysical activity, healthy nutrition, and music. A review. European Psychologist, 22, 101-120.
  34. Misuraca, R., Reutskaja, E., Fasolo, B., & Iyengar, S. S. (2020). How much choice is “good enough”? Moderators of information and choice overload. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality. Abingdon: Routledge.
  35. Misuraca, R., & Teuscher, U. (2013). Time flies when you maximize. Maximizers and satisficers perceive time differently when making decisions. Acta Psychologica, 143(2), 176-180.
  36. Misuraca, R., Teuscher, U., & Carmeci, F. A. (2016). Who are maximizers? Future oriented and highly numerate individuals. International Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 307-311.
  37. Misuraca, R., Teuscher, U., & Faraci, P. (2016). Is more choice always worse? Age differences in the over choice effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 242-255. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2015.1118107
  38. 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, 35, 202-215. DOI: 10.1086/588698
  39. Peters, E., Hess, T. H., Västfjäll, D., & Auman, C. (2007). Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults’ decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 1-23.
  40. Quadrel, M. J., Fischhoff, B., & Davis, W. (1993). Adolescent(in)vulnerability. American Psychologist, 48, 102-116. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.102
  41. Reutskaja, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2009). Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When goods satiate. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 197-203.
  42. Reutskaja, E., Iyengar, S. S., Fasolo, B., & Misuraca, R. (2020). Cognitive and affective consequences of information and choice overload. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality. Abingdon: Routledge.
  43. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.
  44. Salthouse, T. A. (2006). Mental exercise and mental aging: Evaluating the validity of the ‘‘use it or lose it’’ hypothesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 68-87.
  45. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.
  46. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2009). What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychology & Marketing, 26, 229-253.
  47. Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tiranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79-88. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.79
  48. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Harper Collins.
  49. Shah, A., & Wolford, G. (2007). Buying behavior as a function of parametric variation of number of choice. Psychological Science, 18, 369-370.
  50. United Nations Population Division, DESA (2009).World Population Ageing 2009. New York: United Nations publication.
  51. Walter, J. M., & Soliah, L. A. (1995). Sweetener preference among non-institutionalized older adults. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 14, 1-13.
  52. Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N.K. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing and Health 13, 227-236.

  • Can We Do Better Next Time? Italians’ Response to the COVID-19 Emergency through a Heuristics and Biases Lens Raffaella Misuraca, Ursina Teuscher, Costanza Scaffidi Abbate, Francesco Ceresia, Michele Roccella, Lucia Parisi, Luigi Vetri, Silvana Miceli, in Behavioral Sciences /2022 pp.39
    DOI: 10.3390/bs12020039

Raffaella Misuraca, Palmira Faraci, L’effetto del sovraccarico di scelta: un’indagine su bambini, adolescenti, adulti e anziani in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA " 3/2020, pp 845-847, DOI: 10.3280/RIP2020-003003