Notes on Mogilner, Rudnick, and Iyengar (2008) – The Mere Categorization Effect

Paper: “The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers’ Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 202–15.

Main Topic or Phenomenon

The paper examines the mere categorization effect - how the simple presence of category labels in choice environments influences consumer satisfaction with their chosen options, regardless of whether those categories provide meaningful information about the products.

Theoretical Construct

Mere Categorization Effect: The phenomenon whereby the presence of categories, irrespective of their informational content, positively influences chooser satisfaction by signaling greater variety among available options.

Key Related Constructs:

• Perceived Variety: Consumer perceptions of differences and diversity among available options in a choice set
• Self-Determination: The feeling of autonomy and control that comes from making choices among seemingly distinct options
• Preference Constructors vs. Matchers:
  • Preference Constructors: Consumers unfamiliar with the choice domain who must form preferences during the choosing process
  • Preference Matchers: Consumers familiar with the domain who have established preferences and seek to match them

Key Findings

1. Main Effect: The number of categories positively influences consumer satisfaction, even when category labels provide no meaningful information (alphabet-based categories work as well as descriptive ones)
2. Moderation by Expertise: The mere categorization effect occurs only for preference constructors (unfamiliar consumers), not preference matchers (familiar consumers)
3. Mediation Chain: Categories → Perceived Variety → Self-Determination → Satisfaction
   • Categories signal differences between options
   • Greater perceived variety increases feelings of autonomy from choice
   • Self-determination drives satisfaction
4. Choice Overload Mitigation: Categories can reduce the negative effects of extensive choice sets by helping consumers perceive variety in overwhelming assortments

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Primary Moderator: Consumer Expertise/Familiarity

• Effect only occurs for preference constructors (low domain familiarity)
• Preference matchers are unaffected by categorization because they can already perceive variety through their expertise

Boundary Conditions:

• Categories must be visually present (not just mentally organized)
• Effect requires some baseline number of options to categorize
• Works across different product domains (magazines, coffee)

Building on Previous Work

Extends Prior Research:

• Builds on perceived variety literature (Broniarczyk et al. 1998; Kahn & Wansink 2004) by identifying categories as a new variety cue
• Extends choice overload research (Iyengar & Lepper 2000) by proposing a solution through categorization
• Adds to “mere” effects literature (mere exposure, mere measurement) with a new perceptual phenomenon

Challenges Previous Assumptions:

• Challenges the view that categories only help through informational content
• Shows that even meaningless categorization can improve choice experiences
• Demonstrates that subjective choice experience can matter more than objective choice quality

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper introduces a novel perceptual mechanism for how categories influence choice satisfaction, distinct from previously studied cognitive mechanisms. It shows that categories function as visual cues that signal variety, not just as information-processing aids. This contributes to understanding how display features can shape consumer experience through perception rather than cognition.

The identification of expertise as a key moderator also advances theory on when and why choice architecture matters for different types of consumers.

Major Managerial Implication

Practical Takeaway: Retailers can improve customer satisfaction in large assortments by increasing the number of category labels, even if those categories don’t provide meaningful product information. This offers a cost-effective alternative to reducing product variety when facing choice overload concerns.

Specific Applications:

• Magazine racks, coffee shops, online marketplaces can benefit from more granular categorization
• Particularly effective for novice customers in unfamiliar product categories
• Can help transform “too much choice” into “just the right amount” through better visual organization

Unexplored Theoretical Factors

Potential Novel Moderators:

1. Regulatory Focus: Prevention-focused consumers might rely more heavily on categories as risk-reduction cues
2. Need for Cognitive Closure: High need individuals might show stronger categorization effects
3. Cultural Dimensions: Uncertainty avoidance cultures might show enhanced categorization benefits
4. Time Pressure: Categories might be more helpful under time constraints when quick differentiation is needed
5. Choice Set Size: There may be optimal ratios of categories to options
6. Visual Complexity: The salience and design of category labels might moderate the effect
7. Individual Differences in Processing Style: Holistic vs. analytic processors might respond differently
8. Mood States: Positive vs. negative affect might influence reliance on categorization cues
9. Decision Importance: High-stakes choices might alter the categorization effect
10. Social Context: Presence of others might influence category utilization

Unexplored Mechanisms:

• The role of cognitive load in moderating the effect
• How categories interact with other choice architecture elements
• The temporal dynamics of the categorization effect (immediate vs. delayed satisfaction)
• Whether the effect generalizes to non-visual categorization (e.g., auditory cues)

Reference

Mogilner, Cassie, Tamar Rudnick, and Sheena S. Iyengar (2008), “The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers’ Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 202–15.