Notes on Ariely and Levav (2000) – Sequential Choice in Group Settings

Main Topic or Phenomenon Addressed

This paper examines how individual decision-making changes when choices are made sequentially in group settings, specifically focusing on the phenomenon of group-level variety seeking in restaurant ordering contexts. The authors investigate why people often choose differently when ordering in groups compared to when making individual choices.

Theoretical Construct and Framework

Goal Balancing Framework: The central theoretical contribution is the concept that individuals in group settings must balance two classes of goals:

1. Individual-alone goals: Goals independent of others’ presence (e.g., satisfying personal taste preferences)
2. Individual-group goals: Goals contingent on group context or others’ choices (e.g., information gathering, self-presentation, regret minimization)

Four Specific Goal Types:

• Satisfying one’s taste (individual-alone)
• Minimizing regret and avoiding losses (individual-group)
• Information gathering (individual-group)
• Self-presentation/uniqueness (individual-group)

The framework predicts that when these goal classes conflict, individuals engage in goal balancing, making trade-offs that can lead to choices different from their pure taste preferences.

Key Findings

1. Group variety seeking: Real groups consistently choose more varied options than would be expected from random sampling (demonstrated across three studies using a Variety Index)

2. Sequential order effects: First choosers in groups report higher satisfaction than subsequent choosers, suggesting later choosers sacrifice taste satisfaction for other goals

3. Lower satisfaction in group contexts: People choosing in group settings report lower satisfaction and higher regret compared to those choosing independently

4. Information gathering matters: Groups with opportunities to learn new information (Wine study - No Information condition) showed higher variety seeking than those with prior information

5. Need for uniqueness predicts variety seeking: Individual differences in need for uniqueness (NFU) positively correlate with tendency to choose previously unchosen options

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Identified in the paper:

• Table size: Effects may change with larger groups (subgroup formation possible)
• Product familiarity: Information gathering becomes more important with unfamiliar products
• Category constraints: Variety seeking occurs within certain bounds (e.g., similar price ranges, dish types)
• Sequential position: First choosers are unencumbered by group contingency

Suggested but not tested:

• Time lag between ordering and consumption
• Group entitativity (how much the group sees itself as a unit)
• Cultural context and social norms around variety/conformity

Building on Previous Work

Extends social influence literature: Unlike traditional research on group conformity (Asch, 1955) or single group decisions, this examines multiple simultaneous individual decisions that collectively create a group outcome.

Challenges pure taste satisfaction: Contradicts economic assumptions that consumers simply maximize personal utility; shows social context fundamentally alters choice processes.

Builds on variety-seeking research: Extends individual variety-seeking literature (Simonson, 1990; Kahn, 1995) to group contexts, showing variety seeking can occur for social rather than purely personal reasons.

Advances goal theory: Develops Mackie & Goethals’ (1987) individual vs. group goals concept into a dynamic decision-making framework.

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper’s primary theoretical contribution is demonstrating that consumer choice in group settings involves a systematic goal balancing process that can lead individuals to choose options that reduce their personal satisfaction in favor of satisfying group-contingent goals. This challenges the assumption that social influence primarily leads to conformity and shows that group contexts can systematically produce variety seeking through specific psychological mechanisms.

Major Managerial Implications

For restaurants and service providers:

• Understand that group ordering creates predictable variety-seeking patterns
• Consider menu design and ordering processes that either facilitate or constrain variety seeking depending on business objectives
• Recognize that customer satisfaction may vary by ordering position

For marketers:

• Group context can be leveraged to encourage trial of new products
• Understanding goal balancing can help predict when consumers will deviate from stated preferences
• Sequential choice processes can be designed to optimize different outcomes (variety vs. satisfaction)

Theoretical Factors Not Explored

Potential novel moderators and mechanisms:

1. Cultural dimensions: Individualism vs. collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance could moderate goal balancing

2. Relationship dynamics: Closeness of group members, hierarchical relationships, romantic vs. friendship vs. business contexts

3. Cognitive resources: Mental fatigue, cognitive load, or time pressure during decision making

4. Individual differences beyond NFU: Risk tolerance, susceptibility to social influence, expertise/confidence in domain

5. Group composition effects: Gender mix, age diversity, expertise heterogeneity

6. Temporal factors: Frequency of group dining together, special occasions vs. routine meals

7. Economic factors: Who pays, relative wealth of group members, price sensitivity

8. Communication patterns: Explicit discussion of choices vs. silent observation, recommendation-seeking behavior

9. Physical environment: Private dining vs. public spaces, noise levels, time constraints

10. Choice architecture: Menu design, ordering technology (simultaneous vs. sequential), server behavior

11. Post-choice processes: Sharing/sampling food, social comparison during consumption, retrospective evaluation

12. Individual regulatory focus: Prevention vs. promotion orientation might influence which goals are prioritized in balancing

Reference

Ariely, Dan and Jonathan Levav (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 279–90.