Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
- Journal
- Journal of Consumer Research
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/651235 →Countries where authors are citing Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
This map shows the geographic impact of Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
This network shows the impact of Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload.
About Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
This paper, published in 2010, received 671 indexed citations . Written by Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter M. Todd covering the research area of Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Marketing (264 citations), Sociology and Political Science (176 citations) and General Decision Sciences (148 citations). Published in Journal of Consumer Research.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1086/651235.