T he notion of information overload has received a fair measure of attention in the consumer behavior literature. Early research on the phenomenon (Jacoby 1974; Jacoby, Kohn, and Speller 1973; Jacoby, Speller, and Berning 1974; Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn 1974) suggested that there could be dysfunctional consequences resulting from providing consumers with "too much" information. These studies soon spawned critics (Russo 1974; Summers 1974; Wilkie 1974), rejoinders (Jacoby 1977; Jacoby, Speller, and Beming 1975) and additional empirical work (Scammon 1977; Staelin and Payne 1976). While the critics raised a variety of technical issues regarding the empirical procedures employed (e.g., what are the best ways to operationalize information and decision quality, should one correct for guessing as a function of the number of brands available, and so on), Jacoby was perhaps his own severest critic. This occurred primarily in two articles which appear to have attracted negligible attention and which, when cited, seem not to be recognized as the fundamental critiques that they are. The first paper (Jacoby 1975) begins by summarizing the results of several additional overload studies (including some conducted outside of the U.S. and others involving authentic subject motivation-that is, test situations in which the consumer actually kept the product selected), all of which seemed to confirm an overload effect and most of which were likely to have been published in the climate of those times. The purpose of the paper was to describe the evolution of my thinking. Accordingly, the second half raised and discussed several fundamental issues, all of which focused on the inability of the traditional overload research paradigm-as advanced and researched by Jacoby-to capture and model the real world. These same arguments are made even more explicit in the second paper, which concluded that the information overload research paradigm had limited ability to provide a suitable basis for real-world managerial and policy decisions (Jacoby, Speller, and Berning 1975, p. 155). Thus by 1976, the literature contained ample cause for concern about attempts to employ the basic overload approach to answer applied questions. Yet the flow of such research has not abated. Indeed, some researchers even rely on the overload paradigm to argue for both sides of the issue. As a case in point, consider the papers by Malhotra (1982) and Malhotra et al. (1982). In April 1982, an article by Malhotra, Jain, and Lagakos entitled "The Information Overload Controversy: An Alternative Viewpoint" appeared in the Journal of Marketing. This article reanalyzed the data from three prior overload investigations-two in the Journal of Consumer Research (Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn Berning 1974; Scammon 1977) and one in the Journal of Marketing Research (Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn 1974)-and arrived at the following conclusions (Malhotra et al. 1982, p. 35)