Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 16, Issue 3–4, pp 321–333 | Cite as

A New Look at Constructed Choice Processes

  • Dale Griffin
  • Wendy Liu
  • Uzma Khan
Article

Abstract

Normative models of choice assert axiomatically that preferences are consistent, coherent, and determined only by relevant alternatives. In contrast to this classical economic perspective, behavioral models derived from research in psychology and consumer behavior assert that preferences are not guided by an internal, stable utility function but are constructed during the choice process. The current paper is based on a session on constructed choice processes (CCP) at the 2004 Choice Symposium that focused on how the standard CCP model can be enriched by bringing theories and tools from modern research in social cognition to bear on choice phenomenon. The richer conceptual framework presented by new, currently unpublished empirical work provides a novel perspective on choice construction by integrating the roles of subjective construal, experiential information, attribution, goals, and satisfaction in understanding preference construction processes in choice.

Keywords

behavioral decision theory choice social cognition normative models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba, Joseph. W., J. Wesley Hutchinson, and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1991). “Memory and Decision Making.” In H.H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1–49.Google Scholar
  2. Bargh, John A. (1997). “The Automaticity of Everyday Life.” In Robert S. Wyer, Jr. (ed.), The Automaticity of Everyday Life: Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 10, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne (1998). “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research 25(December), 187–217.Google Scholar
  4. Chakravarti, Dipankar and John G. Lynch. (1983). “A Framework for Exploring Context Effects in Consumer Judgment and Choice.” In R. Bagozzi and A. Tybout (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 10). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  5. Fishbach, Ayelet and Ravi Dhar. (2004). “The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice,” working paper, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
  6. Hsee, Christopher. (2004). “Hedonomics,” working paper, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
  7. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne and Christopher Puto. (1982). “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,” Journal of Consumer Research 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Iyengar, Sheena S. and Wei Jiang. (2004). “How Choices are Demotivating: Examining the Effects of Adding Options on Decision Makers' Risk Preferences,” working paper, Columbia University Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
  9. Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper. (2000). “When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6), 995–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, Daniel and Shane Frederick. (2002). “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment.” In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  12. Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar. (2004). “The Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” working paper, Yale University School of Management.Google Scholar
  13. LeBoeuf, Robin and Eldar Shafir. (2004). “Alternating Selves and Conflicting Choices: Identity Salience and Preference Inconsistency,” working paper, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  14. Liberman, Nira, Michael. C. Sagristano and Yaacov Trope. (2002). “The Effect of Temporal Perspective on Level of Construal,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, 524–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liberman, Nira and Yaacov Trope. (2004). “Temporal Construal and Choice Processes,” working paper, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  16. Lichtenstein, Sarah and Paul Slovic. (1971). “Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 89, 46–55.Google Scholar
  17. Lynch, John. G. Jr. (2005). “Accessible but Nondiagnostic Memories about Memory and Consumer Decision Making.” In A. Griffin and C. C. Otnes (eds.), 16th Paul D. Converse Symposium. Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  18. Lynch, John, G. and Thomas Srull. (1982). “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research 9(June), 18–37.Google Scholar
  19. McFadden, Daniel. (1999). “Rationality for Economists?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1), 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Novemsky, Nathan, Ravi Dhar, Norbert Schwarz, and Itamar Simonson. (2004). “The Effect of Preference Fluency on Consumer Decision Making,” working paper, Yale University Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
  21. Payne, John, James Bettman, and Eric Johnson. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ritov, Ilana. (2004). “The Effect of Time and Counterfactuals on the Evaluation of Decision Outcomes,” working paper, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  23. Schwarz, Norbert. (2004). “Meta-Cognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision-Making,” Journal of Consumer Research (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics, 1972 edition, New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  25. Simonson, Itamar (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research 16, 158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simonson, Itamar (1992). “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research 19, 105–119.Google Scholar
  27. Simonson, Itamar, Thomas Kramer, and Maia Young. (2004). “Effect Propensity: The Distribution of Switchers' Choices in the Reference State as a Determinant of the Direction of Effects on Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 95, 156–174.Google Scholar
  28. Steele, Claude M. “The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21, 261–302.Google Scholar
  29. Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman. (2003). “Temporal Construal,” Psychological Review 110, 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath and Paul Slovic (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgement and Choice,” Psychological Review 95, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Boven, Leaf, and Laurence Ashworth (2004). “Affective Intensity from the Anticipation versus Recollection of Hedonic Events,” working paper, University of Colorado.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dale Griffin
    • 1
  • Wendy Liu
    • 2
  • Uzma Khan
    • 3
  1. 1.Sauder School of BusinessUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Graduate School of BusinessStanford UniversityStanford
  3. 3.Tepper School of BusinessCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations