Preference Construction and Reconstruction

  • Frank R. Kardes
  • Murali Chandrashekaran
  • James J. Kellaris
Chapter

Abstract

Preferences are frequently used to predict choice and to shape marketing strategy. Market surveys and experiments assessing consumers’ preferences are frequently used to design new products, forecast sales, set prices, and guide promotion and advertising strategy. Most commonly-used procedures to elicit and analyze consumers’ preferences — such as conjoint analysis and other forms of multiattribute evaluation modeling (e.g., Green and Srinivasan 1990; Lynch 1985) — assume that consumers’ preferences are well-defined, articulated, and stable. However, recent research suggests that well-defined, articulated preferences are not always available in memory to serve as a basis for decision making (Coupey, Irwin, and Payne 1998; Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1992, 1993; Slovic 1995). Instead of consulting a master list of previously-formed preferences stored in memory, decision makers are sometimes required to construct or generate preferences on-line while responding to preference measures (Hastie and Park 1986). The distinction between previously-formed, memory-based preferences versus constructed, on-line preferences is important, because, theoretically, only the former type is predictive of subsequent behavior (Feldman and Lynch 1988; Fischhoff 1991). The goal of the present set of studies is to investigate the conditions under which previously-formed preferences are retrieved from memory, and the conditions under which newly-formed preferences are constructed on-line. We also examine the role of metacognitive processes in reconstructing previously-formed preferences from newly-formed preferences.

Keywords

False Memory Consumer Research Frame Condition Constructive Perspective Choice Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba, Joseph W, and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.” Journal of Consumer Research 13, 411–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bettman, James R., and Mita Sujan (1987). “Effect of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Experts and Novice Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Research 14, 141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler, J. S., and Robert Moffitt (1982). “A Computationally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One-Factor Multinomial Probit Model.” Econometrica 3, 761–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coupey, Eloise, Julie R. Irwin, and John W. Payne (1998). “Product Category Familiarity and Preference Construction:’ Journal of Consumer Research 24, 459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldman, Jack M., and John G. Lynch (1988). “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 421–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischhoff, Baruch (1983). “Predicting Frames.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9, 103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischhoff, Baruch (1991). “Value Elicitation: Is There Anything in There?” American Psychologist 46, 835–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, Paul E., and V Srinivasan (1990). “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: New Developments and Directions.” Journal of Marketing 54, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene, William H. (1990). Econometric Analysis. NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, William H. (1991). LIMDEP: User’s Manual and Reference Guide, Version 6. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Hastie, Reid, and Bernadette Park (1986). “The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment Task is Memory-Based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93, 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hershey, J. C., and P. J. H. Shoemaker (1980). “Prospect Theory’s Reflection Hypothesis: A Critical Examination.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirt, Edward R. (1990). “Do I See Only What I Expect? Evidence for an Expectancy-Guided Retrieval Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 937–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirt, Edward R., Grant A. Erickson, and Hugh E. McDonald (1993). “Role of Expectancy Timing and Outcome Consistency in Expectancy-Guided Retrieval.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 640–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirt, Edward R., and N. John Castellan (1988). “Probability and Category Redefinition in the Fault Tree Paradigm.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14, 122–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1982). “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Althematives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis.” Journal of Consumer Research 9, 90–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto (1983). “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 10, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47, 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, Daniel, and Dan Lovallo (1993). “Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking?’ Management Science 39, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky (1984). “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist 39, 341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruglanski, Arie W. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and Motivational Bases. NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kunda, Ziva (1990). “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108, 480–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levin, Irwin P., and Gary Gaeth (1988). “How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product.” Journal of Consumer Research 15, 374–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loftus, Elizabeth F., James A. Coan, and Jacqueline E. Pickrell (1996). “Manufacturing False Memories Using Bits of Reality.” In Implicit Memory and Metacognition, edited by Lynne M. Reder, 195–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Lynch, John G. (1985). “Uniqueness Issues in the Decompositional Modeling of Multiattribute Overall Evaluations: An Information Integration Perspective?’ Journal of Marketing Research 22, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch, John G., and Thomas K. Srull (1982). “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods.” Journal of Consumer Research 9, 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maheswaran, Durairaj, and Joan Meyers-Levy (1990). “The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement.” Journal of Marketing Research 27, 361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayseless, Ofra, and Arie W. Kruglanski (1987). “What Makes You So Sure? Effects of Epistemic Motivations on Judgmental Confidence.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 162–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Payne, John W, James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson (1992). “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology 43, 87–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pratkanis, Anthony R., and Peter H. Farquhar (1992). “A Brief History of Research on Phantom Alternatives: Evidence for Seven Empirical Generalizations about Phantoms.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 13, 103–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puto, Christopher P. (1987). “The Framing of Buying Decisions.” Journal of Consumer Research 14, 301–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qualls, William J., and Christopher P. Puto (1989). “Organizational Climate and Decision Framing: An Integrated Approach to Analyzing Industrial Buying Decisions.” Journal of Marketing Research 26, 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reyna, Valerie F., and Charles J. Brainerd (1991). “Fuzzy-Trace Theory and Framing Effects in Choice: Gist Extraction, Truncation, and Conversion.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4, 249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross, Michael (1989). “Relation of Implicit Theories to the Construction of Personal Histories.” Psychological Review 96, 341–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider, Sandra L. (1992). “Framing and Conflict: Aspiration Level Contingency, the Status Quo, and Current Theories of Risky Choice.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18, 1040–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simonson, Itamar (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 16, 158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonson, Itamar, and Amos Tversky (1992). “Choices in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion.” Journal of Marketing Research 29, 281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slovic, Paul (1995). “The Construction of Preference.” American Psychologist 50, 364–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slovic, Paul, Dale Griffin, and Amos Tversky (1990). “Compatibility Effects in Judgment and Choicer’ In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, edited by Robin M. Hogarth, 5–27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211, 453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” Journal of Business 59, S251–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice.” Psychological Review 95, 371–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weber, Elke U., William M. Goldstein, and Sema Barlas (1995). “And Let Us Not Forget Memory: The Role of Memory Processes and Techniques in the Study of Judgment and Choice.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 32, edited by Jerome Busemeyer, Reid Hastie, and Douglas L. Medin, 33–81. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wedell, Douglas H., and Ulf Bockenholt (1990). “Moderation of Preference Reversals in the Long Run.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 429–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. West, Patricia M., Christina L. Brown, and Stephen J. Hoch (1996). “Consumption Vocabulary and Preference Formation.” Journal of Consumer Research 23, 120–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank R. Kardes
    • 1
  • Murali Chandrashekaran
    • 1
  • James J. Kellaris
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations