Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Exposition of the Role of Consideration Sets in a DS/AHP Analysis of Consumer Choice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovative Research Methodologies in Management

Abstract

Consumer behaviour is often perceived through the notion of consideration sets. However, realistic modelling of consumer choice processes identifies impeding factors, including ignorance and non-specificity. In this chapter, the appeasement of these factors and the role of consideration sets are considered through the utilisation of the nascent Dempster-Shafer/Analytic Hierarchy Process (DS/AHP) method of choice analysis. The central element in the DS/AHP analysis is the body of evidence (BOE), with certain BOE constructed at different stages in the analysis, then a number of different sets of results can be found. The chapter is attempting to convey a more realistic approach for the individual consumer to undertake the required judgement making process. The investigation is based on a group of consumers and their preferences on a number of cars over different criteria. The notion of consideration sets is shown to be fundamental within DS/AHP, and a novel approach to the aggregation of the preferences from the consumers is utilised. A notional approach to the identification of awareness, consideration and choice sets is described, based on the levels of belief and plausibility in the best car existing in a group of cars, which could be compared with the algorithm developed by Gensch and Soofi (Int J Res Mark 12: 25–38, 1995).

The authors would like to thank Dr. Helena Pestana and Ms. Camila Mello for their outstanding assistance during the last stage of preparation and submission of the paper. We are grateful to both.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1995). The Effects of In-store Displays and Feature Advertising on Consideration Sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Analytis, P., Kothiyal, A., & Katsikopoulos, K. (2014). Multi-Attribute Utility Models as Cognitive Search Engines. Judgment and Decision making, 9(5), 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Travelled and Less Enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, N., & Huber, J. (2001). Improving Parameter Estimates and Model Prediction by Aggregate Customization in Choice Experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aurier, P., Jean, S., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Consideration Set Size and Familiarity with Usage Context. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 307–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaman, C. P. (2013). Inferring the Biggest and Best: A Measurement Model for Applying Recognition to Evoke Consideration Sets and Judge Between Multiple Alternatives. Cognitive Systems Research, 24, 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitez, J., Delgado-G, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-G, R. (2015). Consistent Completion of Incomplete Judgments in Decision Making Using AHP. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 290, 412–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, M. (2002). DS/AHP Method: A Mathematical Analysis, Including an Understanding of Uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(1), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, M. J. (2006). The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(1), 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, M. J., Curry, B., & Morgan, P. H. (2000). The Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence: An Alternative Approach to Multicriteria Decision Modelling. Omega, 28(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, B. (1996). Some Aspects of Dempster-Shafer Evidence Theory for Classification of Multi-Modality Images Taking Partial Volume Effect into Account. Pattern Recognition Letters, 17, 905–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. L., & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why Is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 372–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, N., & Mobolurin, A. (1999). A Process for Generating Quantitative Belief Functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(3), 624–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. T., & Berry, D. C. (2001). Transfer Effects in Implicit Memory and Consumer Choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(6), 587–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R., & Louviere, J. (2014). Statistical Properties of Consideration Sets. Journal of Choice Modelling, 13, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarti, A., & Janiszewski, C. (2003). The Influence of Macro-Level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(September), 244–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. K. (1973). Perception in Chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherenev, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2001). The Role of Market Efficiency Intuitions in Consumer Choice: A Case of Compensatory Inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, J., Chib, S., & Narasimhan, C. (1998). Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Models of Consideration Set and Parameter Heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1–2), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, G., Kamalakis, T., & Sphicopoulos, T. (2016). Theoretical Estimation of the Probability of Weight Rank Reversal in Pairwise Comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(2), 587–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A. P. (1968). A Generalization of Bayesian Inference (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 30(2), 205–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, K. K., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). Descriptive Characteristics of Memory-Based Consideration Sets: Influence of Usage Occasion Frequency and Sage Location Familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, K. (2004,August). When Two Rights Make a Wrong: Searching Too Much in Ordered Environments. Journal of Marketing Research, XLII, 213–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1985). A Note on Measures of Specificity for Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of General Systems, 10(4), 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducey, M. J. (2001). Representing Uncertainty in Silvicultural Decisions: An Application of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. Forest Ecology and Management, 150, 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliaz, K., & Spiegler, R. (2011). Consideration Sets and Competitive Marketing. Review of Economic Studies, 78(1), 235–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., Imai, S., & Keane, M. P. (2003). Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics Under Price Uncertainty. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1(1 March), 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gensch, D. H., & Soofi, E. S. (1995). Information-Theoretic Estimation of Consideration Sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbride, T., & Allenby, G. (2004). A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1998a). Expert Chess Memory: Revisiting the Chunking Hypothesis. Memory, 6(3), 225–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1998b). Pattern Recognition Makes Search Possible: Comments on Holding (1992). Psychological Research, 61(3), 204–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., Broniarczyk, S., Griffin, J., & McAlister, L. (2013). Help or Hinder? When Recommendation Signage Expands Consideration Sets and Heightens Decision Difficulty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, D., Estes, Z., Gibbert, M., & Mazunrsky, D. (2016). Brand Suicide? Memory and Linking of Negative Brand Names. PloS One, 11(3), e0151628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. (2003). Why Do People Suggest What They Don Not Want? Using Context Effects to Influence Others’ Choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 492–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, D., Han, C., & Deng, Y. (2013). Novel Approaches for the Transformation of Fuzzy Membership Function into Basic Probability Assignment Based on Uncertainty Optimization. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(2), 289–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastak, M., & Mitra, A. (1996). Facilitating and Inhibiting Effects of Brand Cues on Recall, Consideration Set and Choice. Journal of Business Research, 37(2), 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An Evaluation Cost Model of Evoked Sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(March), 383–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J., Toubia, O., Evgeniou, T., Befurt, R., & Dzyaburra, D. (2010). Disjunctions of Conjunctions, Cognitive Simplicity, and Consideration Sets. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgement and Choice (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J. L., & Louviere, J. J. (1995). What Is the Role of Consideration Sets in Choice Modeling? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeongwen, C., & Chib, S. (1999). Markov Chain, Monte Carlo and Models of Consideration Set and Parameter Heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1/2), 223–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., & Lehmann, D. R. (1997). Consumer Experiences and Consideration Sets for Brands and Product Categories. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2000). The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 427–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klir, G. J., & Wierman, M. J. (1998). Uncertainty-Based Information: Elements of Generalized Information Theory. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapersonne, E., Laurent, G., & Le Goff, J.-J. (1995). Consideration Sets of Size One: An Empirical Investigation of Automobile Purchases. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Marsui, T. (2003). Which Decision Heuristivs Are Used in Consideration Set Formation? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(3), 192–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipshitz, R., & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, A. R., & Thomas, H. (1979). Appraisal of Multi-Attribute Utility Models in Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 13(5), 294–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma, F. A. (1993). Scale Sensitivity in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2, 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (1999). Emotional Trade-off Difficulty and Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand Name as a Heuristic Cue: The Effects of Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on Consumer Judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manrai, A. K. (1995). Mathematical Models of Brand Choice Behaviour. European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila, A. (1998). An Examination of Consumers’ Use of Heuristic Cues in Making Satisfaction Judgments. Psychology and Marketing, 15(5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, N., Rajiv, S., & Srinivasan, K. (2003). Price Uncertainty and Consumer Search: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation. Marketing Science, 22(1), 58–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, A. (1995). Advertising and the Stability of Consideration Sets Over Multiple Purchase Occasions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C. K. (2000). Combining Belief Functions When Evidence Conflicts. Decision Support Systems, 29, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (2000). Sales Promotions and the Choice Context as Competing Influences on Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(12), 223–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & MacInnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing What I Want Versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII, 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, D., Kim, Y., Um, M. J., & Choi, S. U. (2015). Robust Priority for Strategic Environmental Assessment with Incomplete Information Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Analysis. Sustainability, 7(8), 10233–10249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pires, T. (2016, September). Costly Search and Consideration Sets in Storable Goods Markets. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 14(3), 157–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabhaker, P. R., & Sauer, P. (1994). Hierarchical Heuristics in Evaluation of Competitive Brands Based on Multiple Cues. Psychology and Marketing, 11(3), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G., & Brookes, R. (2001). Decision Constraints and Consideration-Set Formation in Consumer Durables. Psychology and Marketing, 18(8), 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G., & Brookes, R. (2002). The Influence of Pre-decisional Constraints on Information Search and Consideration Set Formation in New Automobile Purchases. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racioppi, V., Marcarelli, G., & Squillante, M. (2015). Modelling a Sustainable Requalification Problem by Analytic Hierarchy Process. Quality and Quantity, 49(4), 1661–1677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffone, A., & Wolters, G. (2001). A Cortical Mechanism for Binding in Visual Working Memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 766–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1997). Consideration: Review of Research and Prospects for Future Insights. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIV, 406–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Nedungadi, P. (1995). Studying Consideration in the Consumer Decision Process: Progress and Challenges. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 59–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, S. (2013, June). The Impact of Search Costs on Consumer Behavior: A Dynamic Approach. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 11(2), 155–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G. (1990). Perspectives in the Theory of Belief Functions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 4, 323–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options are Better and Worse Than Others. Memory and Cognition, 21(4), 546–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S., MacInnis, D. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1997). The Effects of Incidental ad Exposure on the Formation of Consideration Sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpanskykh, A., & Zia, K. (2012). Emotional Decision Making in Large Crowds. In Y. Demazeau, J. Müller, J. Rodríguez, & J. Pérez (Eds.), Advances on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 191–200). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smets, P. (1994). What Is Dempster-Shafer’s Model? In R. R. Yager, M. Fedrizzi, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence (pp. 5–34). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2001). The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taroun, A., & Yang, J.-B. (2013). A DST-Based Approach for Construction Project Risk Analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(8), 1221–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W. B. (2003). Effect of Sequence Length on the Execution of Familiar Keying Sequences: Lasting Segmentation and Preparation? Journal of Motor Behavior, 35(4), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verwey, W., Groen, E., & Wright, D. (2016). The Stuff that Motor Chunks Are Made of: Spatial Instead of Motor Representations? Experimental Brain Research, 234(2), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroomen, B., van Nierop, E., & Franses, P. H. (2003). Modeling Consideration Sets and Brand Choice Using Artificial Neural Networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 206–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Hu, Y., Xiao, F., Deng, X., & Deng, Y. (2016). A Novel Method to Use Fuzzy Soft Sets in Decision Making Based on Ambiguity Measure and Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence: An Application in Medical Diagnosis. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 69, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2000). Eye Fixations on Advertisements and Memory for Brands: A Model and Findings. Marketing Science, 19(4), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D., Rhee, J., & Vaculin, A. (2010). Offline Improvement During Motor Sequence Learning Is Not Restricted to Developing Motor Chunks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 42(5), 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

    Malcolm J. Beynon

  2. University of Suffolk, Suffolk, England, UK

    Luiz Moutinho

  3. The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji

    Luiz Moutinho

  4. Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

    Cleopatra Veloutsou

Authors
  1. Malcolm J. Beynon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luiz Moutinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cleopatra Veloutsou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Suffolk, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom

    Luiz Moutinho

  2. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Mladen Sokele

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Beynon, M.J., Moutinho, L., Veloutsou, C. (2018). An Exposition of the Role of Consideration Sets in a DS/AHP Analysis of Consumer Choice. In: Moutinho, L., Sokele, M. (eds) Innovative Research Methodologies in Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64394-6_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation