Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Consumer Decision Making through Evaluation Process Models

  • Chapter
Marketing

Abstract

In what manner do consumers combine information in making decisions? Stimulated by the seminal contribution of researchers in decision theory and psychologyl, the past decade has witnessed an explosion of research interest in answering this question2.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Fishbein, M., An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object, in: Human Relations, 1963, 16, 233–239.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hammond, K. R., Probabilistic functionning and the clinical method, in: Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffman, P. J., The paramorphic letin, 1960, 57, 116–131.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg, M. J., Cognitive structure and attitudinal effect, in: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 337–340.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Simon, H. A., A behavioral model of rational choice, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, 69, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bass, F. M.; Talarzyk, W. W., An attitude model for the study of brand preference, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 93–96.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bettman, J. R., Behavioral simulation models in marketing systems, unpunlished doctoral dissertation, New Haven: Yale University, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, J. B.; Fishbein, M.; Ahtola, O. T., The nature and uses of expectancy value models in consumer attitude research, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 456–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Day, G. S., Evaluating models of attitude structure, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ginter, J. L., An experimental study of attitude change and choice of new brands, submitted to the American Marketing Association, Spring Conference, 1972, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lehman, D. R., Television show preference: an application of a choice model, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1971, 8, 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakanishi, M.; Bett-Man, J. R., Attitude models revisited: an individual level analysis, in: Journal of Consumer Research, 1974, 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Russ, F. A., Evaluation process models and the prediction of preferences, in: Proceedings, 2nd Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1971, 346–350.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sheth, J. N., Reply to comments on the nature and uses of expectancy value models in consumer attitude research, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 462–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheth, J. N.; Talarzyk, W. W., Perveived instrumentality and value importance as determinants of attitudes, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1955, 9, 6–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilkie, W. L.; Pessemier, E. A., Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude models, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1973, 10, 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Winter, F. W., Mathematical considerations in the use of linear attitude models, in: Working paper, University of Illinois, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wright, P. L., Use of consumer judgment models in promotion planning, in: Journal of Marketing, 1973, 37, 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. It should be noted that this article focused on the evaluation process models, that is, on the composition-approach. The decomposition approach also deals with multiattribute choice theory and typically employs multidimensional scaling analysis in order to discern the relevant dimensions of brand choice. The study of the decomposition approach would constitute by itself another topic. However, it can be said that when compared to the composition approach, the multidimensional scaling technique was less good a predictor of preferences.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tversky, A., Intransitivity of preferences, in: Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morrison, H. W., Testable conditions for trials of paired comparison choices, in: Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tversky, A., op. cit. footn. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Adams, E. W.; Fagot, R., A model of riskless choice, in: Behavioral Science, 1959, 4, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tversky, A., Additivity, utility and subjective probability, in: Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, 4, 175–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller, J. R. III, The assessment of worth: a systematic procedure and its experimental validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts, Institute of Technology, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Miller, J. R. III, Assessing alternative transportation systems, Rand Corporation Memorandum, RM-5865-DOT, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Raiffa, H., Preferences for multi-attributed alternatives. Rand Corporation Memorandum, RM-5868-DOT RC, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meehl, P. E., Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Shepard, R. N., On subjectively optimum selection among multiattribute alternatives, in: Human judgments and optimality, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Abelson, R. P,; Aronson, E.; McGuire, W.; Newcomb, T.; Rosenberg, M. J.; Tannenbaun, P., Cognitive consistency: a sourcebook, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Anderson, N, H., A simple model for information integration, in: Cognitive consistency: a sourcebook, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Feldman, S., What do you think of a cruel, wise man? in: Cognitive consistency: a source-book, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenberg, M. J., Impression processing and the evaluation of new and old objects, in: Cognitive consistency: a sourcebook, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Einhorn, H. J., The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making, in: Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberg, M. J., op. cit. footn. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rosenberg, M. J., A structural theory of attitude dynamics, in: Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fishbein, M., Readings in attitude theory and measurement, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sheth, J. N., Talarzyk, W. W., Relative contribution of perceived instrumentality and value importance components in determining attitudes, Faculty Working Paper nr. 15, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sheth, J. N., Talarzyk, W. W. Perceived instrumentality and value importance as determinants of attitudes, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 6–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bass, F. M., Talarzyk, W. W., A study of attitude theory and brand preference, Paper presented at the American Marketing Association,Educators’ Conference, Cincinatti, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bass, F. M., Talarzyk, W. W., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen, J. B.; Fishbein, M.; Ahtola, O. T., op. cit. footn. 2 Bass, F. M., Fishbein and brand preference: a reply, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 461.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Talarzyk, W. W., A reply to the response to Bass, Talarzyk, and Sheth, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 465–467.. — Sheth, J. N., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Myers, J. H.; Alpert, M. I., Determinant buying attitudes: meaning and measurements, in: Journal of Marketing, 1968, 32 (4), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Coombs, C. H.; Kao, R. C., Nonmetric factor analysis, Research Bulletin nr. 38, University of Michigan Engineering Research Institute, 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Coombs, C. H., A theory of data, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dawes, R. M., Social selection based on multi-dimensional criteria, in: Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1964 (a), 68, 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dawes, R. M., Toward a general framework for evaluation, University of Michigan, Department of Psychology, 1964 (b).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Einhorn, H. J., op. cit. footn. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Einhorn, H. J., Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 1–27

    Google Scholar 

  53. Goldberg, L. R., Five models of clinical judgment: an empirical comparison between linear and nonlinear representations of the human inference process, in: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 458–479.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Einhorn, H. J., op. cit. footn. 18. — Einhorn, H. J., op. cit. footn. 35. — Komorita, S. S., A model for decision making under risk, in: American Jorunal of Psychology, 1964, 77, 429–436.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Details of the procedure are in Einhorn (39).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Einhorn, H. J., The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Variations between individuals are characterized by variations in parameters. Consider a two-characteristics case: U= x, α1 x2 α2 with a, + a2 = k (constant). At the extremes, a consumer for whom a, = 0 is interested only in x2 one for whom a, = k is interested only in x,.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stevens, S. S., Measurement, statistics and the schematic view, in: Science, 1968, 161, 849–856.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Goldberg, L. R., op. cit. footn. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bettman, J. R., Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Goldberg, L. R., op. cit. footn. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  63. They indicate that, what Einhorn may have shown is not that individuals have nonlinear evaluation functions for alternatives, but that they have nonlinear preference functions for attributes.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Dawes, R. M., op. cit. footn. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  65. These types of models were introduced by Russ in his research; he showed that they do not necessary downgrade alternatives with poor values on any attribute; they especially downgrade alternatives with poor values on the most important attributes.

    Google Scholar 

  66. If two or more alternatives become acceptable at the same time, either choose a smaller arbitrary value or if this small value corresponds to a j.n.d. (just noticeable difference), give the same rank to these alternatives.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pras, B.; Summers, J. O., A comparison of linear and nonlinear evaluation process models, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 1975, 276–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Debreu, G., Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function, in: Decision processes, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Alexis, Haines, G. H., Jr.; Simon, L., Consumer information processing: the case of women’s clothing, in: Marketing and the science of planning, American Marketing Association, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Bettman, J. R., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Yntema, D. B.; Torgerson, W..S., Man-Computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics HFE-2, 1961, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  75. For example see: Luce, R. D., Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination, in: Econometrica, 1956, 24, 178–191. — Tversky, A., op. cit. footn. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  76. For example see:Luce, R. D., op. cit. footn. 58. — Pras, B.; Summers, J. O., op. cit. 51. — Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 4. — Tversky, A., op. cit. footn. 4. — Yntema, D. B.; Torgerson, W. S.. op. cit. footn. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  77. The jsut noticeable difference depends on the scale used in the study. We will try several values and use the one which gives the best fit.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Russ, F. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pras, B., Predictive qualities of linear and nonlinear evaluation process models, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Boyds, H. W., Hr.; Ray, M. L.; Strong, E. C., An attitudinal framework for advertising strategy, in: Journal of Marketing, 1972, 36, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  81. For example see: Cohen, J. B.; Houston, M., The structure of consumer attitudes: the use of attribute possession and importance scores, Faculty Working paper nr. 2, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois, 1971. — Sheth, J. N.; Talarzyk, W. W., op. cit. footn. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Settle, R. B.; Golden, L. L., Attribution theory and advertiser credibility, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 1974, 11, 181–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Pras, B., Factors affecting the predictive qualities of consumer evaluation process models, in: Der Markt, 1975, 53, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Angelmar, R.; Pras, B., Advertising strategy implications of consumer evaluation process, submitted for publication, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Can the study of these models also help the manager to understand his own decision process? — In order to make decisions, a manager must evaluate a set of alternatives with respect to certain criteria. Knowledge of the different types of process models would help him to identity the one he is rising and his competitors’. This might be particularly useful in domains such as conflict resolution or bargaining. It is the hypothesis of this author that managers use a conjunctive approach when some of the alternatives they consider are unacceptable to them. They switch to a lexicographic model when the alternatives are all acceptable.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wilkie, W. L.; Pessemier, E. A., op. cit. footn. 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Bernard Pras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Quantitative Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Operations Research, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, A-1190, Wien, Österreich

    Edgar Topritzhofer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1978 Betriebswirschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler KG, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pras, B. (1978). Explaining Consumer Decision Making through Evaluation Process Models. In: Topritzhofer, E. (eds) Marketing. Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-93787-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-93787-2_8

  • Publisher Name: Gabler Verlag

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-409-36071-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-322-93787-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation