Skip to main content

Deviations from Matching in Consumer Choice

  • Chapter
The Behavioral Economics of Brand Choice

Abstract

Consumer researchers have established that most buyers of fast-moving consumer goods such as packed foods practice multi-brand purchasing. Analyses of such products show that most consumers tend to purchase a variety of brands within a product category, selecting among a small “repertoire” of brands rather than being exclusively loyal to a single brand (Ehrenberg, 1988). Research generally shows that in stationary conditions (i.e., the absence of any marked short-term trend in sales) (a) only a few consumers acquire a given brand on consecutive shopping occasions; (b) most consumers buy several different brands, selecting them apparently randomly from a subset or “repertoire” of known, tried and tested brands. At the brand level; (c) each brand attracts only a small percentage of 100%-loyal consumers; (d) brands within a product category tend to differ broadly with respect to their penetration levels but tend to be more similar in terms of their average purchasing frequency; and (e) brands with smaller penetration levels (or market shares) also tend to show smaller average buying frequencies and smaller percentages of 100%-loyal consumers (i.e., the effect known as “Double Jeopardy”). These patterns have been demonstrated for a variety of product categories, from food and drinks to aviation fuel, from personal care products to pharmaceutical prescriptions, for patterns of shopping trips and selection of store chains (Ehrenberg, 1988; Uncles et al., 1995; Goodhardt et al., 1984).

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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.

References

  • Ayllon, T. & Azrin, N. (1968). The Token Economy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, W. M. (1974). “On two types of deviation from the matching law”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 22, 231–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, W. M. (1979). “Matching, undermatching and overmatching in studies of choice”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 32, 269–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, D. J. & Ebbesen, E. B. (1978). “Reinforcement and substitution in humans: A multiple-response analysis”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 30, 243–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buskist, W. & Miller, H. L. (1981). “Concurrent operant performance in humans: matching when food is the reinforcer”. The Psychological Record, 31, 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buskist, W. & Miller, H. L. (1982). “The study of human operant behavior, 1958–1981: A topical bibliography”. The Psychological Record, 32, 249–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, R. & Kileen, P. (1974). “Use of concurrent operants in small scale research: a demonstration”. Pacific Sociological Review, 17 (4), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, P. A. & Herrnstein, R. J. (1976). “Toward a law of response strength”. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1131–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1988). Repeat Buying: Facts Theory and Applications. London: Griffin; New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1993). “New brands and the existing market”. Journal of Market Research Society, 33, 285–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Hammond, K. & Goodhardt, G. J. (1994). “The after-effects of price-related consumer promotions”. Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R. (1990). Consumer psychology in behavioral perspective. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R. (1996). Consumer in context: The BPM research program. London and New York: International Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R. (1999). “The substitutability of brands”. Managerial and Decision Economics, 20, 241–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R. & James, V. K. (2001). “Behavior analysis of consumer brand choice: A preliminary analysis”. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 209–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R. & James, V. K. (2003). “The behavioral ecology of brand choice: How and what do consumers maximize?” Psychology and Marketing, 20, 811–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R. & Schrezenmaier, T. C. (2003). “The behavioral economics of consumer brand choice: establishing a methodology”. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 675–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxall, G. R., Oliveira-Castro, J. M. & Schrezenmaier, T. C. (2004). “The behavioral economics of consumer brand choice: patterns of reinforcement and utility maximization”. Behavioral Processes, 66, 235–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhardt, G. J., Ehrenberg, A. S. C. & Chatfield, C. (1984). “The Dirichlet: a comprehensive model of buying behavior”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A147, 621–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. & Freed, D. E. (1993). “The substitutability of reinforcements”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 60, 141–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). “Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of the frequency of reinforcement”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 4, 267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). “On the law of effect”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 13, 243–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1982). “Melioration as behavioral dynamism”, in M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein & H. Rachlin (eds) Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. II, Matching and maximizing accounts. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 433–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). “Rational Choice Theory: Necessary but not sufficient”. American Psychologist, 45, 356–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1997). In H. Rachlin & D. I. Laibson (eds) The matching law: Papers in psychology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. & Vaughan, W. (1980). In J. E. R. Staddon (ed.) Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior. New York: Academic Press, pp. 143–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hursh, S. R. (1978). “The economics of daily consumption controlling food-and-water reinforced responding”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 29, 475–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hursh, S. R. (1984). “Behavioral Economics”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 42 (3), 435–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hursh, S. R. & Bauman, R. A. (1987). “The behavioral analysis of demand”, in L. Green & J. H. Kagel, Advances in Behavioral Economics: Volume 1. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 117–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. H. (1972). “Token economics and experimental economics”. Journal of Political Economy, 80, 779–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. H., Battalio, R. C. & Green, L. (1995). Economic Choice Theory: An Experimental Analysis of Animal behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. H., Battalio, R. C., Rachlin, H., Green, L., Basmann, R. L. & Klemm, W. R. (1975). “Experimental studies of consumer demand behavior using laboratory animals”. Economic Inquiry, 8, 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, J. & Hale, S. (1984). “Practical Implications of the Matching Law”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17 (3), 367–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, S. E. G. (1978). “The Psychology and Economics of Demand”. Psychological Bulletin, 85 (3), 441–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, R., Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H. & Green, L. (1981). “Maximization Theory in behavioral psychology”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 371–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajala, A. K. & Hantula, D. A. (2000). “Towards a behavioral ecology of consumption: Delay reduction effects on foraging in a simulated online mall”. Managerial and Decision Economics, 21, 145–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L. & Hantula, D. A. (2003). “Pricing effects on foraging in a simulated Internet shopping mall”. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 (5), 653–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uncles, M. & Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1990). “The buying of packaged goods at US retail chains”. Journal of Retail, 66, 278–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uncles, M., Ehrenberg, A. S. C. & Hammond, K. (1995). “Patterns of buyer behavior: regularities, models, and extensions”. Marketing Sciences, 14, G71–G78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2007 Gordon R. Foxall, Jorge M. Oliveira-Castro, Victoria K. James and Teresa C. Schrezenmaier

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Romero, S., Foxall, G.R., Schrezenmaier, T.C., Oliveira, J.M., James, V.K. (2007). Deviations from Matching in Consumer Choice. In: The Behavioral Economics of Brand Choice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596733_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics