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).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ayllon, T. & Azrin, N. (1968). The Token Economy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Baum, W. M. (1974). “On two types of deviation from the matching law”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 22, 231–42.
Baum, W. M. (1979). “Matching, undermatching and overmatching in studies of choice”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 32, 269–81.
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.
Buskist, W. & Miller, H. L. (1981). “Concurrent operant performance in humans: matching when food is the reinforcer”. The Psychological Record, 31, 95–100.
Buskist, W. & Miller, H. L. (1982). “The study of human operant behavior, 1958–1981: A topical bibliography”. The Psychological Record, 32, 249–68.
Conger, R. & Kileen, P. (1974). “Use of concurrent operants in small scale research: a demonstration”. Pacific Sociological Review, 17 (4), 399–416.
de Villiers, P. A. & Herrnstein, R. J. (1976). “Toward a law of response strength”. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1131–53.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1988). Repeat Buying: Facts Theory and Applications. London: Griffin; New York: Oxford University Press.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1993). “New brands and the existing market”. Journal of Market Research Society, 33, 285–99.
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.
Foxall, G. R. (1990). Consumer psychology in behavioral perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
Foxall, G. R. (1996). Consumer in context: The BPM research program. London and New York: International Thomson.
Foxall, G. R. (1999). “The substitutability of brands”. Managerial and Decision Economics, 20, 241–57.
Foxall, G. R. & James, V. K. (2001). “Behavior analysis of consumer brand choice: A preliminary analysis”. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 209–20.
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.
Foxall, G. R. & Schrezenmaier, T. C. (2003). “The behavioral economics of consumer brand choice: establishing a methodology”. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 675–95.
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.
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.
Green, L. & Freed, D. E. (1993). “The substitutability of reinforcements”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 60, 141–58.
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.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). “On the law of effect”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 13, 243–66.
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.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). “Rational Choice Theory: Necessary but not sufficient”. American Psychologist, 45, 356–67.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1997). In H. Rachlin & D. I. Laibson (eds) The matching law: Papers in psychology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
Hursh, S. R. (1984). “Behavioral Economics”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 42 (3), 435–52.
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.
Kagel, J. H. (1972). “Token economics and experimental economics”. Journal of Political Economy, 80, 779–85.
Kagel, J. H., Battalio, R. C. & Green, L. (1995). Economic Choice Theory: An Experimental Analysis of Animal behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Myerson, J. & Hale, S. (1984). “Practical Implications of the Matching Law”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17 (3), 367–80.
Lea, S. E. G. (1978). “The Psychology and Economics of Demand”. Psychological Bulletin, 85 (3), 441–66.
Rachlin, R., Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H. & Green, L. (1981). “Maximization Theory in behavioral psychology”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 371–417.
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.
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.
Uncles, M. & Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1990). “The buying of packaged goods at US retail chains”. Journal of Retail, 66, 278–93.
Uncles, M., Ehrenberg, A. S. C. & Hammond, K. (1995). “Patterns of buyer behavior: regularities, models, and extensions”. Marketing Sciences, 14, G71–G78.
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596733_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28264-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59673-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)