An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product [1984]

8/7/2019 An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product [1984]

1/8

An Examination of Consumer DecisionMaking for a Common RepeatPurchase ProductWAYNE D. HOYER*

Despite the large amount of theory and research on consumer choice, currentunderstanding is still at a less than desirable level-especially in the cases whereinvolvement with or importance of the choice is low and the product is purchasedfrequently. The present paper provides a view of decision making based on thenotion that consumers are not motivated to engage in a great deal of in-storedecIsion making at the time of purchase when the product is purchased repeatedlyand is relatively unimportant. As a result, consumers tend to apply very simplechoice rules or tactics that provide a satisfactory choice while allowing a quickand effortless decision. An empirical test of this proposition is provided andimplications are discussed.

n recent years, a considerable amount of effort hasbeen devoted to understanding the processes byat some type of decision

portion of this researchon two basic aspects: information a c q u i ~

and Park 1980; Jacoby 1977;and Rosen 1975) and information integration

and Bonfield 1975; Wilkie and Pessemierthe attention this topicportion of the variance in c o n ~ choice has yet to be explained (Kassarjian

be madeour ability to predict and

at a less than desirableThe present paper is an attempt to account forof this unexplained variance.

CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSESAlthough a number of specific explanations for theof consumer decision research can bethe present paper focuses on two majorcts. First, researchers have tended to apply decision

other areasf inquiry (e.g., social psychology, economics, andThe problem is that these m o d ~ to understand processes in s i t u a ~

Wayne D. Hoyer is Assistant Professor in the Department ofof Texas at Austin, TX2. Thanks are extended to Rohit Deshpande, Mark Alpert,of this paper.

822

tions which elicit a considerable degree of cognitiveeffort and commitment.For example, the widely employed Fishbein model(Fishbein 1963, 1967) was developed to understandsocial attitudes of major importance to individuals.Some authors, however, have suggested that manycommon product decisions may not be that importantor involving to consumers (e.g., Hupfer and Gardner197 I; Kassarjian 1978). One must therefore questionwhether these models are accurate representations ofhow decisions are made for a variety of decisioncontexts. Indeed, Wright (1975) states that certaindecision strategies require a considerable degree ofcognitive effort which the consumer may be unwillingto expend. Thus, when examining these decision c o n ~ texts, a driving issue is the extent to which consumersengage in processing that is consistent with traditionalmodels of consumer choice (e.g., compensatory ornoncompensatory models), or whether some otherform of processing occurs.

Second, much of the research on consumer decisionmaking has focused on cognitive processing that occursimmediately prior to the act of purchase (or selection).Yet many decisions are made repeatedly or frequentlyover time and thus involve continuous-as opposedto discrete-processing (Hogarth 1981). In these i n ~ stances, consumers may rely not only on previouslyacquired product information stored in memory, butalso on judgments of brand satisfaction or d i s s a t i s f a c ~ tion which occur in the post-purchase evaluation (orusage) stage of the decision process. In addition,consumers may engage in other types of processingoutside the immediate choice context. For example,

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Vol. J J December J984


2/8

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKINGconsumers may decide to choose a product based onknowledge from an advertisement or because of acoupon acquisition. Again, one must question whethertraditional models of consumer choice adequatelyexplain processing in these types of situations.

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWIn light of these two issues, Deshpande et al. (1982)proposed a view which attempts to describe consumerdecision making in situations that involve repeatedpurchases over time and that can be typically considered as low in importance or involvement. This perspective is based on the notion that "when purchasebehavior is preceded by a choice process, it is likelyto be very limited" (Olshavsky and Granbois 1979,p. 99). It assumes that the major goal in repetitive

and relatively unimportant decisions is not to makean "optimal" choice but, rather, to make a satisfactorychoice while minimizing cognitive effort. It thereforepostulates that consumers optimize time and effort asopposed to consequences (Einhorn and Hogarth 1981).

This emphasis on effort is the result of three majorfactors:1. These decisions are not important enough to individuals and do not involve a degree of risk large

enough to warrant significant decision making effort.2. Consumers have made these decisions numeroustimes in the past and thus do not need to expend agreat deal of decision making effort.3. A typical shopping trip involves numerous decisions,

and it is likely that the consumer does not want toexpend a great deal of time an d effort on anyonedecision.

Preliminary support for the concept of reduced cognitive effort in these types of situations is provided ina study of Deshpande and Hoyer (1983), in which itwas found that consumers exerted considerably lesseffort in choosing peanut butter than in choosing apair of running shoes and an automobile. Consistentwith this notion are Wright's (1975) findings thatcertain decision strategies-especially those which"optimize" the decision-require a considerable degreeof cognitive effort, and that in some cases, a strategymay be chosen because of its "simplifying" potential.

Thus it is postulated that consumers employ verysimple choice heuristics or tactics when making repeatdecisions which are relatively low in importance orinvolvement. I These tactics are rules of thumb whichallow consumers to make a very quick and effortlessdecision. For example, tactics could be related to price(e.g., "buy the cheapest brand" or "buy the brand onsale"), performance ("buy the brand which works the

1 It must be noted that consumers may also apply these verysimple rules in very complex and involving tasks, but discussionhere is limited to the low-involvement situation.

823best"), affect ("buy the most pleasing brand"), ornormative factors ("buy the same brand my motherbuys;" Deshpande et al. 1982). I t is important to notethat these tactics are even more simple and involveless effort than many of the heuristics already suggestedin the consumer literature (Bettman 1979; Engel andBlackwell 1983).The notion of decision heuristics is not new toconsumer research. However, a choice tactic approachdiffers distinctly from previous models in the processof tactic development. Most of the previous approachesassume that cognitive evaluation of the evoked set isperformed prior to each choice (i.e., a discrete process;Hogarth 1981); but a choice tactic view assumes thatsince purchase (or choice) occurs fairly often, evaluation occurs over a repeated number of trials (orpurchase occasions). This focus on processing overtrials distinguishes the present approach from moretraditional simplifying heuristics (e.g., the lexicographicmodel).In the process of tactic development, initial choicesmay be either haphazard, based on the modeling ofothers (e.g., "buy what my friends or parents buy"),or constructed at the time of the choice (Bettman andZins 1977). Also, the familiarity which results frompassive exposure to advertisements may play an important role in the early stages of choice tactic development. Over time, however, consumers refine theirtactics until a satisfactory decision can be made withvery little effort. Fo r example, a consumer mightinitially employ the tactic "buy the cheapest brand."If this results in a satisfactory choice, this tactic willhave an increased probability of being employed onthe next purchase occasion. Alternatively, consumersmight purchase the same brand on subsequent occasions to minimize the cognitive effort associated withchecking all the prices. If an unsatisfactory choiceresults, the consumer might then employ a morerefined or stringent rule, such as "buy the cheapestnational brand," or use another tactic altogether.It is recognized that brand choice may occur as theresult of a brand evaluation process. But in contrastto the traditional view, which assumes that this evaluation is developed at the moment of choice, thechoice tactic view suggests that an evaluation mayoccur if the product is perceived to be satisfactory (orunsatisfactory) when it is used (i.e., at th e postpurchase evaluation stage). Thus the consumer stilldoes not engage in extensive processing; rather, s/herelies on a simple judgment which is acquired overtime.It should also be mentioned that two familiar concepts in the consumer behavior literature-habitualpurchase and brand loyalty-are easily incorporatedinto this framework. Habitual purchase would consistof the continued use of the tactic "buy the same brandI bought last time." As Jacoby and Kyner (1973)point out, habitual purchase is not necessarily theresult of a strong positive brand evaluation. The

Copyright 2001 All Rights Reserved


3/8

habitual purchaser does not engage in repeat purchasebecause of a strong preference for the brand; rather,repeat purchasing represents a convenient way ofreducing cognitive effort.Brand loyalty involves a preference for the brand.This preference probably results from a post-purchaseevaluation of product performance in which the consumer perceives that the brand satisfies needs betterthan do existing alternatives. Thus, habitual and brandloyal consumers possess different motivations for theand any effort to change these behaviorsvs. changing brand preference).

The basic point is that-through a series of trialshich involve either positive, negative, or neutralpost-purchase evaluation will stabiand consumers will come to possess a set of veryThat is, consumers acquireof choice tactics which are learned over time.consumerengage in extended cognitive processing each timethat is required is the applicationthe simple rule of thumb. This enables the consumerminimize cognitive effort and still make a satisfacSupport for this view is provided byes that in continuous contexts,

and "adjust"on the basis of outcome feedback.

EXAMINING CHOICE TACTICSThe main thrust of the present study is that choice

make it unnecessary to engage in extendedany given purchase situation. Ifon making is examined at anyone point in time,to be very limited-involvingof a choice tactic. The purposethe present study is to examine both the degreed the type of processing that occurs when consumerse making a choice for a common, frequently purand typically low-involvement product. Inan important meth

Many of the previous studies examining the conchoice process have employed methodologiesthis obtrusivemeasurement technique struc

and conjoint measurement.)that decision makers are highly responsive to"true" decision process to be obscured.

many of the decision process techniques,are well aware that their behavior is beingand this may alter their responses due toof measurement (Cook and Campbell 1979).many techniques rely heavily on detailedand as Wells and Lo Scuito (1966) anddo (on

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

the basis of verbal responses) may not agree with whatthey actually do (under direct observation).One data collection technique which may partiallyovercome these problems is that of direct, in-storeobservation. Wells and Lo Scuito (1966) suggest that

this technique provides a more accurate view of consumer behavior because it allows the consumer tobehave without as much interference from the researcher and because it does not rely on the consumer'sability to interpret a question or remember an event.In the present study, consumers were unobtrusivelyobserved while making a repetitive, low-involvementpurchase. This was done to gain a clearer picture ofhow the choice process proceeds in a natural, in-storeenvironment. Particularly important was an examination of the degree of decision effort (measured interms of the amount of information search and timetaken). Then, by supplementing natural observationwith a simple questioning technique, an attempt wasmade to determine the type of choice strategy consumers used while making their decisions.METHOD

SubjectsA total of 120 subjects was interviewed in three

major chain grocery stores in a metropolitan area.These stores were selected to provide a typical sampleof consumers living in the city (in terms of socialclass, age, and race). Subjects were interviewed inthree major parts of the day (morning, afternoon, andevening) across all three stores to reduce biases dueto shopping environment and time period (Wells andLo Scuito 1966). Every consumer who entered asupermarket aisle (when the experimenter was free)was approached immediately after having selected abrand of laundry detergent. All age categories (over18) were represented: the 25-34-year-old group wasthe most common (35 percent), followed by 45-54(19 percent) and 35-44 (18 percent). About 80 percentof the subjects were female, 72 percent were white, 16percent were black, and 10 percent were Hispanic.The subjects had been purchasing laundry detergentfrom one to 61 years, with a mean of about 19 years.The number of brands each consumer had purchasedranged from one to 15, with a mean of about five.Each potential subject was offered a 25-cent coupongood on any brand of laundry detergent. This appearsto have been an adequate incentive, since only JO ofthe 130 consumers approached declined to participate.Choice Task

Laundry detergent was selected as the choice taskfor several reasons. 2 First, detergent is clearly a repeat2 The examination of only one product category poses limitationson the ability to draw conclusions. This fact will be discussed atmore length in a later section.


4/8

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKINGpurchase product that appears to be similar to generallyrecognized low-involvement products (e.g., Lastovickaand Gardner 1979; Rothschild 1979). Second, detergent was found to possess a very low level of perceivedrisk in a pre-test. Third, there is a wide variety ofbrands available, which might enhance the numberand variety of tactics that consumers could employ.Fourth, large laundry detergent displays are commonin supermarkets. I t would be difficult to observe searchbehavior in front of a very small display.Assessment of the Searchand Decision Process

Consumers were carefully observed by a singleexperimenter (who was naive to the purpose of thestudy) as they were making their laundry detergentpurchase.3 The observer appeared to be a store employee who was taking inventory. Since the observerstood behind and slightly to the side of the shopperas the choice was being made, consumers appeared tobe unaware that they were being observed while theywere searching. The very large size of the laundrydetergent display greatly facilitated the recording ofinformation search behavior, since fairly substantialmovement was required to examine different brands.An observation chart was developed which mirroredthe laundry detergent display in each store and whichwas used to record each subject's behavior as s/hemade a brand selection. A coding system was alsodeveloped which allowed the interviewer to record thesearch process easily. When a package was examineda line was drawn next to that brand and size p a c k a g ~ on the chart. If the package was picked up, a circlewas drawn around the line. An "X" was made throughthe circle for the package selected for purchase. Theamount of time (in seconds) spent examining eachpackage was placed next to the other markings. If ashelf tag was examined, a circle was made along theline representing the shelf at the point where the tagwas located.

The major dependent variables of interest includedthe number of packages examined, the total amountof time taken, the time taken for the chosen brand,the number of cross-brand comparisons (i.e., examining different brands), the number of within-brandcomparisons (i.e., examining different sizes withinbrands), and the number of shelf tags examined. Thelatter four measures represent rough approximationsgiven the difficulty of acquiring detailed in-store o b ~ servations of in-store brand choice behaviors.Assessment of Choice Tactics

Upon completion of choice, consumers were approached by the experimenter and offered a 25-cent. J It should be mentioned that the observer was carefully trainedIn the conducting of the experiment and also engaged in live"practice" observations before actual data were collected.

825

coupon for the brand they purchased in return forparticipating in the study. A 12-question instrumentwas then administered to assess several aspects ofconsumers' laundry detergent purchases. Choice tacticsused by consumers were measured two ways. First,consumers were asked to tell the interviewer why theymade their laundry detergent purchase. Specifically,consumers were asked, "Can you tell me why youselected the brand you have chosen?" This openended question was intended to elicit an immediatepost-decision response concerning the way the chosenbrand had been selected. This question was strictly"free response" with an absence of probes, to allowconsumers to describe their choice process in theirown terms. It was felt that more detailed questioningwould have been too obtrusive.Later in the interview, subjects were presented witha list of 10 possible choice tactics from which theywere asked to select the one that best represented theway their decision had been made that day. Theselection of these tactics was based on data acquiredin an earlier study. Multiple measures of the choicetactic variable were included to provide greater confidence in repor ted findings. Thus the purpose of suchclosed questions was to provide an additional "check"on the type of tactic employed.

Other variables of interest were product class experience, brand loyalty, perceived influence of in-storefactors, perceived influence of out-of-store factors anddemographics. Product class experience was m e a ~ u r e d with two questions. Subjects were asked how longthey had been purchasing laundry detergent and howmany brands they had purchased. Brand experiencewas also measured by asking how long the subject hadbeen purchasing the brand s/he had selected on theday of the interview. Both of these variables weremeasured on seven-point scales ranging from I (0-3years) to 7 (over 40 years). Both the repeated purchaseand the affective aspects of brand loyalty were measured by asking subjects to rate their frequency ofpurchasing the chosen brand (on a six-point scaleranging from always purchased to never purchased)and the strength of preference for that brand (on afive-point scale ranging from very strong preferenceto very weak preference).

The perceived influence of in-store situational factorswas assessed on several three-point scales that rangedfrom a lot of attention to no attention. Subjects wereasked how much attention they paid to sale signs,shelf tags, end-of-aisle and point-of-purchase displays,and package information other than the price. Inaddition, as mentioned previously, attention to instore factors was coded as part of the observationaldata.Two questions determined the influence of factorsoutside the store. Influence of advertising on subjects'laundry detergent decisions was measured on a threepoint scale ranging from a lot of influence to noinfluence. I t is recognized that this measure is some-


5/8

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHTABLE 1

SUMMARY OF SEARCH DATA

VariableNumber of packagesexaminedNumber of packagespicked upNumber of across-brandcomparisonsNumber of within-brandcomparisons

of shelf tagsexamined

per brand

= 120

Mean

1.421.23

.45

.07

.13

7.7213.16

Median

1.191.10

.17

.03

.06

4.778.49

the focus of the presentnot a detailed examination of advertisingif they had afor the brand they had selected.The final questions covered demographic variablesand age. The interviewer

the subject was shopping alonewith others, as well as the subject's sex and race.e interviewer read each question to the subject.the possible answers

the multiple-choice questions in order to speed upe interview process and to aid subjects in answeringe questions. The interview generally took three to

minutes to complete.RESULTS

The first area of interest concerned the extent ofsearch and the amount of time takenmaking a laundry detergent choice. Table Isummary data for the observation-based

number of packages (X = 1.42, median = 1.19).to the frequency distribution, 72 percentthe consumers looked at only one package, an dII percent looked at more than two. An evennumber of packages was actually picked up (X1.23, median = 1.10): 83 percent of the consumersup only one package, and only 4 percent

up more than two.Given that consumers must examine at least oneorder to make a choice, it is clear that in-

Frequency distribution proportions0 2 3 4 5

.00 .72 .18 .07 .02 .02

.00 .83 .13 .02 .01 .01

.74 .17 .01 .07 .02 .00

.95 .03 .02 .00 .00 .00

.89 .08 .03 .00 .00 .00Frequency distribution seconds

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40.86 .10 .03 .01 .00.75 .10 .08 .01 .06

store pre-purchase evaluation was almost nonexistent.This is further supported by the finding that extremelyfew across-brand an d within-brand (i.e., size) comparisons were made (X = 0.45 and 0.07, respectively).Further, these means are as high as they are becauseof several outliers. Finally, only a very small numberof shelf tags was examined.Consumers took an average of 13 seconds from thetime they entered the aisle to complete their in-storedecision. Given that the laundry detergent displayspans an entire aisle, it takes consumers some amountof time to arrive in the physical proximity of theirdesired brand. When one considers that the time takento locate the brand is included in the overall timeestimate, it is obvious that the typical consumer ismaking an extremely quick decision with only aminimal degree of cognitive effort in the store environment. This finding is given further support by thefact that a majority of the time taken (median = 4.77)was devoted to the chosen brand.In summary, the data from the present study presentclear evidence that a majority of consumers engage invery little pre-purchase deliberation when making alaundry detergent purchase. Given this, the next question concerns the nature of this brief decision process.Consumer Usage of Choice Tactics

Immediately following their choices, consumers wereapproached and asked how they had made their purchases. If consumers use simplified heuristics, thisshould be reflected in their free responses to the openended question.


6/8

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKINGTABLE 2

RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED CHOICE TACTIC QUESTIONTotal number ofResponse consumers Percentage

Price tactics 27 22.5Cheapest 18 15.0Coupon 5 4.2Use less so costs less 3 2.5On sale 0.8Affect tactics 24 20.0Like it 20 16.7Love it 4 3.3Performance tactics 34 28.3Works well 14 11.7Cleans clothes bette r 7 5.8Cleaner whites 5 4.2Best brand 4 3.3Other 4 3.3

Normative tactics 13 10.8Wife likes it 8 6.7Mother bought 3 2.5Girlfriend likes 1 0.8Husband likes 1 0.8Nonclassified 11 9.2Multiple statements 11 9.2Total 12 0NOTE 11 5ubtects gave multiple statements such as "works well and IS the Cheapest ..

In these responses, 91 percent of the 120 consumersprovided a simple, one-statement reason for theirchoice. Of the 11 who did not, all provided a combination of two simple statements (e.g., it works welland has a low price). If one views these multiplestatements as more refined or specific choice tactics,even greater credence is given to the choice tacticview. When compared with the closed question, thedegree of inter-question agreement was 72.5 percent.However, most of the disagreement was due to thefact that only 10 tactics were listed for the closedquestion and that, as a result, many of the idiosyncraticresponses were not included. This instrument wasdeveloped in the absence of knowledge about thediversity of tactics that consumers would provide andis thus limited. Since it was unable to fully capturethe richness of the choice process, only findings pertaining to the open-ended responses are reported.

One alternative explanation for these results is thatconsumers were unable or unmotivated to provide acomplete description of the choice process. However,if one remembers that the typical choice time wasapproximately 4-5 seconds, it is clear that consumerswere not engaging in a more detailed in-store evaluation process.Table 2 presents a summary of the answers to thefree response question. A variety of choice tacticswas employed. The most frequent responses were:"because it works well" (n = 14), "because I like it "

827

(n = 20), and "because of the price" or "it is cheapest"(n = 18). Further, many of the other responses arequite similar (e.g., "cleans better" and "cleaner whites"are similar to "i t works well").Based on the judgments of two separate individuals,responses were categorized into five major groups.The two judges exhibited an agreement rate of 93percent in the categorizations. Discrepancies werediscussed and resolved by the experimenters. Basedon these categorizations, the following groups emerged:price tactics (n = 27), affect or "I like it " tactics (n= 24), performance tactics (n = 34), normative tactics(n = 13), and other tactics (n = 22). Thus it appearsthat a large number of consumers based their decisionon one of four major types of tactics. One group tendsto purchase a brand based on price, another choosesa brand that is perceived to perform well in fulfillingneeds, another buys a brand simply because the brand"is liked," and still another bases its decision on thepreferences of others.In addition to identifying the types of tactics employed, this study sought to discover whether thereare meaningful differences between different types ofdecision makers. Fo r exploratory purposes only, adiscriminant analysis was performed to determinewhether other variables measured in the study coulddifferentiate among the major categories of tactics.Due to the sample size, only major demographic andsearch variables were employed as predictors. Also,while there are meaningful conceptual differences between affect and performance tactics, present data donot permit a clear distinction between these twogroups (i.e., one could like the product because itperforms well). As a result, these two categories werecombined. Thus differences between the price, affect/performance, and normative groups were examined.Results indicate that a set of variables was able todiscriminate between the three groups (Wilk's A= 0.369, p < 0.0001). The results of group classificationindicate that 81.6 percent of the cases were correctlyclassified. In addition, a jackknife procedure (Lachenbruch and Mickey 1968) which was employed tovalidate this finding resulted in a 73.5 percent correctclassification. Both of these percentages are significantlybetter than chance (t = 7.41, P < 0.001 and t = 5.78,p < 0.001}.4

The seven variables responsible for discriminabilityare presented in Table 3. To examine specific differences between groups, an examination of the univariatetests was made. Differences between each specificgroup mean were tested by employing a Student4 As computed by the formula;

whereP-1I"t=--S.


7/8

TABLE 3UNIVARIATE TESTS FOR DISCRIMINATING VARIABLES

MeansPer-

formance- Nor-Variable F Price Affect mativeSex (1 = F; 2 = M) 24.49" 1.19 1.07 1.77Brand loyalty (higherscores = lessloyalty) 19.92" 6.40 3.16 4.08

of timepurchasing laundrydetergent 3.54" 4.07 4.62 3.15(1 = 1 year or less)(7 = Over 40 years)tosale signs 4.68 c 1.70 2.24 2.38(1 = A lot of attention)(3 = No attention)

search 4.46 c 1.52 1.76 1.92(1 = Search)(2 = No search)of shelftags 2.94" .33 .09 .15

of timepurchasing brand 3.22" 2.33 3.62 2.85 p


8/8

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKING

that consumers employ simple choice tactics whenmaking a low-involvement decision. This choice isnot necessarily habitual (Howard 1977), nor is itnecessarily characterized by the total absence of anypre-purchase deliberation (Olshavsky and Granbois1979); rather, this study suggests that choice is theresult of numerous experiences and evaluations whichoccur over a repeated number of trials (or purchases).Over these trials, consumers develop a set of simplechoice tactics which permit a quick yet satisfactorydecision. While the present study does not providefull support for this notion, it represents an importantfirst step in developing a more descriptive theory ofconsumer choice. Research is now needed to test thisview and to examine how situational and individuallevel variables interact in the usage of choice tacticsover time.

[Received June 1983. Revised July 1984.]REFERENCES

Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing TheoryofConsumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.- - - and C. Whan Park (1980), "Implications of aConstructive View of Choice for Analysis of ProtocolData: A Coding Scheme for Elements of Choice Processes," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. VII,ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association forConsumer Research, 148-153.- - - and Michael Zins (1977), "Constructive Processesin Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research,4 (September), 75-85.Cook, Thomas D. and Donald T. Campbell (1979), Quasi-

Experrmentation: Design and Analysis Issues for FieldSettings, Chicago: Rand-MCNally.Deshpande, Rohit and Wayne D. Hoyer (1983), "ConsumerDecision Making: Strategies, Cognitive Effort and Perceived Risk," in /983 AMA Educators' Proceedings,eds. P. E. Murphy et aI., Chicago: American MarketingAssociation, 88-91.--- , Wayne D. Hoyer, and Scot Jeffries (1982), "LowInvolvement Decision Processes: The Importance ofChoice Tactics," in Marketing Theory: Philosophy ofScience Perspectives, eds. R. F. Bush and S. D. Hunt,Chicago: American Marketing Association, 155-158.Einhorn, Hillel J. and Robin M. Hogarth (1981), "BehavioralDecision Theory: Processes of Judgment and Choice,"Annual Review ofPsychology, 32, 53-58.Engel, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1983), ConsumerBehavior, 4th Edition, Chicago: Dryden Press.Fishbein, Martin (1963), "An Investigation of the Relationships between Belief about an Object and the Attitudetoward the Object," Human Relations, 16,233-240.

829___ (1967), "Attitude and Prediction of Behavior," inReadings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, ed.

Martin Fishbein, New York: Wiley.Hogarth, Robin M. (1981), "Beyond Discrete Biases: Functional and Dysfunctional Aspects of Judgmental Heuristics," Psychological Bulletin, 90 (2), 197-217.Howard, John A. (1977), Consumer Behavior: Applicationof Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.Hupfer, Nancy T. and David M. Gardner (1971), "Differential Involvement with Products and Issues: An Exploratory Study," in Proceedings of the Second AnnualConference, ed. D. M. Gardner, College Park, MD:Association for Consumer Research, 262-269.Jacoby, Jacob (1977), "The Emerging Behavioral ProcessTechnology in Consumer Decision Making Research,"in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. WilliamD. Perreault, Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 263-265.- - - and David B. Kyner (1973), "Brand Loyalty vs.Repeat Purchase Behavior," Journal ofMarketing Re-search, 10 (February), 1-9.Kassarjian, Harold H. (1978), "Presidential Address, 1977:Anthropomorphism and Parsimony," in Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, AnnArbor: Association for Consumer Research, xiii-xiv.Lachenbruch, Peter A. and M. Ray Mickey (1968), "Estimation of Error Rates in Discriminant Analysis," Tech-nometrics, 10 (February), I-II .Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979), "Com

ponents of Involvement," in Attitude Research Playsfor High Stakes, eds. J. Maloney and B. Silverman,Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-73.Olshavsky, Richard W. and Donald H. Granbois (1979),"Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction?" Jour-nal ofConsumer Research, 6 (September), 93-100.Rothschild, Michael L. (1979), "Advertising Strategies forHigh and Low Involvement Situations," in AttitudeResearch Plays for Higher Stakes, eds. J. Maloney andB. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 74-93.Russo, Edward J. and Larry D. Rosen (1975), "An EyeFixation Analysis of Multialternative Choice," Memory& Cognition, 3 (May), 267-276.Ryan, Michael J. and E. H. Bonfield (1975), "The FishbeinExtended Model and Consumer Behavior," Journal ofConsumer Research, 2 (September), 118-136.Wells, William D. and Leonard A. Lo Scuito (1966), "DirectObservation of Purchasing Behavior," Journal ofMar-keting Research, 3 (August), 227-233.Wilkie, William L. and Edgar A. Pessemier (1973), "Issuesin Marketing's Use of Multi-attribute Models," JournalofMarketing Research, to (November), 428-441.Wright, Peter L. (1975), "Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing," Journal ofMarketing Research,II (February), 60-67.

Documents

An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product [1984]