Disciplinary Influence and Alternative Orientations in Consumer Research: Behavioral Decision Theory Versus Social Cognition and Positivist Versus Postmodern

 As indicated, consumer researchers who have been influenced by particular fields have tended to work on different topics and employ different research methods. In this section we explore two contrasts: (a) BDT versus social cognition consumer research and (b) positivist versus postmodern consumer research. The Behavioral Decision Theory and Social-Cognition Approaches to Consumer Research Whereas the distinction between social and cognitive research does not play nearly as significant a role in consumer research as it does in psychology, the somewhat loose distinction between social cognition–based research and so-called BDT is more prominent in consumer research. In psychology, BDT accounts for a relatively small segment of the literature, although leading BDT researchers such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have had great impact on both the cognitive and social psychological literatures.

In the consumer behavior literature, research that follows the BDT research paradigm has accounted for a large and growing proportion of all nonpostmodern articles published in the leading journals. Indeed, the central BDT issues of judgment and choice are directly relevant to the most researched area in marketing and consumer behavior, namely, influences on purchase decisions. Furthermore, BDT research serves as a bridge between the “behavioral” and “quantitative” sides of marketing because both BDT and quan-titative research share the link to economics and the focus on consumer choice. Conversely, quantitative research in marketing tends to have less in common with social cognition consumer research (and even less with postmodern research). First, it should be emphasized that social cognition and BDT researchers in marketing share many of the same research values and methods. For example, in the debate between the positivist and postmodern approaches to research, both social cognition and BDT researchers, by and large, are on the same (positivist) side. Furthermore, there are differences in emphasis among researchers within the consumer BDT and social cognition subfields, making it difficult to generalize regarding differences between the two camps. In particular, much BDT con-sumer research has investigated the processes underlying judgments and decisions (e.g. Coupey 1994, Dhar & Nowlis 1999, Sen & Johnson 1997).

 Conversely, other BDT research has focused more on judgment and decision-making phenomena, such as the manner in which consumers integrate the opinions of multiple critics (e.g. West & Broniarczyk 1998) or the impact of anticipating regret (e.g. Simon-son 1992), where process measures are either not used at all or provide additional insights but are not the focus of the research. Similarly, there are large differ-ences among social cognition consumer researchers with respect to both research methods and topics (see, e.g. Kisielius & Sternthal 1984 and Tybout et al 1983, compared with Alba et al 1999 and Lynch et al 1988). With the caveat that there are exceptions to each of the following generalizations, there are several key differences between BDT and social cognition consumer research:

1. One obvious difference relates to the primary influences on each area. Social cognition consumer research has been influenced primarily by social cognition research in psychology (e.g. Chaiken 1980, Fiske & Taylor 1984). Conversely, the primary influence on BDT consumer research has been the BDT literature, including the work of Kahneman & Tversky (e.g. 1979), Thaler (1985), and other researchers. Furthermore, similar to BDT research published in nonmarketing journals, BDT consumer research has tended to use the normative benchmark of value maximization and time-consistent preferences for evaluating the significance of research findings. Thus, findings that demonstrate violations of the classical economic assumptions regarding buyer behavior have typically been regarded as interesting and important. For example, BDT consumer researchers have demonstrated that, (a) the framing of product attributes (e.g. ground beef that is “80% lean” or has “20% fat”) influences product evaluation even after actual experience (“80% lean beef” tasted better than “20% fat beef;” Gaeth & Levin 1988); (b) when costs significantly precede benefits, the sunk cost effect is greatly diminished (Gourville & Soman 1998); (c) the interaction between the pleasure of consumption and the pain of paying has predictable impact on consumer behavior and hedonics (Prelec & Loewenstein 1998); and (d) preference elicitation tasks involving comparison of options (e.g. choice), judgments of individual options (e.g. ratings), and matching of two options varying in price and quality, produce systematically different preferences (e.g. Carmon & Simonson 1998, Hsee & Leclerc 1998, Nowlis & Simonson 1997). In recent years, the focus has shifted from demonstrations of value maximization violations to studies that are designed to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence the construction of preferences (e.g. Drolet et al 2000; for a review, see Bettman et al 1998).

2. Social cognition and BDT consumer research have tended to build on different underlying models of buyer behavior and the communication process. One often referenced response hierarchy model (e.g. McGuire 1969), which has its origin in the communications area, includes the following stages: exposure/attention!reception/encoding!cognitive response!attitude!intention!behavior. The other model, which focuses on consumer decision making (or buying process), includes the following stages (e.g. Peter & Olson 1993): problem recognition! information search!evaluation of alternatives!purchase decision/choice!postpurchase evaluation. Although these two models highlight somewhat different elements in the consumer response and decision-making process (e.g. attention and intention versus search and evaluation) and employ different terminology, the essential components are quite similar. Thus, for example, most studies that examine influences on attitudes and attitude change also effectively investigate the formation of preferences and alternative evaluation, and vice versa (e.g. Morwitz et al 1993). However, whereas social cognition consumer research has focused on the stages in the communications (or hierarchy-of-effects) model and on how judgments and attitudes are formed, BDT consumer research has tended to examine the decision-making model and particularly the determinants of choice.

3. Related to item 2, whereas BDT consumer researchers have studied primarily stimulus-based phenomena (e.g. Dhar 1997, Kahn & Louie 1990), social cognition research has focused more on memory-based tasks (e.g. Alba et al 1991; Biehal & Chakravarti 1982, 1983). For example, building on the influential accessibility-diagnosticity model of Feldman & Lynch (1988), Lynch et al (1988) proposed that decisions arise from a process whereby inputs are sequentially retrieved from memory, with the consumer updating the implications of already considered evidence with each new input retrieved. The order of retrieval is a function of the accessibility of each input, but accessible information can be actively disregarded if it is perceived to be nondiagnostic.

4. Although there are certainly exceptions to this generalization, BDT research has tended to focus more on substantive phenomena, which are explained based on existing theories or lead to theoretical extensions. Conversely, a greater share of social cognition consumer research has involved theory testing and extensions that have implications for the consumer environment (e.g. Ratneshwar & Chaiken 1991).

5. There are also differences in the process measures that social cognition and BDT consumer researchers tend to use. Social cognition researchers often employ measures such as cognitive response (e.g. Sternthal et al 1978) and recall to gain insights into cognitive processes. In the BDT area, researchers who have used process measures tended to rely primarily on measures of information acquisition, verbal protocols, and response time (e.g. Bettman & Park 1980, Brucks 1988, Johnson 1984, Sen & Johnson 1997).

There is no obvious explanation for the different process measures employed. Finally, the use of mediation and path analysis is more common in social cognition than in BDT consumer research. Despite the differences between the social cognition and BDT approaches to consumer research, the main topics of investigation are closely related and the re- search methods, by and large, are similar. Thus, decreasing the division between the two areas and increasing communication and collaboration can advance the consumer research field. Consider, for example, the currently dominant view of consumer persuasion based on the elaboration likelihood model (e.g. Petty et al 1983). Briefly, evaluation of arguments presented in an ad is a frequent example of processing through the central route, whereas the impact of background mu- sic represents an example of persuasion through the peripheral route. However, depending on the motivation and ability to process the information, the same cue (e.g. the product endorser) might influence persuasion through either the central or peripheral route (e.g. Petty et al 1991).

In the BDT literature researchers have made a related distinction between com- pensatory and heuristic-based decision rules (see, e.g. Bettman 1979). This dis- tinction, however, refers typically to the manner in which consumers process attribute information, as opposed to different types of information. Interestingly, BDT researchers have not paid much attention to the manner in which typical peripheral cues, such as source characteristics and background music, impact con- sumer preferences. On the other hand, BDT consumer researchers have studied extensively the impact of various contextual factors, such as task characteristics (e.g. Fischer et al 1999) and the configuration of the option set under consideration (e.g. Huber et al 1982, Huber & Puto 1983, Wernerfelt 1995), on consumer pref- erences.

These contextual moderators have not received much attention in social cognition research on attitude and persuasion, even though such factors appear quite relevant to our understanding of attitude and persuasion. Another area that could potentially benefit from increased integration of BDT and social cognition research involves the BDT notion of construction of pref- erences and the related concepts in social cognition of attitude accessibility and diagnosticity (e.g. Fazio et al 1989, Feldman & Lynch 1988), as well as the notions of attitude strength and ambivalence (e.g. Priester & Petty 1996). For example, Krosnick & Shuman (1988) showed that, contrary to common assumptions, mea- sured attitudes of individuals whose attitudes are intense, important, and held with certainty, are just as susceptible to response order effects as other respondents’.

A related finding from BDT consumer research is that expertise and involvement (e.g. owing to accountability) often do not diminish and, in some cases, enhance the susceptibility of consumers to judgment and decision errors such as overconfi-dence and the attraction effect (e.g. Mahajan 1992, Simonson 1989; but see Coupey et al 1998). Thus, by integrating findings from the social cognition and BDT areas, we are likely to gain a better understanding of the moderators of consumer susceptibility to various biases. Another example of a finding in social cognition research that might have significant BDT implications is the observation that stronger, more accessible attitudes diminish sensitivity to changes in the attitude object (Fazio et al 2000). In particular, it suggests that, although well-formed, stable preferences might represent the ideal sovereign consumer, it might actually reduce consumer welfare and choice effectiveness. Finally, social cognition research on the measurement and construction of attitudes (e.g. Menon et al 1995; for a review, see Schwarz & Bohner 2000) can have significant implications for decision research, and vice versa. In sum, despite the differences in research traditions, issues, and methods, we believe there is a need and opportunity for greater interaction and collaboration between social cognition and BDT consumer researchers.

ADS HERE !!!