IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ksa/szemle/1772.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Szekvenciális fogyasztói termékválasztás döntési kontinuuma
[The decision-making continuum of sequential consumer-product choices]

Author

Listed:
  • Tarján, Tamás
  • Veres, Zoltán

Abstract

A cikk a termékválasztási döntést egy kontinuumon elhelyezve modellezi. A kontinuum egyik végpontja azt a tudatos fogyasztót képviseli, aki teljes mértékben kontrollálja a döntését, a másik végpontja pedig azt a fogyasztót, aki minden megfontolás nélkül, teljesen véletlenszerűen hozza meg döntését. A döntési intervallum anélkül képes a sokattribútumos döntés modellezésére, hogy megkülönböztetné a tényezőknek a két végpont között elfoglalt pozícióra gyakorolt hatását. A kutatás célja az volt, hogy azonosítsuk a döntési intervallumon a tipikus termékválasztási magatartás pozícióját. Nagymintás kísérletekben olyan szekvenciális döntéseket figyeltünk meg, amelyek különböző attribútumváltozatok páros összehasonlítása alapján születtek meg. Az eredmények alapján a szekvenciális fogyasztói döntések átlaga a teljesen kontrollált és a teljesen random végpontok között helyezkedik el, az előbbihez közelebb. Emellett bizonyítjuk, hogy a termék komplexi tás erősíti a választás véletlen jellegét.* Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: C91, D91, M31.

Suggested Citation

  • Tarján, Tamás & Veres, Zoltán, 2018. "Szekvenciális fogyasztói termékválasztás döntési kontinuuma [The decision-making continuum of sequential consumer-product choices]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 525-550.
    • Handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:1772
    DOI: 10.18414/KSZ.2018.5.525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kszemle.hu/tartalom/letoltes.php?id=1772
    Download Restriction: Registration and subscription. 3-month embargo period to non-subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18414/KSZ.2018.5.525?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    2. repec:bla:econom:v:40:y:1973:i:159:p:241-59 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. "Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(3), pages 263-276, December.
    4. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.
    5. Gary J. Russell, 2014. "Brand Choice Models," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Russell S Winer & Scott A Neslin (ed.), THE HISTORY OF MARKETING SCIENCE, chapter 2, pages 19-46, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    7. Ariely, Dan & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 279-290, December.
    8. Gregory W. Fischer & Mary Frances Luce & Jianmin Jia, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 88-103, January.
    9. Moore, William L. & Semenik, Richard J., 1988. "Measuring preferences with hybrid conjoint analysis: The impact of a different number of attributes in the master design," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 261-274, May.
    10. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    11. Etzioni, Amitai, 1988. "Normative-affective factors: Toward a new decision-making model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 125-150, June.
    12. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    13. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    14. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    15. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 1980. "Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 278-320, April.
    16. Simonson, Itamar, 2005. "In Defense of Consciousness: The Role of Conscious and Unconscious Inputs in Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1883, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. Cowley, Elizabeth & Mitchell, Andrew A, 2003. "The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the Learning and Organization of Product Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 443-454, December.
    18. Vincze, János & Koltay, Gábor, 2009. "Fogyasztói döntések a viselkedési közgazdaságtan szemszögéből [Consumer decisions from the angle of behavioural economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 495-525.
    19. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    20. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    21. Gregory W. Fischer & Jianmin Jia & Mary Frances Luce, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: The RandMAU Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(5), pages 669-684, May.
    22. Hauser, John R & Urban, Glen L, 1979. "Assessment of Attribute Importances and Consumer Utility Functions: von Neumann-Morgenstern Theory Applied to Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(4), pages 251-262, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    2. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    3. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    4. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    5. Martin Binder, 2019. "Soft paternalism and subjective well-being: how happiness research could help the paternalist improve individuals’ well-being," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 539-561, April.
    6. Palmeira, Mauricio M. & Krishnan, H. Shanker, 2008. "Criteria instability and the isolated option effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 153-167, July.
    7. Döring Thomas, 2013. "John Maynard Keynes als Verhaltensökonom – illustriert anhand seiner Analyse des Versailler Vertrags / John Maynard Keynes as Behavioral Economist – Represented by his Analysis of the Treaty of Versai," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 64(1), pages 27-52, January.
    8. Floris Heukelom, 2007. "Who are the Behavioral Economists and what do they say?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-020/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Franziska Rischkowsky & Thomas Döring, 2008. "Consumer Policy in a Market Economy Considerations from the Perspective of the Economics of Information, the New Institutional Economics as well as Behavioural Economics," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 285-313, September.
    10. Wörfel, Philipp, 2021. "Unravelling the intellectual discourse of implicit consumer cognition: A bibliometric review," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    11. Dimitrios Tsekouras & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Bas Donkers & Gerald Häubl, 2020. "Product set granularity and consumer response to recommendations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 186-202, March.
    12. Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2017. "Optimal Liability when Consumers Mispredict Product Usage," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 202-243.
    13. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    14. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    15. Das, Willy & Das, Satyasiba, 2018. "Role of Heuristic Principles On Crowd-Funder's Investment Decision Making," 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change (Dubrovnik, 2018), in: 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disrupt, pages 443-452, Governance Research and Development Centre (CIRU), Zagreb.
    16. Greenacre, Luke & Martin, James & Patrick, Sarah & Jaeger, Victoria, 2016. "Boundaries of the centrality effect during product choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-38.
    17. Somerville, Jason & McGowan, Féidhlim, 2016. "Can chocolate cure blindness? Investigating the effect of preference strength and incentives on the incidence of Choice Blindness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-11.
    18. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    19. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    20. Christopher Boyce & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend & Steve Tucker, 2015. "The effects of emotions on preferences and choices for public goods," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-08, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:1772. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Odon Sok (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kszemle.hu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.