IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1883.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

In Defense of Consciousness: The Role of Conscious and Unconscious Inputs in Consumer Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Simonson, Itamar

    (Stanford U)

Abstract

Although the argument that unconscious inputs are often key determinants of consumer decision making is compelling, it may be overstated, particularly with respect to consumer choice. A comparison of the role of conscious inputs (e.g., the attributes of options in the choice set) and unconscious inputs (e.g., a seemingly irrelevant observation or task) indicates that the former have a significant advantage. In particular, the impact of conscious inputs is supported by choice task norms and is less susceptible to being lost in the "noise" that is characteristic of most natural consumer environments (e.g., stores). Indeed, although consumers often have limited insight into influences and processes producing their choices, the assumption that consumers base their choices on conscious, willful evaluation of task-relevant inputs has been quite successful in explaining a wide range of phenomena. It is expected that future research will put greater emphasis on the interactions between conscious and unconscious influences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1883.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Klayman, Joshua, 1985. "Children's decision strategies and their adaptation to task characteristics," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 179-201, April.
    3. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer & John, Deborah Roedder, 1995. "Are Young Children Adaptive Decision Makers? A Study of Age Differences in Information Search Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(4), pages 567-580, March.
    4. Bettman, James R & Sujan, Mita, 1987. "Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 141-154, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Loewenstein, George, 2001. "The Creative Destruction of Decision Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 499-505, December.
    7. Kivetz, Ran & Simonson, Itamar, 2003. "The Role of Effort Advantage in Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs: The Idiosyncratic Fit Heuristic," Research Papers 1738r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dustin P. Calvillo & Alan Penaloza, 2009. "Are complex decisions better left to the unconscious? Further failed replications of the deliberation-without-attention effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 509-517, October.
    2. Wörfel, Philipp, 2021. "Unravelling the intellectual discourse of implicit consumer cognition: A bibliometric review," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:509-517 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Haase, Janina & Wiedmann, Klaus-Peter, 2020. "The implicit sensory association test (ISAT): A measurement approach for sensory perception," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 236-245.
    5. Kirk F Manson & Ifat Levy, 2015. "“Selling” Value: The Influence of Language on Willingness-to-Accept," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, March.
    6. T. Poehlman & Ravi Dhar & John Bargh, 2016. "Sophisticated by Design: the Nonconscious Influence of Primed Concepts and Atmospheric Variables on Consumer Preferences," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(1), pages 48-61, March.
    7. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Herrmann, Andreas & Rossberg, Nadja & Huber, Frank & Landwehr, Jan R. & Henkel, Sven, 2011. "The impact of mimicry on sales - Evidence from field and lab experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 502-514, June.
    10. Liu, J., 2008. "Brand and automaticity," Other publications TiSEM dcbcb1b7-2089-429d-bdc1-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    2. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    3. Katz, Idit & Bereby-Meyer, Yoella & Assor, Avi & Danziger, Shai, 2010. "Children's adaptive pre-decisional search behavior: Effects of memory and number of alternatives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 17-24, February.
    4. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    5. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    6. Simonson, Itamar, 2007. "Will I Like A "Medium" Pillow? Another Look At Constructed And Inherent Preferences," Research Papers 1977r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Chunhua Wu & Koray Cosguner, 2020. "Profiting from the Decoy Effect: A Case Study of an Online Diamond Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 974-995, September.
    11. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    12. Auh, Seigyoung & Johnson, Michael D., 2005. "Compatibility effects in evaluations of satisfaction and loyalty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-57, February.
    13. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    14. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    15. Mengzhou Zhuang & Eric (Er) Fang & Jongkuk Lee & Xiaoling Li, 2021. "The Effects of Price Rank on Clicks and Conversions in Product List Advertising on Online Retail Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1412-1430, December.
    16. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    17. Pronobesh Banerjee & Krishanu Rakshit & Sanjay Mishra & Tamara Masters, 2024. "Attribute ratings and their impact on attraction and compromise effects," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 439-450, September.
    18. Karlson Pfannschmidt & Pritha Gupta & Bjorn Haddenhorst & Eyke Hullermeier, 2019. "Learning Context-Dependent Choice Functions," Papers 1901.10860, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    19. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    20. Diels, Jana Luisa & Wiebach, Nicole, 2011. "Customer reactions in Out-of-Stock situations: Do promotion-induced phantom positions alleviate the similarity substitution hypothsis?," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2011-021, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.

    More about this item

    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:ecl:stabus:1883. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.