Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CONSUMER DECISIONMAKING - Coggle Diagram
CONSUMER DECISIONMAKING
Models, strategies & theories
Models (USP)
-
Satisficing (consumers get to approximately where they want to go and then stop any decisionmaking ie. looking for a new apartment that has a gym)
-
Strategies (COMP)
Compensatory (higher valued attribute compensates for lower valued disadvantage ie. buying a car - mileage is prioritized at the cost of leg room)
Non-compensatory - satisficing (first cut-off), elimination (cut from bottom to top of hierarchy), lexigraphic (most important attribute first, any product that meets the standard is instantly selected)
Partially compensatory - majority of conforming decisions (product v product, eliminate, product v product) + frequency of good & bad features (# for each product, largest # of good features bought)
Marketing theories
Richarme (C v I)
Consideration theory (decisionmaking =/= all potential products and places, but rather a shortlist that changes depending on what cognitive factors are involved)
Involvement theory - amount of cognitive effort required to make a decision is directly correlated with the level of importance to quality of lifeplaced on buying a certain product ie. buying chewing gum v. car
Choice heuristics
SHORTCUTS
Availability [quick decision based on how easy or difficult it is to bring a product/place forth to our consciousness - finding information in our brain to make a value judgment ie. one news item about the Samsung phone - negative view of all Samsung products].
Representativeness [decision based on comparing available info with a mental "prototype"/expectations ie. Apple products are high-quality, extrapolate to all products even if buying an iPad for the first time]
Wansink
Study 1 MULTIPLE-UNIT PRICING (6 for $3 as opposed to single unit - 1 for 50c) - 86 stores, 13 products put on sale using either MUP or SUP
ie. cereal 33% discount => MUP: 2 for $3.98, SUP: 1 for $1.99
RESULTS: MUP increased sales average 32% in all stores for 12 products; of these, 9 were statistically significant compared to SUP
Study 2 HIGH PURCHASE-QUANTITY LIMITS (no limit v max. 4 cans of Campbell's soup v max. 12 cans of soup) - 3 similar (size & shopper volume) supermarkets in Sioux City, Iowa over 3 consecutive evenings with a total of 914 shoppers
No limits = avg 3.3 cans purchased; 4 can limit = avg. 3.5 cans purchased; 12 can limit = avg. 7 cans purchased
Study 3 & 4 SELLING ANCHORS ("Snickers Bars: buy 18 for your freezer" versus "buy some for your freezer") - [3] 120 undergrads offered 6 popular products at actual price/20% discount/40% discount, [4] 139 undergrads taking part in local grocery store study
When selling anchors specific in number are used, sales increase across all discount levels
Use of expansion anchors ie. 101 uses - [4] expansion anchor increased purchase intention quantities (ie. "How many units do you usually buy/might you use in the next month?") by 150%
Knutson
fMRI scanning used to investigate neural activity in 26 healthy right-handed young adults paid $20 to participate during purchasing decisions made when engaging in SHOP (Save Holdings or Purchase) activity
SLIDESHOW OF PICTURES: Product (4s), Product + Price (4s), Slide - "Would you purchase at this price?", Crosshair (2s)
Successful prediction of activation circuit - anticipated gain circuit during experience of subjective preference (nucleus accumbens - anticipation of gain) & anticipated loss circuit during price presentation (mesial prefrontal cortex - price differentiation) (insula - expected physical pain - deactivated when purchasing) - impacts consumer purchasing
Intuitive thinking
-
Braun & LaTour
Study 1 - examine if false autobiographical (memory of personal experiences) advertising impacts recall
66 undergrads (34M 32F) - randomly assigned to either Mickey Mouse ad or Bugs Bunny ad handed out during a lecture
PROCEDURE (3) = (1) Read ads, rate AAL (attitude, affect & likelihood of visiting Disneyland in the future) -> (2) Recall past experiences of Disneyland - did they see any characters there? what was their earliest recollection of it? did they personally identify with the ad? -> (3) Debriefing
DATA COLLECTION - 2 independent judges assessed 4 things: # of words used; whether response was critical/personal; whether they identified the Bugs Bunny falsity; how many ad items were mentioned in their personal recall
RESULTS - 22% BB grp v. 7% MM claimed to have shaken BB's hand at Disneyland --> confidence ratings 2.3/8 (BB) v. 1.3/8 (MM)
-