Skip to main content
Log in

Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper affords a stylized view of individual consumer choice decision-making appropriate to the study of many marketing decisions. It summarizes issues relating to consideration set effects on consumer judgment and choice. It discusses whether consideration sets really exist and, if so, the factors that affect their composition, structure, and role in decision-making. It examines some new developments in the measurement and modeling of consideration set effects on decision-making. The paper concludes with suggestions for needed research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1985). “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure,Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11, 629–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-AkivaMoshe and Boccara, Bruno. (1990). “Discrete Choice Models with Latent Choice Sets,”Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Department of Civil Engineering, MIT (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-AkivaMoshe and Steven R., Lerman. (1985).Discrete Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James. (1979).An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhargava, Mukesh. (1990). “Choice Set Formation and Updating,”Working Paper. Edmonton, AB: Faculty of Business, University of Alberta. (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, William. (1990). “Exploring the Behavioral Bases of Choice Set Formation and Modification,”Working Paper. Baton Rouge, LA: College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, (April).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boccara, Bruno. (1989).Modelling Choice Set Formation in Discrete Choice Models. Cambridge, MA: Department of Civil Engineering, MIT (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Juanita, and Albert R., Wildt. (1987). “Factors Influencing Evoked Set,”Working Paper 034-87. Columbia, MO: College of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham, A. Stewart. (1988). “Consumer Store Choice and Choice Set Definition,”Marketing Science 7, 299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeth, Gary J., Irwin P., Levin, Goutam, Chakraborty, and Aron M., Levin. (1991). “Consumer Evaluation of Multi-Product Bundles: An Information Integration Analysis,”Marketing Letters 2, 1:47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gensch, Dennis. (1987). “A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model,”Marketing Science 6, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R. (1978). “Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information Theoretic Approach,”Operations Research 26, 406–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R. and Steven, Gaskin. (1984). “Application of the ‘Defender’ Consumer Model,”Marketing Science 3, 327–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, John R. and Birger, Wernerfelt. (1990). “An Evaluation Cost Model of Evoked Sets,”Journal of Consumer Research 16, 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, John A. and Jagdish N., Sheth. (1969).The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Michael. (1984). “Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research 11, 741–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katahira, Hotaka. (1990). “Perceptual Mapping Using Ordered Logit Analysis,”Marketing Science 9, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Gilles and Eric, Lapersonne. (1990). “Consideration Sets of Size One?”Working Paper. Jouy-en-Josas, France: Ecole Des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Centre HEC-ISA. (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, John G.Jr., Howard, Marmorstein, and Michael F., Weigold. (1989). “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research 15, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, Charles. (1977). “The Structure of Random Utility Models,”Theory and Decision 8, 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Daniel L. (1984). “Econometric Analysis of Qualitative Response Models,” In ZviGriliches and M. D.Intriligator (eds.)Handbook of Econometrics, Vol II. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1395–1457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayana, Chem L. and Rom J., Markin. (1975). “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization,”Journal of Marketing 39, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, Prakash. (1987).Formation and Use of a Consideration Set: Implications for Marketing and Research on Consumer Choice. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, Prakash. (1990a). “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research 17, 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, Prakash. (1990b). “Consideration Sets: A Brief Review of Issues,”Working Paper. Toronto, ON: Faculty of Management, University of Toronto. (May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, Thomas P. (1990). “A Framework for Consideration Set Formation,”Working Paper. New York: Grad. School of Business, Columbia University (April).

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. Whan and Daniel C., Smith. (1989). “Product-Level-Choice: A Top-Down or Bottom-Up Process?”Journal of Consumer Research 16, 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratneshwar, S. and Allan D., Shocker. (1991). “The Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures,”Journal of Marketing Research 28, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, John H. and James M., Lattin. (1990). “Development and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Formation,”Working Paper 90-014. Kensington, NSW, Australia: Australian Graduate School of Management. (April).

    Google Scholar 

  • Silk, Alvin J. and Glen L., Urban. (1978). “Pre-Test Market Evaluation of New Packaged Goods: A Model and Measurement Methodology,”Journal of Marketing Research 15, 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, Itamar. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research 16, 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Mark. (1981). “On the Influence of Individuals on Situations,” in N.Cantor and J. F.Kihlstrom (eds.)Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 309–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, Rajendra, Mark I., Alpert, and Allan D., Shocker. (1984). “A Customer-Oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures,”Journal of Marketing 48, 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, Rajendra, Robert, Leone, and Allan D., Shocker. (1981). “Market Structure Analysis: Hierarchical Clustering of Products Based Upon Substitution in Use,”Journal of Marketing 45, 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stopher, Peter R. (1980). “Captivity and Choice in Travel Behavior Models,”Transportation Journal of A.S.C.E. 106, 427–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, Joffre. (1984).Probabilistic Choice Set Formation in Transportation Demand Models. Cambridge, MA: Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, Joffre and Moshe, Ben-Akiva. (1987). “Incorporating Random Constraints in Discrete Models of Choice Set Generation,”Transportation Research B 21, 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard. (1985). “Using Mental Accounting in a Theory of Consumer Choices,”Marketing Science 4, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, Glen L., Philip L., Johnson, and John R., Hauser. (1984). “Testing Competitive Market Structures,”Marketing Science 3, 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, James B. (1990). “Portfolio and Variety Seeking: Definitions, Models, Issues, and Questions,”Working Paper. Edmonton, AB: School of Business, University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. and J., Ortuzar. (1982). “Behavioral Theories of Dispersion and Misspecification of Travel Demand Models,”Transportation Research B 16B, 167–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter. (1975). “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing,”Journal of Marketing Research 12, 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter and Frederick, Barbour. (1977). “Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to Initial Screening,” In MartinStarr and MilanZeleny (eds.),Multiple Criteria Decision Making. North Holland TIMS Studies in Management Science. Amsterdam: North Holland, 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The authors wish to acknowledge the numerous ideas and perspectives contributed by the other members of the Banff Symposium workshop:Mukesh Bhargava (University of Alberta),Bill Black (Louisiana State University),Gary Gaeth (University of Iowa),Hotaka Katahira (University of Tokyo, Japan),Gilles Laurent (Centre HEC-ISA, France),Irwin Levin (University of Iowa),David Midgley (Australian Graduate School of Management),Thomas Novak (Southern Methodist University), andJames Wiley (University of Alberta). This paper has benefited greatly from their contributions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shocker, A.D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B. et al. Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Market Lett 2, 181–197 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404071

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404071

Key words

Navigation