Marketing Letters

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 305–317 | Cite as

Consumer substitution decisions: an integrative framework

  • Rebecca W. Hamilton
  • Debora V. Thompson
  • Zachary G. Arens
  • Simon J. Blanchard
  • Gerald Häubl
  • P. K. Kannan
  • Uzma Khan
  • Donald R. Lehmann
  • Margaret G. Meloy
  • Neal J. Roese
  • Manoj Thomas
Article

Abstract

Substitution decisions have been examined from a variety of perspectives. The economics literature measures cross-price elasticity, operations research models optimal assortments, the psychology literature studies goals in conflict, and marketing research has examined substitution-in-use, brand switching, stockouts, and self-control. We integrate these perspectives into a common framework for understanding consumer substitution decisions; their specific drivers (availability of new alternatives, internal vs. external restrictions on choice); the moderating role of a consumer’s commitment to an initially desired alternative; and the affective, motivational, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes of substitution. We use this framework to recommend new avenues for research.

Keywords

Substitution Consumer choice Choice restriction Commitment 

References

  1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.Google Scholar
  2. Arens, Z. G., & Hamilton, R. W. (2014), “Effective Substitution: Why Highly Similar Replacements Leave a Lot to Be Desired,” working paper, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  3. Blanchard, S. J., & DeSarbo, W. S. (2013). A new zero-inflated negative binomial methodology for latent category identification. Psychometrika, 78(2), 322–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard, S. J., Carlson, K. A., & Meloy, M. G. (2014), “Biased predecisional processing of leading and nonleading alternatives,” Psychological Science, 25(3), 812–816.Google Scholar
  5. Botti, S. B., Broniarczyk, S., Häubl, G., Hill, R., Huang, Y., Kahn, B., Kopalle, P., Lehmann, D., Urbany, J., & Wansink, B. (2008). Choice under restrictions. Marketing Letters, 19, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. J Abnorm Soc Psychol, 52(3), 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., & Miller, E. G. (2013). Goal reversion in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 918–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(March), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day, G. S., Shocker, A. D., & Srivastava, R. K. (1979). Customer-oriented approaches to identifying product-markets. Journal of Marketing, 43, 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Mooij, M., & Geert, H. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dellaert, B. G. C., & Häubl, G. (2012). Searching in choice mode: consumer decision processes in product search with recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 277–288.Google Scholar
  13. DePaoli, A., & Khan, U. (2013), “Favorites Fall Faster: Greater Liking leads to Greater Satiation,” working paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. DeSarbo, W. S., & Hoffman, D. L. (1987). Constructing MDS joint spaces from binary choice data: a multidimensional unfolding threshold model for marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(1), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhar, R., Huber, J., & Khan, U. (2007). The shopping momentum effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Finkelstein, E. A., Zhen, C., Bilger, M., Nonnemaker, J., Farroqui, A. M., & Todd, J. E. (2013). Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered. Journal of Health Economics, 32(1), 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, J. C., & Pry, R. H. (1971). A simple substitution model of technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser, C., & Bradford, J. W. (1983). Competitive market structure analysis: principal partitioning of revealed substitutabilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garvey, A. M., Meloy, M. G., & Shiv, B. (2013), “Dashed Hopes in Consumer Choice,” working paper, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  22. Ge, X., Haubl, G., & Brigden, N. (2013), “The Signaling Effect of Search: Consumer Preference for “Out-of-Sight” Alternatives,” working paper, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  23. Greenleaf, E., & Lehmann, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halbheer, D., Stahl, F., Koenigsberg, O., & Lehmann, D. R. (2014), “Choosing a digital contact strategy: how much should be free?” International Journal of Research in Marketing, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  25. Hamilton, R. W., & Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(December), 546–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4–21.Google Scholar
  27. Hicks, J. R. (1963). Theory of wages. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Honhon, D., Gaur, V., & Seshadri, S. (2010). Assortment planning and inventory decisions under stockout-based substitution. Operations Research, 58(5), 1364–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Motivated reasoning: a depth-of-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(March), 358–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jain, D., Bass, F. M., & Chen, Y.-M. (1990). Estimation of latent-class models with heterogeneous choice probabilities: an application to market structuring. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jeuland, A. P. (1979). Brand choice inertia as one aspect of the notion of brand loyalty. Management Science, 25(7), 671–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, E., Shu, S., Dellaert, B., Fox, C., Goldstein, D., Häubl, G., Larrick, R., Payne, J., Peters, E., Schkade, D., Wansink, B., & Weber, E. (2012). Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Letters, 23(2), 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kannan, P. K. (2013). Designing and pricing digital content products and services: a research review. Review of Marketing Research, 10, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kardes, F. R., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (1993). Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation and the set-size effect in preference judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). The licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koukova, N., Kannan, P. K., & Kirmani, A. (2012). “Multi-format digital products: how design attributes interact with usage situations to determine choice,”. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 100–114.Google Scholar
  37. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., Sleeth-Keppley, D., & Zanna, M. P. (2002), “A Theory of Goal Systems,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34, Ed. Mark P. Zanna, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 331–78.Google Scholar
  38. Lam, S., Ahearne, M., Ye, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehmann, D. R., & Parker J. R. (2013), “Disadoption,” working paper, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  40. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: selected papers. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Litt, A., Khan, U., & Shiv, B. (2010). Lusting while loathing: parallel counter-driving of wanting and liking. Psychological Science, 21(1), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Monteverde, K., & Teece, D. J. (1982). Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in the automobile industry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(1), 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murray, K. B., & Häubl, G. (2011). Freedom of choice, ease of use, and the formation of interface preferences. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 955–A6.Google Scholar
  44. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oxford English Dictionary (2013). Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/193078?isAdvanced=false&result=1&rskey=zY53Zx& (accessed September 05, 2013).
  46. Porter, M. E. (2008). On competition (updated and expanded edition). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  47. Ratneshwar, S., & Shocker, A. D. (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Goal-derived categories and the antecedents of across-category consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roese, N. J., & Summerville, A. (2005). What we regret most… and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, S. A., & Agrawal, N. (2001). Management of multi-item retail inventory systems with demand substitution. Operations Research, 48(1), 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, M., Desai, K. K., & Srinivasan, S. (2011). How credit card payments decrease unhealthy food purchases: visceral regulation of vices. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Petrova, P. K. (2009). When mental simulation hinders behavior: the effects of process-oriented thinking on decision difficulty and performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 562–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang, J., Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Trade-offs and depletion in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 910–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zauberman, G. (2003). The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2004). Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services. Journal of Business Research, 57, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca W. Hamilton
    • 1
  • Debora V. Thompson
    • 2
  • Zachary G. Arens
    • 3
  • Simon J. Blanchard
    • 2
  • Gerald Häubl
    • 4
  • P. K. Kannan
    • 1
  • Uzma Khan
    • 5
  • Donald R. Lehmann
    • 6
  • Margaret G. Meloy
    • 7
  • Neal J. Roese
    • 8
  • Manoj Thomas
    • 9
  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  4. 4.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  5. 5.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  6. 6.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  8. 8.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  9. 9.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations