Marketing Letters

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 181–197 | Cite as

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

  • Allan D. Shocker
  • Moshe Ben-Akiva
  • Bruno Boccara
  • Prakash Nedungadi


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.

Key words

Decision-making Consideration Set Consumer Choice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Ben-AkivaMoshe and Steven R., Lerman. (1985).Discrete Choice Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bettman, James. (1979).An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Bhargava, Mukesh. (1990). “Choice Set Formation and Updating,”Working Paper. Edmonton, AB: Faculty of Business, University of Alberta. (May).Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Boccara, Bruno. (1989).Modelling Choice Set Formation in Discrete Choice Models. Cambridge, MA: Department of Civil Engineering, MIT (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation).Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Fotheringham, A. Stewart. (1988). “Consumer Store Choice and Choice Set Definition,”Marketing Science 7, 299–310.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gensch, Dennis. (1987). “A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model,”Marketing Science 6, 223–231.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hauser, John R. and Steven, Gaskin. (1984). “Application of the ‘Defender’ Consumer Model,”Marketing Science 3, 327–351.Google Scholar
  14. Hauser, John R. and Birger, Wernerfelt. (1990). “An Evaluation Cost Model of Evoked Sets,”Journal of Consumer Research 16, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard, John A. and Jagdish N., Sheth. (1969).The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, Michael. (1984). “Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research 11, 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katahira, Hotaka. (1990). “Perceptual Mapping Using Ordered Logit Analysis,”Marketing Science 9, 1–17.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manski, Charles. (1977). “The Structure of Random Utility Models,”Theory and Decision 8, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Narayana, Chem L. and Rom J., Markin. (1975). “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization,”Journal of Marketing 39, 1–6.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Nedungadi, Prakash. (1990a). “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research 17, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nedungadi, Prakash. (1990b). “Consideration Sets: A Brief Review of Issues,”Working Paper. Toronto, ON: Faculty of Management, University of Toronto. (May).Google Scholar
  26. Novak, Thomas P. (1990). “A Framework for Consideration Set Formation,”Working Paper. New York: Grad. School of Business, Columbia University (April).Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratneshwar, S. and Allan D., Shocker. (1991). “The Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures,”Journal of Marketing Research 28, 3.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Simonson, Itamar. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research 16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Srivastava, Rajendra, Mark I., Alpert, and Allan D., Shocker. (1984). “A Customer-Oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures,”Journal of Marketing 48, 32–45.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Stopher, Peter R. (1980). “Captivity and Choice in Travel Behavior Models,”Transportation Journal of A.S.C.E. 106, 427–435.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Thaler, Richard. (1985). “Using Mental Accounting in a Theory of Consumer Choices,”Marketing Science 4, 199–214.Google Scholar
  39. Urban, Glen L., Philip L., Johnson, and John R., Hauser. (1984). “Testing Competitive Market Structures,”Marketing Science 3, 83–112.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Williams, H. and J., Ortuzar. (1982). “Behavioral Theories of Dispersion and Misspecification of Travel Demand Models,”Transportation Research B 16B, 167–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright, Peter. (1975). “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing,”Journal of Marketing Research 12, 60–67.Google Scholar
  43. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan D. Shocker
    • 1
  • Moshe Ben-Akiva
    • 2
  • Bruno Boccara
    • 3
  • Prakash Nedungadi
    • 4
  1. 1.Carlson School of ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Transportation StudiesMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Faculty of ManagementUniversity of TorontoTorontoUSA

Personalised recommendations