The influence of price on the relationship between involvement and consideration set size

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between involvement and consideration set size for a product category featuring wide variability in the price and quality of choice alternatives. The use of a heterogeneous choice domain is considered important because it gives consumers the opportunity to make price and quality tradeoffs in the selection of their consideration sets. The results indicate that in such a choice context, the total effect of involvement on consideration set size is positive. A path analysis of the data indicates the reason for this positive relationship was that high-involvement subjects set wider latitudes of acceptance for price and thus were more likely to consider the more expensive models in the choice domain.

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

References

  1. Assael, H. (1984).Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Boston: Kent.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Belonax, J.J., and R.G. Javalgi. (1989). “The Influence of Involvement and Product Class Quality on Consumer Choice Sets.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17(3), 209–216.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belonax, J.J., and R.A. Mittelstaedt. (1978). “Evoked Set Size as a Function of Number of Choice Criteria and Information Variability.”Advances in Consumer Research 5, 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bloch, P.H. (1981). “An Exploration into the Scaling of Consumers' Involvement with a Product Class.”Advances in Consumer Research 8, 16–65.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brisoux, J.E., and E.J. Cheron. (1990). “Brand Categorization and Product Involvement.”Advances in Consumer Research 17, 101–109.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell, B.M. (1969). “The Existence of Evoked Set and Determinants of its Magnitude in Brand Choice Behavior.” Dissertation, Columbia University.

  7. Crutchfield Corporation. (1992).Crutchfield Catalog.

  8. Elliott, M.T., and A.E. Warfield. (1993). “Do Market Mavens Categorize Brands Differently?”Advances in Consumer Research 20, 202–208. Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gronhaug, K. (1974). “Some Factors Influencing the Size of the Buyers Evoked Set.”European Journal of Marketing 7(3), 232–241.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Howard, J.A., and J.N. Sheth. (1969).The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jarvis, L.P., and J.B. Wilcox. (1973). “Evoked Set Size: Some Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evidence.”Combined Proceedings Fall Conference of the American Marketing Association 35, 236–240.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nunnally, J.C. (1978).Psychometric Theory. New York; McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ostlund, L.E. (1973). “Evoked Set Size: Some Empirical Results.”Combined Proceedings Fall Conference of the American Marketing Association, 35,, 226–230.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parkinson, T.L., and M. Reilly. (1979). “An Information Processing Approach to Consideration Set Formation.”Advances in Consumer Research 6, 227–231. Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. (1990). “Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration.”Psychological Bulletin 107(3), 367–374.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rothschild, M.L., and M.J. Houston. (1977). “The Consumer Involvement Matrix: Some Preliminary Findings.” In B.A. Greenberg and D.N. Bellinger (eds.),Proceedings: AMA Educator's Conference (pp. 95–98).

  18. Sherif, M., and C.L. Hovland. (1961).Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrasts Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Divine, R.L. The influence of price on the relationship between involvement and consideration set size. Marketing Letters 6, 309–319 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00996194

Download citation

Key words

  • involvement
  • consideration sets
  • latitudes of acceptance