Skip to main content

The effects of expertise, end goal, and product type on adoption of preference formation strategy

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science volume 22, pages 146–159 (1994)Cite this article

Abstract

The global preference formation model identifies several preference formation strategies (i.e., own-based, other-based, or hybrid) that consumers use to select among alternative product offerings. This article examines how consumers’ expertise level (novice vs. expert), their end goals (satisficing vs. optimizing), and product type (search vs. experience product) collectively influence the preference formation strategy likely to be adopted. Results from an experiment indicate that the adoption of a given strategy is influenced by interactions between subjects’ expertise level and their end goals and the product type. Novice satisficers employed a higher proportion of own-based strategies than novice optimizers, but expert satisficers used a lower proportion of own-based strategies than expert optimizers. When compared to novices choosing a search product, novices selecting an experience product used a lower proportion of own-based and a higher proportion of other-based strategies. Similarly, when compared to experts choosing a search product, experts selecting an experienced product used a lower proportion of own-based strategies, but this was accompanied by a higher proportion of hybrid strategies. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  • Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein. 1980.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, John R. 1980.Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Rolph E. and Marvin A. Jolson. 1980. “Technical Wording in Advertising: Implications for Market Segmentation.”Journal of Marketing 44 (Winter): 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, J. 1967a. “Perceived Risk, Sociometric Integration and Word-of-Mouth in the Adoption of a New Food Product.” InRisk-Taking and Information-Handling in Consumer Behavior. Ed. Donald F. Cox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1967b. “The Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product.”Journal of Marketing Research 6 (August): 291–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray. 1986. “Situational Effects of Advertising Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Respond.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (March): 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Raymond A. 1960. “Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking.” InDynamic Marketing for a Changing World. Ed. R. S. Hancock. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 389–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1967. “Source Effect and Persuasibility: A New Look.” InRisk-Taking and Information-Handling in Consumer Behavior. Ed. Donald F. Cox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 559–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel. 1989. “Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (March): 473–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berning, Carol A. Kohn and Jacob Jacoby. 1974. “Patterns of Information Acquisition in New Product Purchases.”Journal of Consumer Research 1 (September): 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, Merrie. 1985. “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capon, Noel and Marion Burke. 1980. “Individual, Product Class and Task-Related Factors in Consumer Information Processing.”Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December): 314–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhabra, Surgit and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1986. “Some Evidence for Additional Types of Choice Strategies.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Volume 13. Ed. Richard J. Lutz. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Catherine A. and Siva K. Balasubramanian. 1993. “Age Differences in Consumers’ Search for Information: Public Policy Implications.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (June): 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Donald F. 1967. “Risk Handling in Consumer Behavior—An Intensive Study of Two Cases.” InRisk-Taking and Information-Handling in Consumer Behavior. Ed. Donald F. Cox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 34–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, David J. and Peter C. Riesz. 1988. “Price and Price/Quality Relationships: A Longitudinal Analysis.”Journal of Marketing 52 (January): 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edell, Julie and Andrew Mitchell. 1978. “An Informational Processing Approach to Cognitive Responses.” InResearch Frontiers in Marketing. Ed. Subhash C. Jain. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 178–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, Anders K. and Herbert A. Simon. 1984.Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Sidney and Merlin Spencer. 1965. “The Effect of Personal Influence in the Selection of Consumer Services.” InMarketing and Economic Development. Ed. Peter Bennett. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 440–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, Geraldine. 1975. “Motivation Research Revisited.”Journal of Advertising Research 15 (June): 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. 1975.Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Formissano, Roger A., Richard W. Olshavsky, and Shelly Tapp. 1982. “Choice Strategy in a Difficult Task Environment.”Journal of Consumer Research 8 (March): 474–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furse, David H., Girish N. Punj, and David W. Stewart. 1984. “A Typology of Individual Search Strategies Among Purchasers of New Automobiles.”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (March): 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1991. “Innovative Decision Processes.” InHandbook of Consumer Behavior. Eds. Thomas S. Robertson and Hal H. Kassarjian. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 316–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Del I., Roger J. Best, and Kenneth A. Coney. 1992.Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer, Wayne D. 1984. “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (December): 822–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer, Wayne D. and Jacob Jacoby. 1982. “Three-Dimensional Information Acquisition: An Application to Contraceptive Decision Making.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Volume 10. Eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 618–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric and J. Edward Russo 1984. “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June): 542–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, David and Peter J. Burke. 1980.Log-Linear Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, Herbert E. 1965. “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning with Involvement.”Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (Fall): 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, Donald R. and Scot Burton. 1989. “The Relationship Between Perceived and Objective Price-Quality.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (November): 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, Dennis A. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1979. “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice.”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (September): 154–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynes, E. Scott. 1976.Decision-Making for Consumers: An Introduction to Consumer Economics. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miniard, Paul W. and Joel B. Cohen. 1979. “Isolating Attitudinal and Normative Influences in Behavioral Intention Models.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, Naomi and Donald A. Norman. 1979. “To Ask a Question, One Must Know Enough to Know What Is Not Known.”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (June): 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, William L. and Donald R. Lehmann. 1980. “Individual Difference in Search Behavior for a Nondurable.”Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December): 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nantel, Jacques. 1985. “A Study of Some Determinants of Preference Formation Strategies.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

  • Nelson, Phillip. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.”Journal of Political Economy 78 (March/April): 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —————. 1974. “Advertising as Information.”Journal of Political Economy 81 (July/August): 729–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshavsky, Richard W. 1985a. “Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective.” InConsumer Perception of Merchandise and Store Quality. Eds. Jacob Jacoby and Jerry Olson. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1985b. “Towards a More Comprehensive Theory of Choice.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Volume 12. Eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 465–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olshavsky, Richard W. and Donald H. Granbois. 1979. “Consumer Decision Making: Fact or Fiction?”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (September): 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshavsky, Richard W. and Dennis L. Rosen. 1985. “Use of Product-Testing Organizations’ Recommendations as a Strategy for Choice Simplification.”Journal of Consumer Affairs 19 (Summer): 118–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, William D., Jr. and Lawrence E. Leigh. 1989. “Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (May): 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson. 1990.Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, J. Paul and Lawrence X. Tarpey. 1975. “A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies.”Journal of Consumer Research 2 (June): 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, Linda L. and Lawrence F. Feick. 1983. “The Role of Interpersonal Sources in External Search: An Informational Perspective.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Volume 11. Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 250–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin. 1983. “A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for New Automobiles.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (March): 366–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, Girish N. and David W. Stewart. 1983. “An Interaction Framework of Consumer Decision Making.”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (September): 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Dennis L. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1983. “Multi-Type, Multi-Source Information: Effects on Information Acquisition.” Discussion paper. Division of Research, Indiana University.

  • Rosen, Dennis L. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1987a. “A Protocol Analysis of Brand Choice Strategies Involving Recommendations.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December): 440–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Dennis L. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1987b. “The Dual Role of Informational Social Influence: Implications for Marketing Management.”Journal of Business Research 15 (April): 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Ivan. 1975. “Perceived Risk and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Volume 2. Ed. Mary Jane Schlinger. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, Michael J. 1982. “Behavioral Intention Formation: The Interdependency of Attitudinal and Social Influence Variables.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (December): 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepphard, Blair H., Jon Hartwick, and Paul Warshaw. 1988. “The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modification and Future Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (December): 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert. 1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (February): 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig. 1982.Consumer Behavior: An Information Processing Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, George J. 1961. “The Economics of Information.”Journal of Political Economy 69 (June): 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, Mita. 1985. “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, Robert A. and Claes Fornell. 1979. “Patterns of Information Source Usage Among Durable Goods Buyers.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August): 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, Louis L. 1980. “The Economics of Consumer Information Acquisition.”Journal of Business 53 (Summer): 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. 1975. “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing.”Journal of Marketing Research 11 (February): 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. and Peter D. Rip. 1980. “Product Class Advertising Effects on First-Time Buyers’ Decision Strategies.”Journal of Consumer Research 8 (September): 176–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, USA

    Maryon F. King

  2. Southern Illinois University, USA

    Maryon F. King & Siva K. Balasubramanian

  3. SUNY at Buffalo, USA

    Siva K. Balasubramanian

Authors
  1. Maryon F. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siva K. Balasubramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Her current research interests include consumer choice processes, electronic decision aids, and measurement issues in marketing.

His research interests include consumer information search, marketing communications, and measurement issues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

King, M.F., Balasubramanian, S.K. The effects of expertise, end goal, and product type on adoption of preference formation strategy. JAMS 22, 146–159 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222004

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222004

Keywords

  • Consumer Behavior
  • Product Category
  • Product Type
  • Choice Task
  • Consumer Research