Skip to main content
Log in

Decision Strategy and Structure in Households: A “Groups” Perspective

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From a practical perspective, (arguably) most consumer decisions are not made in isolation of the households in which consumers are inserted, yet we commonly treat them econometrically as if they were. The purpose of this workshop was to take some initial steps in defining needed research in household decision making that structurally accounts for goal sharing, utility interdependence, taste heterogeneity, choice set formation, power structures, group size and composition, and so forth. We also considered conditions under which aggregation of tastes, utility and choices might occur and make sense from both behavioral and modeling perspectives.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreoni, James. (1990). “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving,” Economic Journal June (100), 464–477.

  • Arora, N. and G. Allenby. (1999). “Measuring the Influence of Individual Preference Structures in Group Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing Research 36, 476–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Gary S. (1991). Treatise on the Family Enlarged edn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Bergmann, Barbara R. (1995). “Becker's Theory of the Family: Preposterous Conclusions,” Feminist Economics 1, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, M. and P. A. Chiappori. (1998). “Efficient Intra-Household Allocations: A General Characterization and Empirical Tests,” Econometrica 66(6), 1241–1278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin, John. (1974). “Provision of Collective Goods as a Function of Group Size,” The American Political Science Review June, 68(2) (June), 707–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T. and R. L. Winkler, (1999). “Combining Probability Distributions from Experts in Risk Analysis,” Risk Analysis 19(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colman, Andrew M. (1995). Game Theory and its Applications in the Social and Biological Sciences, Second Edn. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, Axel. (1994). “Group Size Effects in Social Dilemmas: A Review of the Experimental Literature and Some New Results for One-Shot N-PD Games.” U. Schulz, W. Albers, and U. Meuller, (eds.) In Social Dilemmas and Cooperation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genest, C. and J. V. Zidek. (1986). “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography,” Statistical Science 1, 114–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigone, D. and R. Hastie. (1997). “Proper Analysis of the Accuracy of Group Judgments,” Psychological Bulletin 121, 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haag, Matthew and Roger Lagunoff. (2003). “On the Size and Structure of Group Cooperation,” Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper. June 2003.

  • Hinsz, Verlin B. (1990). “Cognitive and Consensus Processes in Group Recognition Memory Performance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 705–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, Verlin B., R. Scott Tindale, and David A. Vollrath. (1997). “The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors,” Psychological Bulletin 121(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. and R. S. Tindale. (2004). “Small Group Decision Making and Performance,” Annual Review of Psychology 55, 623–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchler, E. (1988). “Household Economic Decision-Making,” In W. F. van Raaij, G. M. van Veldhoven, T. M. M. Verhallen and K.-E. Wärneryd (eds.), Handbook of Economic Psychology. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchler, E. (1999). “Household Decision Making.” In P. E. Earl and S. Kemp (eds.), The Elgar Companion to Consumer Research and Economic Psychology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar pp.296–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, R. P. and A. L. Ellis. (1986). “Demonstrability and Social Combination Processes on Mathematical Intellective Tasks,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pete, A., K. R. Pattipati, and D. L. Kleinman, (1993). “Optimal Team and Individual Decision Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Situations,” Public Choice 75, (March), 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, Robert A. (2003). “Gary Becker's Contributions to Family and Household Economics,” Review of Economics of the Household 1, 111–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regenwetter, M., B. Grofman, A. Marley, and I. Tsetlin, (forthcoming) Behavioral Social Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Reimer, T., A.-L. Bornstein, and K. Opwis. (2005). Positive and negative transfer effects in groups. In T. Betsch and S. Haberstroh (eds.), Routine Decision Making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp. 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, T. and U. Hoffrage. (in press). “The Ecological Rationality of Simple Group Heuristics. Effects of Group Member Strategies on Decision Accuracy,” Theory and Decision. Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

  • Reimer, T. and K. Katsikopoulos. (2004). “The Use of Recognition in Group Decision-Making,” Cognitive Science 28(6), 1009–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. (2001). Decisions and Elections: Explaining the Unexpected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1966). “A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions,” Econometrica 34, 491–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snidal, Duncan. (1995). The Politics of Scope: Endogenous Actors, Heterogeneity and Institutions, Robert Keohane and Elinor Ostrom, (eds.), In Local Commons and Global Interdependence: Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Two Domains. London: Sage pp. 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorkin, R. D., C. J. Hays, and R. West. (2001). “Signal Detection Analysis of Group Decision Making,” Psychological Review 108, 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorkin, R. D., S. Luan, and J. Itzkowitz. (2004). “Group Decision and Deliberation: A Distributed Detection Process.” In Chapter 23 in D. Koehler and N. Harvey, (eds.), Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell (in press).

  • Stasser, G. (1992). “Information Salience and the Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Groups: A ‘Thought Experiment’,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making 52, 156–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaszek, P. E. and P. Willett. (1995). “Parley as an Approach to Distributed Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 31, 1, 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermuelen, F. (2002). “Collective Household Models: Principles and Main Results,” Journal of Economic Surveys (16), 533–564.

  • Wood, W. (1987). “A Meta-Analytic Review of Sex Differences in Group Performance,” Psychological Bulletin 102, 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., H. J. P Timmermans, and A. W. J. Borgers. (2004). “A Model of Household Task Allocation and Time Use,” Transportation Research Part B 38.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wiktor Adamowicz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adamowicz, W., Hanemann, M., Swait, J. et al. Decision Strategy and Structure in Households: A “Groups” Perspective. Market Lett 16, 387–399 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5900-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5900-6

Keywords

Navigation