Three major factors are proposed as affecting a choice prediction method's (model's) immediate use by practitioners. These factors are predictive capability, input required, and interpretation task complexity. A decision plan net is developed as an alternative method to existing individual choice prediction methods and is examined against these three major factors in a home purchase situation. Inferences are drawn concerning specific marketing applications of a decision plan net.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellengerD. N. (1979), “The Marketing Manager's View of Marketing Research,” Business Horizons, 22 (June), 59–65.
2.
BellmanR. E. and ZadehL. A. (1970), “Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment,” Management Science, 17 (December), 141–164.
3.
BettmanJames R. (1970), “Information Processing Models of Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (August), 370–376.
4.
BettmanJames R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
ClarksonGeoffrey P. E. (1962), Portfolio Selection: A Simulation of Trust Investment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
EricsonAnders K. and SimonHerbert A. (1979), “Thinking-Aloud Protocols as Data,” working paper #397, Carnegie-Mellon University.
7.
GardnerDavid M. (1971), “Is There A Generalized Price-Quality Relationships?,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (May), 241–243.
8.
GoldbergLewis (1968), “Simple Models or Simple Processes? Some Research on Clinical Judgments,” American Psychologist, 23 (July), 483–496.
9.
GreenPaul E. and WindYoram (1973), Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach, Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
10.
HobertNeil (1974), “How Managers See Marketing Research,” Journal of Advertising Research, 14 (December), 41–46.
11.
HolznerB. and MarxJ. (1979), Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
12.
LarrecheJ. C. (1979), “Integrative Complexity and Use of Marketing Models,” TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, 13, 171–187.
13.
LittleJ. D. C. (1970), “Models and Managers: The Concept of A Decision Calculus,” Management Science, 16 (April), 466–485.
14.
MillerGeorge, Eugene GalanterA., and PribramKarl H. (1960), Plans and the Structure of Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
15.
MitchellAndrew A. (1979), “Cognitive Processes Initiated by Exposure to Advertising,” in Information Processing Research in Advertising, HarrisRichard, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
NisbettR. E. and WilsonT. D. (1977), “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,” Psychological Review, 84 (May), 231–259.
ParkC. Whan, and WinterF. W. (1979), “Product Quality Judgment: Information Processing Approach,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 21 (July), 211–217.
19.
SchultzR. L. and SlevinD. P. (1975), Implementing Operations Research/Management Science, New York: American Elsevier.
20.
SwinthRobert L. (1976), “A Decision Process Model for Predicting Job Preferences,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (April), 242–245.
21.
TverskyAmos (1969), “Intransitivity of Preferences,” Psychological Review, 76 (January), 31–48.
22.
WilkieWilliam L. and PessemierEdgar A. (1973), “Issues in Marketing's Use of Multiple Attribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November), 428–441.
23.
ZaltmanGerald and LawtherKaren (1979), “Let's At Least Be Interesting: The Art of Challenging Assumptions,” paper presented at American Marketing Association Conference.
24.
ZelanyM. (1976), “The Attribute-Dynamic Attitude Model (ADAM),” Management Science, 23 (September), 12–26.
