An empirical study of the relationship between brand choice behavior and the distances between ideal points and brands displayed in joint-space configurations revealed five operative models of choice behavior. Seventy-three of 77 individual models were significant and 57 produced significant predictions of future brand choice behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BassF. M. “The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand Switching,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February1974), 1–20.
2.
BassF. M.PessemierE. A. and LehmannD. R. “An Experimental Study of Relationships Between Attitudes, Brand Preference, and Beliefs,” Behavioral Science, 17 (November1972), 532–41.
3.
CarmoneF. J. “TRICON: An IMB 360/65 Fortran IV Program for Triangularization of Conjoint Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (May1969), 219.
4.
CarrollJ. D. “Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling,” in ShepardR. N. et al., Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences.New York: Academic Press, 1972, 105–55.
5.
FrankR. E. “Brand Choice as a Probability Process,” Journal of Business, 35 (January1962), 43–56.
6.
FreedmanJ. L. “How Important is Cognitive Consistency,” in AbelsonR. P. et al., Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 497–503.
7.
GreenP. E. “Marketing Applications of MDS: Assessment and Outlook,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (January1975), 24–31.
8.
GreenP. E. and RaoV. R.Applied Multidimensional Scaling.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1972.
9.
GreenP. E. and WindY.Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing.Hinsdale, Illinois: The Drysden Press, 1973.
10.
HenryW. A. and StumpfR. V. “Time and Accuracy Measures for Alternative Multidimensional Scaling Data Collection,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (April1975), 165–70.
11.
HuberJ. “The Psychophysics of Taste: Perceptions of Bitterness and Sweetness of Iced Tea,” Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research, 1973, 166–81.
12.
JohnsonR. M. “Market Segmentation: A Strategic Management Tool,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February1971), 13–19.
13.
KatzD. “Consistency for What? The Functional Approach,” in AbelsonR. P. et al., Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 179–91.
14.
KotlerP.Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 428.
15.
MassyW. F., MontgomeryD. B. and MorrisonD. G.Stochastic Models of Buying Behavior.Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1970.
16.
MassyW. F. “Order and Homogeneity of Family Specific Brand Switching Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (February1966), 48–54.
17.
MillerG. R. and RokeachM. “Individual Differences and Tolerance for Inconsistency,” in AbelsonR. P. et al., Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 624–32.
18.
OsgoodC. E. and TannenbaumP. H. “The Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude Change,” Psychological Review, 62 (January1955), 42–53.
19.
TannenbaumP. H. “The Congruity Principle: Retrospective Reflections and Recent Research,” in AbelsonR. P. et al., Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 52–72.
