Women's time horizons in evaluating product concepts (birth control devices) were varied experimentally. The variations produced changes in the linearity and complexity of the evaluation strategies used, and in the emphasis given to specific factors. Loss-averse and fairly complex evaluation strategies were used by women who made leisurely purchase intent judgments when consumption seemed imminent. Those who made hasty judgments were somewhat more loss-averse and used simpler evaluation strategies. Those who thought consumption was a distant event used simple evaluation strategies that were not loss-averse. The implications of these findings for modeling consumer choice strategies and for predicting choices on the basis of concept-evaluation studies are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BitherStewart and WrightPeter. “The Choice of a Product Endorser: Choices vs. Preference Functions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1977, in press.
2.
CookJ. O. and BarnesL. W.. “Choice of Delay of Inevitable Shock,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68 (June 1964), 669–72.
3.
DulanyDaniel E.Jr. “Avoidance Learning of Perceptual Defense and Vigilance,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55 (November 1957), 333–8.
4.
EinhornHillel, KomoritaS., and RosenBenson. “Multidimensional Models for the Evaluation of Political Candidates,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8 (January 1972), 58–73.
5.
GlassDavid C., SingerJerome E., and FriedmanJonathan. “Psychic Cost of Adaptation to an Environmental Stressor,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12 (July 1969), 200–19.
6.
GreenPaul E. “On the Analysis of Interactions in Marketing Research Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November 1973), 410–20.
7.
GreenPaul E. and CarmoneFrank J.. “Evaluation of Multiattribute Alternatives: Additive vs. Configural Utility Measurement,” Decision Sciences, 5 (April 1974), 164–81.
8.
HaysWilliam L.Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.
9.
HendrickClyde, MillsJudson, and KieslerCharles A.. “Decision Time as a Function of the Number and Complexity of Equally Attractive Alternatives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (February 1968), 315–8.
10.
JacobyJacob, SpellerDonald, and KohnCarol. “Brand Choice as a Function of Information Load: A Replication and Extension,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (June 1974), 33–42.
11.
JacobyJacob, SzybilloGeorge J., and BerningCarol K.. “Time and Consumer Behavior: Interdisciplinary Neglect of a Fundamental Relationship,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March 1976), 320–39.
12.
KanferFrederick H. and SeidnerMeryl L.. “Self Control: Factors Affecting Tolerance of Noxious Stimulation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 (March 1973), 381–9.
13.
KanouseDavid and HansonReid. “Negativity in Evaluations,” in JonesE. E. et al., Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior.Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971.
14.
KieslerCharles A. “Conflict and the Number of Choice Alternatives,” Psychological Reports, 18 (July 1966), 603–10.
15.
KruskalJoseph B. and CarmoneFrank J.. “MONANOVA: A Fortran IV Program for Monotone Analysis of Variance,” Behavioral Science, 14 (March 1969), 165–6.
16.
LazarusR. S., YausemH., and ArenbergD.. “Hunger and Perception,” Journal of Personality, 21 (September 1953), 312–28.
17.
LussierDenis and OlshavskyRichard. “An Information Processing Approach to Individual Brand Choice Behavior,” presented at TIMS Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1974.
18.
MillerNeal. “Liberalization of Basic S-R Concepts: Extension of Conflict Behavior, Motivation, and Social Learning,” inKochS., ed., Psychology: The Study of a Science, Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959.
19.
MischelWalter. “Processes in Delay of Gratification,” in BerkowitzL., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press, 1974, 249–92.
20.
PayneJohn. “Task Complexity and Contingent Processes in Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (December 1975), 479–91.
21.
PollayRichard W. “The Structure of Executive Decisions and Decision Times,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (December 1970), 459–71.
22.
ReeceM. M. “The Effect of Shock on Recognition Thresholds,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49 (April 1954), 165–72.
23.
ScottJerome E. and WrightPeter. “Modeling an Organizational Buyer's Product Evaluation Strategy: Validity and Procedural Considerations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August 1976), 211–24.
24.
SherifM., SherifC., and NebergallR. E.. Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach.Philadelphia: Saunders, 1965.
25.
WeitzBarton and WrightPeter. “The Treatment of Nonlinearities in Models of the Evaluation Process,” Faculty Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 1977, in preparation.
26.
WrightPeter. “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February 1973), 53–62.
27.
WrightPeter. “On the Application of Persuasion Theory in Social Marketing,” in ShethJ. and WrightP., eds., Marketing Analysis for Societal Problems.Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 1974.
28.
WrightPeter. “Analysing Media Effects on Advertising Responses,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 38 (Summer 1974), 192–205.
29.
WrightPeter. “The Harassed Decision Maker: Time Pressures, Distractions, and the Use of Evidence,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (October 1974), 555–61.
30.
WrightPeter. “The Use of Phased, Noncompensatory Models in Choices Between Multiattribute Alternatives,” paper presented at AIDS National Conference, Atlanta, 1974.
31.
WrightPeter. “Factors Affecting Decision Times on Complex Decision Problems,” Faculty Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 1977.
32.
WrightPeter. “Time Horizons and Decision Processes,” Faculty Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 1977.
