Several authors have suggested evaluation of marketing research information by Bayesian analysis. This suggestion is based on two assumptions: (1) the marketing manager is able to supply valid inputs for the analysis and (2) the essence of the evaluation problem can be captured in the Bayesian analysis framework. This note is a review of recent studies into behavioral decisionmaking that challenge these two assumptions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AssmusGert. “Evaluating Changes in the Marketing Information System,” European Journal of Marketing, forthcoming.
2.
BassFrank M. “Marketing Research Expenditures: A Decision Model,” Journal of Business, 39 (January 1963), 77–90.
3.
BetaqueN. E. and GorryA.. “Automating Judgmental Decision-Making for a Serious Medical Problem,” Management Science, B17 (April 1971), 421–34.
4.
BrownRex V. “Do Managers Find Decision Theory Useful?” Harvard Business Review, (May-June 1970), 78–89.
5.
BrownRex V.Research and the Credibility of Estimates: An Appraisal Tool for Executives and Researchers.Boston: Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1969.
6.
BrownRex V., KahrAndrew S., and PetersonCameron. Decision Analysis for the Manager.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
7.
BurnsWilliam J.Jr. and DeCosterDon T., eds. Accounting and Its Behavioral Implications.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.
8.
CardozoRichard N., RossJuan, and RudeliusWilliam. “New Product Decisions by Marketing Executives: A Computer Controlled Experiment,” Journal of Marketing, 35 (January 1972), 10–6.
9.
ChesleyG. R. “Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities: A Review,” The Accounting Review, 50 (April 1975), 325–37.
10.
CoxKeith K. and EnisBen M.. The Marketing Research Process.Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1972.
EdwardsWard. “Comment,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70 (June 1975), 291–3.
13.
EdwardsWard. “Conservatism in Human Information Processing,” inKleinmuntzB., ed. Formal Representation of Human Judgment.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1968, 17–52.
14.
EdwardsWard. “Dynamic Revision Theory and Probabilistic Information Processing,” Human Factors, 4 (1962), 59–73.
15.
EdwardsWard. LindmanH., and PhillipsL. D.. “Emerging Technologies for Making Decisions,” New Directions in Psychology II.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
16.
FishburnPeter C. “Theory Versus Practice in Risk Analysis: An Empirical Study: A Comment,” The Accounting Review, 51 (July 1976), 657–62.
17.
GreenPaul E. and TullDonald S.. Research for Marketing Decisions, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
18.
GreenPaul E., RobinsonPatrick J., and FitzroyPeter T.. Experiments on the Value of Information in Simulated Marketing Environments.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967.
19.
GreerWillis R.Jr. “Theory Versus Practice in Risk Analysis: An Empirical Study,” The Accounting Review, 49 (July 1974), 496–505.
20.
HamptonJ. M., MooreP. G., and ThomasH.. “Subjective Probability and Its Measurement,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. A, 136 (1973), 21–42.
21.
HogarthRobin M. “Cognitive Processes and the Assessment of Subjective Probability Distributions,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70 (June 1975), 271–89.
22.
HoskinsC. G. “Theory Versus Practice in Risk Analysis: An Empirical Study: A Comment,” The Accounting Review, 50 (October 1975), 835–8.
23.
HowardJohn A. and MorgenrothWilliam M.. “Information Processing Model of Executive Decisions,” Management Science, 14 (March 1968), 416–28.
24.
KahnemanDaniel and TverskyAmos. “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness,” Cognitive Psychology, 3 (1972), 430–54.
25.
LeaRichard B. “Comments on Mock's Concepts of Information Value,” The Accounting Review, 48 (April 1973), 389–93.
26.
LichtensteinSarah, FischhoffBaruch, and PhillipsL. D.. “Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art,” inJungermanH. and de ZeeuwG., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth Research Conference on Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making, 1976.
27.
LipsteinBenjamin. “In Defense of Small Samples,” Journal of Advertising Research, 15 (February 1975), 33–42.
28.
LittleJohn D. C. “A Model of Adaptive Control of Promotional Spending,” Operations Research, 14 (November-December 1966), 1075–97.
29.
MayerCharles S. “Assessing the Accuracy of Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (August 1970), 285–91.
30.
MockTheodore J. “Concepts of Information Value and Accounting,” The Accounting Review, 46 (October 1971), 765–78.
31.
MurphyA. H. and WinklerR. L.. “Scoring Rules in Probability Assessment and Evaluation,” Acta Psychologica, 34 (December 1970), 273–86.
32.
MyersJames H. and SamliA. Coskun. “Management Control of Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (August 1969), 267–77.
33.
PetersonCameron R. and BeachLee R.. “Man as an Intuitive Statistician,” Psychological Bulletin, 68 (1967), 29–46.
RapoportAmnon and WallstenThomas S.. “Individual Decision Behavior,” Annual Review of Psychology, 23 (1972), 131–76.
36.
SchlaiferRobert. Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.
37.
SlovicPaul. “From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculations—and Some Evidence—About Man's Ability to Process Information,” ORI Research Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 2, Oregon Research Institute, April 1972.
38.
SlovicPaul. FischhoffBaruch, and LichtensteinSarah. “Behavioral Decision Theory,” Annual Review of Psychology, 28 (1977), 1–39.
39.
SlovicPaul. and LichtensteinS.. “Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6 (November 1971), 649–744.
40.
SpetzlerCarl S. and von HolsteinCarl-Axel S. Staël. “Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis,” Management Science, 22 (November 1975), 340–58.
41.
von HolsteinStaël, Carl-AxelS. “The Effect of Learning on the Assessment of Subjective Probability Distributions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6 (May 1971), 304–15.
42.
TverskyAmos and KahnemanDaniel, “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 5 (1973), 207–32.
43.
TverskyAmos and KahnemanDaniel. “The Belief in the Law of Small Numbers,” Psychological Bulletin, 76 (1971), 105–10.
44.
WinklerR. L., “The Assessment of Prior Distributions in Bayesian Analysis,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62 (December 1967), 1105–20.
45.
WrightPeter. “The Harassed Decision Maker: Time, Pressures, Distractions, and the Use of Evidence,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (October 1974), 555–61.
