Preference as a criterion in marketing and consumer research has certain limitations. The findings of this study demonstrate that a part of the error observed in many studies is due to error in the criterion, error caused by the stochastic nature of preferences which lack behavioral significance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelsonR. P.Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Source Book. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.
2.
BanksS. “The Relationship of Brand Preferences to Brand Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 15 (October 1950), 145–57.
3.
BassF. M. and WilkieW. L. “A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Predictions of Brand Preference,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (August 1973), 262–9.
4.
BassF. M. and WilkieW. L., “The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand Switching,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February 1974), 1–20.
5.
CampbellB. M. “The Existence of Evoked Set and Determinants of Its Magnitude in Brand Choice Behavior,” in HowardJ. A. and OstlundL. E., Buyer Behavior: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. New York: Afred A. Knopf, Inc., 1973, 243–4.
6.
EskinG. and BaronP. “Attitude Ratings as Predictors of Claimed and Actual Behavior,” in AndersonB. B., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3. Cincinnati, Ohio: Association for Consumer Research, 1975, 359–63.
7.
GreenP. E. and RaoV. R.Applied Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1972.
8.
GreenP. E. and WindY.Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1973.
9.
HuberJ. “Ideal Point Models of Preference,” in AndersonB. B., ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3. Cincinnati, Ohio: Association for Consumer Research, 1975.
10.
JohnsonR. M. “Market Segmentation: A Strategic Management Tool,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February 1971), 13–9.
11.
KakkarP. “Inert Set or Inferred Set? A Comment,” Journal of Marketing, 40 (July 1976), 59–60.
12.
KotlerP.Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 428.
13.
LavidgeR. J. and SteinerB. A. “A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 25 (October 1961), 59–62.
14.
NarayanaC. L. and MarkinR. J. “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (October 1975), 1–6.
15.
NarayanaC. L. and MarkinR. J., “Inert Set or Inferred Set? An Explanation,” Journal of Marketing, 40 (July 1976), 60.
16.
PaldaK. S. “The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Effects: A Partial Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, (February 1966), 13–24.
17.
ShockerA. D. and SrinivasanV. “A Consumer-Based Methodology for Identification of New Product Ideas,” Management Science, 20 (February 1974), 921–37.
18.
WilkieW. L. and PessemierE. A. “Issues in Marketing's Use of Multiattribute Attitude Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November 1973), 428–44.
19.
WindY. “A New Procedure for Concept Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing, 37 (October 1973), 2–11.
20.
WindY. and RobinsonP. J. “Product Positioning: An Application of Multidimensional Scaling,” in HaleyRussell I., ed., Attitude Research in Transition. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1972.
