Subjects made an initial choice using external product information. Some concurrently verbalized this choice, whereas others did not. Next, they received more information on new brands and a new attribute for all brands. Both verbalizers and nonverbalizers then made a second choice using some of the first choice information incidentally acquired in memory. All subjects verbalized this second choice. The effects of the first choice verbalization manipulation were examined by analyzing the second choice protocols along with the choice outcome and task perception measures. In comparison with verbalizers, nonverbalizers did more problem framing and brand processing during earlier phases of the second choice. However, choice outcomes did not differ. The findings suggest that the verbalization manipulation may have altered the first choice, creating memory differences that affected some subsequent tasks. Retrieval measures corroborate this conclusion. The concurrent verbal protocol method is evaluated on the basis of these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJohn R. (1984), Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
2.
BettmanJames R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
3.
BettmanJames R. and PradeepKakkar (1977), “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March), 233–40.
4.
BettmanJames R. and PradeepKakkar and ParkC. Whan (1980a), “Implications of a Constructive View of Choice for Analysis of Protocol Data: A Coding Scheme for Elements of Choice Processes,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, JerryC. Olson, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 148–53.
5.
BettmanJames R. and PradeepKakkar and ParkC. Whan (1980b), “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of Choice Process on Consumers’ Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 234–8.
6.
BettmanJames R. and PradeepKakkar and ParkC. Whan and MichelA. Zins (1977), “Constructive Processes in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (September), 75–85.
7.
BiehalGabriel J. and DipankarChakravarti (1982a), “Information Presentation Format and Learning Goals as Determinants of Consumers’ Memory Retrieval and Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 431–41.
8.
BiehalGabriel J. and DipankarChakravarti (1982b), “Experiences with the Bettman-Park Verbal Protocol Coding Scheme,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 442–8.
9.
BiehalGabriel J. and DipankarChakravarti (1983), “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 1–14.
10.
BiehalGabriel J. and DipankarChakravarti (1986), “Consumers’ Use of Memory and External Information in Choice: Macro and Micro Processing Perspectives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March), 382–405.
11.
CacioppoJohn T., StephenG. Harkins, and PettyRichard E. (1981), “The Nature of Attitudes and Cognitive Responses and Their Relationships to Behavior,” in Cognitive Responses to Persuasion, PettyRichard E., OstromThomas M., and BrockTimothy C., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 31–54.
12.
CraikFergus I. M. and RobertS. Lockhart (1972), “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 (December), 671–84.
13.
CraikFergus I. M. and RobertS. Lockhart and EndelTulving (1975), “Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–94.
14.
DansereauD. F. and GreggLee W. (1966), “An Information Processing Analysis of Mental Multiplication,” Psychonomic Science, 6, 71–2.
15.
EricssonK. Anders and SimonHerbert A. (1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
FidlerEduard J. (1983), “The Reliability and Validity of Concurrent, Retrospective and Interpretive Verbal Reports,” in Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, HumphreysP., SvensonOla, and VariA., eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 429–40.
17.
JacobyLarry (1973), “Encoding Processes, Rehearsal and Recall Requirements,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 302–10.
18.
JohnsonEric and RussoJ. Edward (1978), “What is Remembered After a Purchase Decision?” working paper, Center for Decision Research, University of Chicago.
19.
JohnsonEric and RussoJ. Edward (1984), “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 542–50.
20.
KahnemanDaniel (1973), Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
21.
LachmanRoy, JanetLachman, and EarlButterfield (1979), Cognitive Psychology and Information Processing: An Introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
LussierDennis A. and RichardW. Olshavsky (1979), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (September), 154–65.
23.
LynchJohn G. and ThomasK. Srull (1982), “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 18–37.
24.
MacInnisDeborah J. and LindaPrice (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 473–91.
25.
MillerGeorge A. (1956), “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,” Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
26.
NewellAllen and HerbertA. Simon (1972), Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
27.
NisbettRichard E. and TimothyD. Wilson (1977), “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,” Psychological Review, 84, 231–59.
28.
ParkC. W., EaswarIyer, andDaniel Smith (1987), “The Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of Store Environment and Time Available for Shopping,” working paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.
29.
PayneJohn W., BraunsteinM. L., and CarrollJohn S. (1978), “Exploring Predecisional Behavior: An Alternative Approach to Decision Research,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 17–44.
30.
RussoJay Edward, EricJ. Johnson, and DebraM. Stephens (1987), “The Validity of Verbal Protocols,” working paper, University of Maryland.
31.
SmeadRaymond J., JamesB. Wilcox, and WilkesRobert E. (1981), “How Valid are Product Descriptions and Protocols in Choice Experiments?” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (June), 37–42.
32.
SmithE. R. and MillerF. S. (1978), “Limits on Perception of Cognitive Processes: A Reply to Nisbett and Wilson,” Psychological Review, 85, 355–62.
33.
TulvingEndel S. and ZenaPearlstone (1966), “Availability Versus Accessibility of Information in Memory for Words,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381–91.
34.
WrightPeter (1975), “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying Versus Optimizing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 60–7.
35.
WrightPeter (1980), “Message-Evoked Thoughts: Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (September), 151–75.
36.
WyerRobert S. and DonalM. Carlston (1979), Social Cognition, Inference and Attribution. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
