A typology for the classification of products according to their comparability is presented and hypotheses about the levels of comparison used by consumers in making choices among durable goods are proposed. The hypotheses are tested with data provided by subjects who made choices among durable goods and indicated their choice criteria in an interactive survey. Subjects tended to use abstract levels of comparison even when items could be compared easily on concrete attributes, and choices between more comparable items were more difficult to make than those between less comparable items.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarsalouLawrence W. (1983), “Ad Hoc Categories,”Memory and Cognition, 11(May), 211–27.
2.
BarsalouLawrence W. (1985), “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11(October), 629–49.
3.
BettmanJames R., and SujanMita (1987), “Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Non-Comparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14(September), 141–54.
4.
ClarkeYvonne, and SoutarGeoffrey N. (1982), “Consumer Acquisition Patterns for Durable Goods: Australian Evidence,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8(March), 456–60.
5.
CorfmanKim P., LehmannDonald R., and NarayananSunder (1991), “The Role of Consumer Values in the Utility and Ownership of Durables,”Journal of Retailing, forthcoming.
6.
GutmanJonathan (1982), “A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes,”Journal of Marketing, 26(Spring), 60–72.
7.
GutmanJonathan, and ReynoldsThomas J. (1979), “An Investigation of the Levels of Cognitive Abstraction Utilized by Consumers in Product Differentiation,” in Attitude Research Under the Sun, EighmeyJohn, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 128–50.
8.
HauserJohn R., and UrbanGlen (1985), “The Value Priority Hypotheses for Purchases of Consumer Durable Goods,” MIT Working Paper No. 1637–85 (March).
9.
HowardJohn (1977), Consumer Behavior: Application and Theory.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10.
JohnsonMichael (1984), “Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(December), 741–53.
11.
JohnsonMichael (1988), “Comparability and Hierarchical Processing in Multialternative Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15(December), 303–14.
12.
JohnsonMichael (1989), “The Differential Processing of Product Category and Noncomparable Choice Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(December), 300–9.
13.
KahleLynn R. ed. (1983), Social Values and Social Change.New York: Praeger Publishers.
14.
KasuliusJack J., LuschRobert F., and StaffordEdward F. (1979), “Consumer Acquisition Patterns for Durable Goods,”Journal of Consumer Research, 6(June), 47–57.
15.
OlsonJerry C., and ReynoldsThomas J. (1983), “Understanding Consumers’ Cognitive Structures: Implications for Advertising Strategy,” in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, PercyL., and WoodsideA., eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 77–90.
16.
ParkC. Whan, and SmithDaniel C. (1989), “Product-Level Choice: A Top-Down or Bottom-Up Process?”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(December), 289–99.
17.
PickeringJ. F. (1981), “A Behavioral Model of the Demand for Consumer Durables,”Journal of Economic Psychology, 1, 59–77.
18.
RokeachMilton (1973), The Nature of Human Values.New York: The Free Press.
