Goals are constructs that direct choice behavior by guiding a decision maker toward desirable (or away from undesirable) end states. Often, consumers are motivated to satisfy multiple goals within a single choice. Although previous research has recognized this possibility, it has not directly formulated models of choice as a multigoal problem. The authors develop such a model, referred to as the multiple-goal-based choice model, which incorporates (1) simultaneous multiple goal pursuit and (2) context-driven goal adaptation but (3) does not require a priori identification of the number or nature of the goals. Goal adaptation within a single choice instance, allied to repeated choices, is the key to empirical identification of multiple latent goals. The proposed model is tested and supported using discrete choice experimental data on digital cameras through multiple validation exercises. The model can lead to significantly different policy implications with regard to consumers’ valuation for new product designs, compared with extant utility-based choice models.
CutlerAdele and BreimanLeo (1994), “Archetypal Analysis,”Technometrics, 36 (4), 338–47.
5.
DanthurebandaraV.YuJie and VandebroekMartina (2011), “Effect of Choice Complexity on Design Efficiency in Conjoint Choice Experiments,”Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 141 (7), 2276–86.
6.
DeSarboWayne S.AtalayA. Selin, LebaronDavid, and BlanchardSimon J. (2008), “Estimating Multiple Consumer Segment Ideal Points from Context-Dependent Survey Data,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 142–53.
7.
DharRavi and SimonsonItamar (1999), “Making Complementary Choices in Consumption Episodes: Highlighting Versus Balancing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1), 29–44.
8.
FishbachAyelet and DharRavi (2005), “Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 370–77.
9.
FishbachAyeletDharRavi and ZhangYing (2006), “Subgoals as Substitutes or Complements: The Role of Goal Accessibility,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (2), 232–42.
10.
GhoseSanjoy and RaoVithala (2014), “Integrating Bundled Features and Meta-Attributes: A Choice Model for Product Design,” working paper, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
11.
HanemannMichael (1984), “Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand,”Econometrica, 52 (3), 541–62.
12.
HigginsE. Tory (2000), “Making a Good Decision: Value from Fit,”American Psychologist, 55 (11), 1217–30.
13.
KamakuraWagner A. and RussellGary J. (1989), “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (4), 379–90.
14.
KamakuraWagner A.WedelMichel and AgrawalJagadish (1994), “Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 451–64.
15.
KeeneyRalph and RaiffaHoward (1976), Decision Making with Multiple Objectives Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
KernanMary C and LordRobert G. (1990), “Effects of Valence, Expectancies, and Goal-Performance Discrepancies in Single and Multiple Goal Environments,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (2), 194–203.
17.
KimMinki and ChintaguntaPradeep K. (2012), “Investigating Brand Preferences Across Social Groups and Consumption Contexts,”Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10 (3), 305–33.
18.
KöpetzCatalina E., FaberTim, FishbachAyelet, and KruglanskiArie W. (2011), “The Multifinality Constraints Effects: How Goal Multiplicity Narrows the Means Set to a Focal End,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (5), 810–26.
19.
KöpetzCatalina E., KruglanskiArie W., ArensZachary G., EtkinJordan, and JohnsonHeather M. (2012), Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 208–23.
20.
KruglanskiArie W.ShahJames Y.FishbachAyeletFriedmanRonChunWoo Young, and Sleeth-KepplerDavid (2002), “A Theory of Goal Systems,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34, ZannaMark P., ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 331–78.
21.
LaranJuliano and JaniszewskiChris (2009), “Behavioral Consistency and Inconsistency in the Resolution of Goal Conflict,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), 967–84.
22.
LeeJack K.H., SudhirK., and SteckelJoel H. (2002), “Multiple Ideal Point Model: Capturing Multiple Preference Effects from Within an Ideal Point Framework,”Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (1), 73–86.
23.
LiLianhua (2013), “The Role of Antecedent Volition on Consumer Evaluative Processes and Choice Behavior,” doctoral dissertation, School of Business, University of Alberta.
24.
LucasR.E. (1976), “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique,” in The Phillips Curve and Labor Markets, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy. New York: Elsevier, 19–46.
25.
LuoLanKannanP.K., and RatchfordBrian T. (2008), “Incorporating Subjective Characteristics in Product Design and Evaluations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (2), 182–94.
26.
MarkmanArthur B. and BrendlC. Miguel (2000), “The Influence of Goals on Value and Choice,”Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 39, 97–128.
27.
MarleyAnthony (1997), “Probabilistic Choice as a Consequence of Nonlinear (Sub) Optimization,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41 (4), 382–91.
28.
McFaddenDaniel and TrainKenneth (2000), “Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response,”Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15 (5), 447–70.
29.
NeisserU. (1963), “The Multiplicity of Thought,”British Journal of Psychology, 54 (1), 1–14.
30.
OppewalHarmenLouviereJordan J. and TimmermansHarry J.P. (1994), “Modeling Hierarchical Conjoint Processes With Integrated Choice Experiments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (1), 92–105.
31.
RudellFredrica (1979), Consumer Food Selection and Nutrition Information.New York: Praeger.
32.
SchmidtAaron M. and DeShonRichard P. (2007), “What to Do? The Effects of Discrepancies, Incentives, and Time on Dynamic Goal Prioritization,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 928–41.
33.
SchmidtAaron M. and DolisChad M. (2009), “Something's Got to Give: The Effects of Dual-Goal Difficulty, Goal Progress, and Expectancies on Resource Allocation,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3), 678–91.
34.
SimonHerbert A. (1955), “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1), 99–118.
35.
SwaitJoffre (1994), “A Structural Equation Model of Latent Segmentation and Product Choice for Cross-Sectional Revealed Preference Choice Data,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1 (2), 77–89.
36.
TropeYaacov and LibermanNira (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,”Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63.
37.
Van OsselaerStijn M.J., and JaniszewskiChris (2012), “A Goal-Based Model of Product Evaluation and Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 260–92.
38.
WangChen and MukhopadhyayAnirban (2012), “The Dynamics of Goal Revision: A Cybernetic Multiperiod Test-Operate-Test-Adjust-Loop (TOTAL) Model of Self-Regulation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 815–32.
39.
WeberElke and JohnsonEric J. (2009), “Mindful Judgment and Decision Making,”Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53–85.
40.
YangShaAllenbyGreg M. and FennellGeraldine (2002), “Modeling Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions,”Marketing Science, 21 (1), 14–31.
41.
ZhangYingFishbachAyelet and DharRavi (2007), “When Thinking Beats Doing: The Role of Optimistic Expectations in Goal-Based Choices,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 567–78.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
