This paper explores the influence of mental intangibility on the size of the consideration set, for both tangible products and services. The research also examines the moderating effect of purchase involvement and objective knowledge on the set. Two experimental studies were conducted to examine these relations. Overall, the results indicate that mental intangibility positively influences the size of the consideration set, regardless of the offering type (product or service). This effect is stronger in low levels of knowledge. Consumer involvement does not seem to have a moderating effect on this relation. The studies' implications and recommendations for future research are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AurierP., JeanS., & ZaichkowskyJ.L. (2000) Consideration set size and familiarity with usage context. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, pp. 307–313.
2.
BettmanR.J., & ParkC.W. (1980) Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 12, pp. 234–248.
3.
ChakravartiA., & JaniszewskiC. (2003) The influence of macro-level motives in consideration set composition in novel purchase situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 2, pp. 244–258.
4.
ChaudhuriA. (1998) Product class effects on perceived risk: the role of emotion. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 2, pp. 157–168.
5.
CowleyE., & MitchellA.A. (2003) The moderating effect of product knowledge on the learning and organization of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 3, pp. 443–454.
6.
DesaiK.K., & HoyerW.D. (2000) Descriptive characteristics of memory-based consideration sets: influence of usage occasion frequency and usage location familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 3, pp. 309–323.
7.
DevlinJ. (2001) Consumer evaluation and competitive advantage in financial services: a research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 5/6, pp. 639–660.
8.
DivineR. L. (1995) The influence of price on the relationship between involvement and consideration set size. Marketing Letters, 6, 4, pp. 309–319.
9.
GabbottM., & HoggG. (1994) Consumer behaviour and services: a review. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 4, pp. 311–324.
10.
GronhaugK. (1973) Some factors influencing the size of the buyer's evoked set. European Journal of Marketing, 7, 3, pp. 232–241.
11.
GrucaT. S. (1989) Determinants of choice set size: an alternative method for measuring evoked sets. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, pp. 515–521.
12.
HavlenaW.J., & DeSarboW.S. (1990) On the measurement of perceived consumer risk. Decision Sciences, 22, pp. 927–939.
13.
JohnstonW.J., & BonomaT.V. (1981) Purchase process for capital equipment and services. Industrial Marketing Management, 10, 4, pp. 253–264.
14.
LarocheM., BergeronJ., & Barbaro-ForleoG. (2001) Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 6, pp. 503–520.
15.
LarocheM., BergeronJ., & GoutalandC. (2003) How intangibility affects perceived risk: the moderating role of knowledge and involvement. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 2, pp. 122–140.
16.
LarocheM., YangZ., McDougallG.H., & BergeronJ. (2005) Internet versus bricks-and-mortar retailers: an investigation into intangibility and its consequences. Journal of Retailing, 81, 4, pp. 251–267.
17.
LovelockC. H. (1983) Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47, Summer, pp. 9–20.
18.
LuF., & NayakankuppamD. (2011) The effects of mindset abstraction on memory-based consideration set formation. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, pp. 643–644.
19.
McDougallG.H.G., & SnetsingerD.W. (1990) The intangibility of services: measurement and competitive perspectives. Journal of Services Marketing, 4, 4, pp. 27–40.
20.
MitchellV.W., & PrinceG.S. (1993) Retailing to experienced and inexperienced consumers: a perceived risk approach. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 12, 5, pp. 10–21.
21.
MoorthyS., RatchfordB.T., & TalukdarD. (1997) Consumer information search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 3, pp. 263–277.
22.
MurrayK.B., & SchlacterJ.L. (1990) The impact of services versus goods on consumers' assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, pp. 51–65.
23.
ParkJ.W., & HastakM. (1994) Memory-based product judgments: effects of involvement at encoding and retrieval. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 2, pp. 534–547.
24.
RottenstreichY., SoodS., & BrennerL. (2007) Feeling and thinking in memory-based versus stimulus-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 4, pp. 461–469.
25.
ShockerA.D., Ben-AkivaM., BoccaraB., & NedungadiP. (1991) Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2, 3, pp. 181–197.
26.
ShostackL. G. (1977) Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41, pp. 73–80.
27.
StaffordM. R. (1996) Tangibility in services advertising: an investigation of verbal versus visual cues. Journal of Advertising, 25, 3, pp. 13–28.
28.
StocchiL., BanelisM., & WrightM. (2016) A new measure of consideration set size: the average number of salient brands. International Journal of Market Research, 58, 1, pp. 79–94.
29.
SuS., ChenR., & ZhaoP. (2008) The impact of size of self-generated consideration set on post-choice regret. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 1, pp. 805–806.
30.
WirtzJ., & MattilaA.S. (2003) The effects of consumer expertise on evoked set size and service loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 6/7, pp. 649–657.
31.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 3, pp. 341–352.
