Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 1, 2021

Choosing Among Alternative Brands: Revisiting the Way Involvement Drives Consumer Selectivity

Kleopatra Konstantoulaki , Flora Kokkinaki and Ioannis Rizomyliotis ORCID logo EMAIL logo

Abstract

This study provides original theoretical and practical insights on the role of involvement in consumer decision making by demonstrating its negative effect on the relative size of the consideration set. Two experimental studies were conducted to test the relations between these constructs. The moderating effect of the nature of a product category and of the decision-making context was also examined. The results suggest that high involvement makes consumers more selective when evaluating the brands, they consider for purchase. This points towards different marketing practices in order to enhance brand attitudes or strengthen brand awareness accordingly.


Corresponding author: Ioannis Rizomyliotis, Assistant Professor, University of West Attica, 250 Thivon & P. Ralli Str, Egaleo 12241, Athens, Greece, E-mail:

References

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1975. “A Bayesian Analysis of Attribution Processes.” Psychological Bulletin 82 (2): 261.10.1037/h0076477Search in Google Scholar

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1977. “Attitude-behaviour Relations: Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research.” Psychological Bulletin 89: 888–918, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.Search in Google Scholar

Akamatsu, N. 2016. “A New Viewpoint on the Structure of the Consideration Set and its Change.” In Looking Forward, Looking Back: Drawing on the Past to Shape the Future of Marketing, 895. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-24184-5_218Search in Google Scholar

Alba, J. W., and A. Chattopadhyay. 1985. “Effects of Context and Part-Category Cues on Recall of Competing Bands.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (3): 340–9, https://doi.org/10.2307/3151430.Search in Google Scholar

Allender, W. J., and T. J. Richards. 2015. “Demand for Variety and Product Uncertainty: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation.” SSRN, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2596873.Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, L., and S. Rosenthal. 2014. “Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust.” Journal of Advertising 43 (1): 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834803.Search in Google Scholar

Barone, M. J., A. Fedorikhin, and D. E. Hansen. 2017. “The Influence of Positive Affect on Consideration Set Formation in Memory-based Choice.” Marketing Letters 28 (1): 59–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9395-5.Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, H. H., N. E. Sauer, and C. Becker. 2006. “Investigating the Relationship between Product Involvement and Decision Making Styles.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5: 342–54, https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.185.Search in Google Scholar

Baxendale, S., E. K. Macdonald, and H. N. Wilson. 2015. “The Impact of Different Touchpoints on Brand Consideration.” Journal of Retailing 91 (2): 235–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.12.008.Search in Google Scholar

Belonax, J. J., and R. G. Javalgi. 1989. “The Influence of Involvement and Product Class Quality on Consumer Choice Sets.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (3): 209–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729812.Search in Google Scholar

Bettman, J. R., and C. W. Park. 1980. “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research 7 (3): 234–48, https://doi.org/10.1086/208812.Search in Google Scholar

Beynon, M. J., L. Moutinho, and C. Veloutsou. 2018. “An Exposition of the Role of Consideration Sets in a DS/AHP Analysis of Consumer Choice.” In Innovative Research Methodologies in Management, 237–74. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-64394-6_10Search in Google Scholar

Bezencon, V., and S. Blili. 2011. “Segmenting the Market through the Determinants of Involvement: The Case of Fair Trade.” Psychology and Marketing 28 (7): 682–708, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20407.Search in Google Scholar

Bloch, P. H., and M. L. Richins. 1983. “A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions.” The Journal of Marketing: 69–81, https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298304700308.Search in Google Scholar

Brasel, S. A. 2008. “Feast or Famine: How Expectations Polarize Judgements of Ambitious Alternative Set Sizes.” Advances in Consumer Research 35 (1): 818, http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/13556/volumes/v35/NA-35.Search in Google Scholar

Bremer, L., M. Heitmann, and T. F. Schreiner. 2016. “When and How to Infer Heuristic Consideration Set Rules of Consumers.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.10.001.Search in Google Scholar

Brisoux, J. E., and E. J. Cheron. 1990. “Brand Categorization and Product Involvement.” Advances in Consumer Research 17: 101–9, http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/acr/home.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Brizoux, J. E., and M. Laroche. 1980. “A Proposed Consumer Strategy of Simplification for Categorizing Brands.” In Evolved Marketing Thought for 1980, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Southern Marketing Association, edited by J. D. Summey, and R.D. Taylor, 112–14. Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association.Search in Google Scholar

Chakravarti, A., and C. Janiszewski. 2003. “The Influence of Macro-level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 244–58, https://doi.org/10.1086/376803.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, R., and H. Jiang. 2017. “Capacitated Assortment and Price Optimization for Customers with Disjoint Consideration Sets.” Operations Research Letters 45 (2): 170–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2017.01.009.Search in Google Scholar

Chung, H., and X. Zhai. 2003. “Humour Effect on Memory and Attitude: The Moderating Role of Product Involvement.” International Journal of Advertising 22 (1): 117–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2003.11072842.Search in Google Scholar

Coates, S. L., L. T. Butler, and D. C. Berry. 2004. “Implicit Memory: A Prime Example for Brand Consideration and Choice.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 18: 1195–211, https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1044.Search in Google Scholar

Crowley, A. E., and J. H. Williams. 1991. “An Information Theoretic Approach to Understanding the Consideration Set/awareness Set Proportion.” Advances in Consumer Research 18: 780–7, http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/acr/home.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Desai, K. K., and W. D. Hoyer. 2000. “Descriptive Characteristics of Memory-based Consideration Sets: Influence of Usage Occasion Frequency and Usage Location Familiarity.” Journal of Consumer Research 27 (3): 309–23, https://doi.org/10.1086/317587.Search in Google Scholar

Desai, K. K., and S. Raju. 2007. “Adverse Influence of Brand Commitment on Consideration of and Preference for Competing Brands.” Psychology and Marketing 24 (7): 595–614, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20175.Search in Google Scholar

Deshpande, R., and W. D. Hoyer. 1983. “Consumer Decision Making: Strategies, Cognitive Effort and Perceived Risk.” In 1983 AMA Educators’ Proceedings, 88–91. Chicago: American Marketing Association.Search in Google Scholar

Divine, R. L. 1995. “The Influence of Price on the Relationship between Involvement and Consideration Set Size.” Marketing Letters 6 (4): 309–19, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0099619.Search in Google Scholar

Draganska, M., and D. Klapper. 2011. “Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis Woth Micro and Macro Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 48 (August): 653–69, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.4.653.Search in Google Scholar

Drescher, L. S., J. Roosen, and S. Marette. 2014. “The Effects of Traffic Light Labels and Involvement on Consumer Choices for Food and Financial Products.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 38 (3): 217–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12086.Search in Google Scholar

Drolet, A., D. Griffin, M. F. Luce, and I. Simonson. 2005. “The Influence of Cognitive Load on Emotion-based Trade-off Avoidance.” Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1): 63–77.10.1086/383424Search in Google Scholar

Du Plessis, E. 1994. “Recognition versus Recall.” Journal of Advertising Research 34 (3): 75–91, http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/.Search in Google Scholar

Elliott, M. T., and A. E. Warfield. 1993. “Do Market Mavens Categorize Brands Differently?” Advances in Consumer Research 20: 202–8, http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/acr/home.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Engel, F., T. D. Kollat, and D. R. Blackwell. 1968. Consumer Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinerhalt & Winston Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 2004. “Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration and Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1): 191–8, https://doi.org/10.1086/383434.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, M., A. Jamal, and G. Foxall. 2009. Consumer Behaviour, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Evanston, Vol. 1. IL: Row, Peterson.10.1515/9781503620766Search in Google Scholar

Gensch, D. H. 1987. “A Two Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model.” Marketing Science 6 (3): 223–31, https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.6.3.223.Search in Google Scholar

Gilovich, T., D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, eds. 2002. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Human Judgment. Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808098Search in Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., and R. Selton. 2001. Bounded Rationality. London: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1654.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Goodman, J. K., and S. Broniarczyk. 2009. “Screening from Large Assortments: The Use of Include and Exclude Strategies in Consideration Set Construction.” Advances in Consumer Research 36 (1): 215–6, http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/14608/volumes/v36/NA-36.Search in Google Scholar

Greenwald, A. G., and C. Leavitt. 1984. “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels.” Journal of Consumer Research 11 (1): 581–92, https://doi.org/10.1086/208994.Search in Google Scholar

Hauser, J. R. 2014. “Consideration-set Heuristics.” Journal of Business Research 67 (8): 1688–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.015.Search in Google Scholar

Hauser, J. R., and B. Wernerfelt. 1990. “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (4): 393–408, https://doi.org/10.1086/209225.Search in Google Scholar

He, Y., Q. Chen, L. Tam, and R. P. Lee. 2016. “Managing Sub-branding Affect Transfer: The Role of Consideration Set Size and Brand Loyalty.” Marketing Letters 27 (1): 103–13, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9317-y.Search in Google Scholar

Herrmann, J., B. Walliser, and M. Kacha. 2010. “Sport Sponsorship Effects on Spectators’ Consideration Sets: Impact with and without Brand-Event Link Recognition.” Advances in Consumer Research 37: 550–2.Search in Google Scholar

Houston, M. J., and M. L. Rothschild. 1978. “Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement.” In Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, edited by S. Jain, 184–287. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.Search in Google Scholar

Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth. 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth. 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley, http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/15216/volumes/v37/NA-37.Search in Google Scholar

Hoyer, W. 1984. “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product.” Journal of Consumer Research 11 (3): 822–9, https://doi.org/10.1086/209017.Search in Google Scholar

Hutschinson, J. W., R. Kalyan, and K. M. Murali. 1994. “Finding Choice Alternatives in Memory: Probability Models of Brand Name Recall.” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (4): 441–61, https://doi.org/10.2307/3151875.Search in Google Scholar

Irwin, J. R., and R. W. Naylor. 2009. “Ethical Decisions and Response Mode Compatibility: Weighting of Ethical Attributes in Consideration Sets Formed by Excluding versus Including Product Alternatives.” Journal of Marketing Research 46 (April): 234–46, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.234.Search in Google Scholar

Jang, J. M., and S. O. Yoon. 2016. “The Effect of Attribute-based and Alternative-based Processing on Consumer Choice in Context.” Marketing Letters 27: 511–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9346-6.Search in Google Scholar

Jang, S., A. Prasad, and B. T. Ratchford. 2012. “How Consumers Use Product Reviews in the Purchase Decision Process.” Marketing Letters 23: 825–238, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9191-4.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, B. T., and A. H. Eagly. 1989. “Effects of Involvement on Persuasion: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 290.10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, E. J., and J. W. Paye. 1985. “Effort and Accuracy in Choice.” Management Science 31 (4): 395–414, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.4.395.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., and S. Frederick. 2002. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment.” Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment 49: 81.10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004Search in Google Scholar

Kardes, F. R. 1994. “Consumer Judgment and Decision Processes.” In Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 2, Applications, edited by R.S. WyerJr, and T.K. Srull, 399–466. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Kardes, F. R., and G. Kalyanaram. 1992. “Order-of-entry Effects on Consumer Memory and Judgment: An Information Integration Perspective.” Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3): 343–57, https://doi.org/10.2307/3172744.Search in Google Scholar

Kardes, F. R., C. Kalyanaram, M. Chandrashekaran, and R. J. Dornoff. 1993. “Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1): 62–75, https://doi.org/10.1086/209333.Search in Google Scholar

Kardes, F. R., S. S. Posavac, and M. L. Cronley. 2004. “Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 14 (3): 230–56, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_6.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J. B., P. Albuquerque, and B. J. Bronnerberg. 2010. “Online Demand under Limited Consumer Search.” Marketing Science 29 (6): 822–9, https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0574.Search in Google Scholar

Krugman, H. E. 1965. “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (3): 349–56.10.1086/267335Search in Google Scholar

Lapersonne, E., L. Gilles, and J. Le Goff. 1995. “Consideration Sets of Size One: An Empirical Investigation of Automobile Industry.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (1): 55–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00005-M.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, A. Y. 2002. “Effects of Implicit Memory on Memory-based versus Stimulus-based Brand Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research 39 (4): 440–54, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.4.440.19119.Search in Google Scholar

Li, K., and J. I. Richards. 2016. “The Effects of Narrative versus Argument Advertising with the Moderation of Product Category and Product Involvement.” In American Academy of Advertising. Conference. Proceedings (January), 181. American Academy of Advertising.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Y., and L. J. Shrum. 2009. “A Dual-Process Model of Interactivity Effects.” Journal of Advertising 38 (2): 53–68, https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367380204.Search in Google Scholar

Lleras, J. S., Y. Masatlioglu, D. Nakajima, and E. Y. Ozbay. 2017. “When More Is Less: Limited Consideration.” Journal of Economic Theory 170: 70–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2017.04.004.Search in Google Scholar

Lu, F., and D. Nayakankuppam. 2011. “The Effects of Mindset Abstraction on Memory-based Consideration Set Formation.” Advances in Consumer Research 39: 643–4, http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1010172/volumes/v39/NA-39.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, J. G., and T. K. Srull. 1982. “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (1): 18–37, https://doi.org/10.1086/208893.Search in Google Scholar

Malar, L., H. Krohmer, W. D. Hoyer, and B. Nyffenegger. 2011. “Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative Importance of the Actual and Ideal Self.” Journal of Marketing 75 (4): 35–52, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35.Search in Google Scholar

Manrai, A. K., and R. L. Andrews. 1994. “Two-stage Discrete Choice Models for Scanner Panel Data: An Assessment of Process and Assumptions.” European Journal of Operational Research 111 (2): 193–215.10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00145-3Search in Google Scholar

Michaelidou, N., and S. Dipp. 2008. “Consumer Involvement: A New Perspective.” The Marketing Review 8 (1): 83–99, https://doi.org/10.1362/146934708X290403.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits to Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review 63: 81–97.10.1525/9780520318267-011Search in Google Scholar

Mitra, A. 1995. “Advertising and the Stability of Consideration Sets over Multiple Purchase Occasions.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (1): 81–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00007-O.Search in Google Scholar

Nagar, K. 2015. “Modeling the Effects of Green Advertising on Brand Image: Investigating the Moderating Effects of Product Involvement Using Structural Equation.” Journal of Global Marketing 28 (3–5): 152–71, https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2015.1114692.Search in Google Scholar

Narayana, C. L., and R. J. Markin. 1975. “Consumer Behaviour and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization.” Journal of Marketing 39: 1–6, https://doi.org/10.2307/1250589.Search in Google Scholar

Narayana, C. L., and R. J. Markin. 1975. “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization.” Journal of Marketing 39 (4): 1–6, https://doi.org/10.2307/1250589.Search in Google Scholar

Nedungadi, P. 1990. “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (3): 263–76, https://doi.org/10.1086/208556.Search in Google Scholar

Nicosia, F. M. 1966. Consumer Decision Processes; Marketing and Advertising Implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Nordfalt, J., H. Hjalmarson, N. Ohman, and C. R. Julander. 2004. “Measuring Consideration Sets through Recall or Recognition: A Comparative Study.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (5): 321–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2003.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

O’Cass, A. 2000. “An Assessment of Consumers Product, Purchase Decision, Advertising and Consumption Involvement in Fashion Clothing.” Journal of Economic Psychology 21 (5): 545–76.10.1016/S0167-4870(00)00018-0Search in Google Scholar

Pandelaere, M., and S. Dewitte. 2006. “On-line versus Memory-Based Information Credibility Inferences for Memory-based Product Judgements.” Advances in Consumer Research 33 (1): 565–8, http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/12395/volumes/v33/NA-33.Search in Google Scholar

Park, J. W., and M. Hastak. 1994. “Memory-based Product Judgments – Effects of Involvement at Encoding and Retrieval.” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (3): 534–47, https://doi.org/10.1086/209416.Search in Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1979. “Issue Involvement can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-relevant Cognitive Responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (10): 1915.10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915Search in Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” In Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol. 19, edited by L. Berkowitz, 123–205. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.Search in Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and R. Goldman. 1981. “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-based Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (5): 847.10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847Search in Google Scholar

Pham, M. T., and H. H. Chang. 2010. “Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Fit, and the Search and Consideration of Choice Alternatives.” Journal of Consumer Research 37 (December): 626–40, https://doi.org/10.1086/655668.Search in Google Scholar

Pieters, R. G., and B. Verplanken. 1995. “Intention‐behaviour Consistency: Effects of Consideration Set Size, Involvement and Need for Cognition.” European Journal of Social Psychology 25 (5): 531–43, https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250505.Search in Google Scholar

Posavac, S. S., M. Herzenstein, and D. M. Sanbonmatsu. 2003. “The Role of Decision Importance and the Salience of Alternatives in Determining the Consistency between Consumers’ Attitudes and Decisions.” Marketing Letters 14: 47–57, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022858118201.10.1023/A:1022858118201Search in Google Scholar

Priester, J. R., D. Nayakankuppam, M. A. Fleming, and J. Godel. 2004. The A2SC2 Model: The Influence of Attitudes and Attitude Strength on Consideration and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research 30: 574–87, https://doi.org/10.1086/380290.Search in Google Scholar

Ratneshwar, S., and A. D. Shocker. 1991. “Substitution in Use and the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Structures.” Journal of Marketing Research 28 (3): 281–95, https://doi.org/10.2307/3172864.Search in Google Scholar

Reilly, M., and T. L. Parkinson. 1985. “Individual and Product Correlates of Evoked Set Size for Consumer Package Goods.” Advances in Consumer Research 12: 492–7, http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/acr/home.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Richins, M. L., and P. H. Bloch. 1986. “After the New Wears off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (2): 280–5, https://doi.org/10.1086/209067.Search in Google Scholar

Richins, M. L., P. H. Bloch, and E. F. McQuarrie. 1992. “How Enduring and Situational Involvement Combine to Create Involvement Responses.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 1 (2): 143–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80054-X.Search in Google Scholar

Rizomyliotis, I., K. Konstantoulaki, G. Kostopoulos, and A. Poulis. 2017. “Reassessing the Influence of Mental Intangibility on Consumer Decision-Making.” International Journal of Market Research 59 (4), https://doi.org/10.2501/ijmr-2017-036.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, J. 1989. “A Grounded Model of Consideration Set Size and Composition.” Advances in Consumer Research 16: 749–57, http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/acr/home.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, W. T., and C. Fornell. 1985. “Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages in Consumer-goods Industries.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (3): 305, https://doi.org/10.2307/3151427.Search in Google Scholar

Romaniuk, J. 2013. “Modeling Mental Market Share.” Journal of Business Research 66 (2): 188–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.012.Search in Google Scholar

Romaniuk, J., and M. Nenycz-Thiel. 2013. “Behavioral Brand Loyalty and Consumer Brand Associations.” Journal of Business Research 66 (1): 67–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.024.Search in Google Scholar

Romaniuk, J., and M. Nenycz-Thiel. 2016. “Lapsed Buyers’ Durable Brand Consideration in Emerging Markets.” Journal of Business Research 69 (9): 3645–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.025.Search in Google Scholar

Rottenstreich, Y., S. Sood, and L. Brenner. 2007. “Feeling and Thinking in Memory-based versus Stimulus-based Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 33 (4): 461–9, https://doi.org/10.1086/510219.Search in Google Scholar

Sherif, M., and C. E. Hovland. 1961. Social Judgment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shocker, A. D., M. Ben-Akiva, B. Boccara, and P. Nedungadi. 1991. “Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions.” Marketing Letters 2 (3): 181–97, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404071.Search in Google Scholar

Spears, N., S. Ketron, and W. Ngamsiriudom. 2016. “Three Peas in the Pod of Consumer Imagination: Purchase Task, Involvement, and Ad Information.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 15 (6): 527–37, https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1589.Search in Google Scholar

Stocchi, L., M. Banelis, and M. Wright. 2016. “A New Measure of Consideration Set Size: The Average Number of Salient Brands.” International Journal of Market Research 58 (1): 79–94, https://doi.org/10.2501/ijmr-2015-027.Search in Google Scholar

Su, S., R. Chen, and P. Zhao. 2008. “The Impact of Size of Self-generated Consideration Set on Post-choice Regret.” Advances in Consumer Research 35 (1): 805–6, http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/13611/volumes/v35/NA-35.Search in Google Scholar

Suh, J. 2009. “The Role of Consideration Sets in Brand Choice: The Moderation Role of Product Characteristics.” Psychology and Marketing 26 (6): 534–50, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20286.Search in Google Scholar

Traylor, M. B., and B. M. Joseph. 1984. “Measuring Consumer Involvement in Products: Developing a General Scale.” Psychology and Marketing 1 (2): 65–77, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220010207.Search in Google Scholar

Turley, L. W., and R. P. LeBlanc. 1995. “Evoked Sets: A Dynamic Process Model.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 3 (2): 28–36, https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1995.11501682.Search in Google Scholar

Van Kerckhove, A., I. Vermeir, and M. Geuens. 2011. “Combined Influence of Selective Focus and Decision Involvement on Attitude-Behaviour Consistency in a Context of Memory-Based Decision Making.” Psychology and Marketing 28 (6): 539–60, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20286.Search in Google Scholar

Van Nierop, E., B. Bronnenberg, R. Paap, M. Wedel, and P. H. Frances. 2010. “Retrieving Unobserved Consideration Sets from Household Panel Data.” Journal of Marketing Research 47 (February): 63–74.10.1509/jmkr.47.1.63Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, R. F., A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom. 1968. “An Extension of Hullian Learning Theory to Persuasive Communication.” Psychological Foundations of Attitudes 109–45.10.1016/B978-1-4832-3071-9.50011-8Search in Google Scholar

Wu, J., and A. Rangaswamy. 2003. “A Fuzzy Set Model of Search and Consideration with an Application to an Online Market.” Marketing Science 22 (Summer): 411–34.10.1287/mksc.22.3.411.17738Search in Google Scholar

Xie, X., and Y. Jia. 2016. “Consumer Involvement in New Product Development: A Case Study from the Online Virtual Community.” Psychology and Marketing 33 (12): 1187–94.10.1002/mar.20956Search in Google Scholar

Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (3): 341–52, https://doi.org/10.1086/208520.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-07-29
Accepted: 2021-02-08
Published Online: 2021-03-01

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 8.12.2022 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/roms-2020-0054/html
Scroll Up Arrow