2.3 Consumer decision-making

2.3.1 Consumer decision-making.

• models of consumer decision-making focusing on explanations and examples of utility theory, satisficing, prospect theory.
• strategies of consumer decision-making focusing on explanations and examples of compensatory, non-compensatory and partially compensatory strategies including explanations and examples of each.
• decision-making strategies applied to internet shopping focusing on website design, including a study, e.g. Jedetski et al (2002).
• Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free-will, idiographic versus nomothetic.

This matters because —consumer decision-making determines what can be inferred or chosen; begin with the stated conditions and keep the conclusion tied to the evidence.

Example: apply —consumer decision-making to one small, clearly defined case, show the key step or comparison, and explain the result in words.

Boundary: —Consumer decision-making is not a universal recommendation. Check the syllabus scope, assumptions, units and the limits of the evidence before generalising.

2.3.2 Choice heuristics.

• heuristics focusing on availability, representativeness, recognition, take-the-best, and anchoring, including explanations and examples of each.
• point of purchase decisions including multiple unit pricing and suggestive selling, including a study, e.g. Wansink et al. (1998).
• applying heuristics to decision-making styles, including a study, e.g. del Campo et al. (2016).
• Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, experiments, quantitative and qualitative data, objective and subjective data.

This matters because —choice heuristics determines what can be inferred or chosen; begin with the stated conditions and keep the conclusion tied to the evidence.

Example: apply —choice heuristics to one small, clearly defined case, show the key step or comparison, and explain the result in words.

Boundary: —Choice heuristics is not a universal recommendation. Check the syllabus scope, assumptions, units and the limits of the evidence before generalising.

2.3.3 Mistakes in decision-making.

• thinking fast and thinking slow (system 1 and system 2) including explanations and examples of each, e.g. Shleifer (2012).
• choice blindness, preferences and defending a choice (exemplified by the following key study).
• Key study for choice blindness when tasting and smelling food items: Hall et al. (2010).
• consumer memory for advertising including how retroactive and proactive interference affect memory, including a study, e.g. Burke and Srull (1988).

This matters because —mistakes in decision-making determines what can be inferred or chosen; begin with the stated conditions and keep the conclusion tied to the evidence.

Example: apply —mistakes in decision-making to one small, clearly defined case, show the key step or comparison, and explain the result in words.

Boundary: —Mistakes in decision-making is not a universal recommendation. Check the syllabus scope, assumptions, units and the limits of the evidence before generalising.