3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute

Models: a Synthesis

C I TAT I O N :

Donald R. Lehmann (1972) ,"Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis", in
SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research,
eds. M. Venkatesan, Chicago, IL : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 526-535.

Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research,

1972 Pages 526-535

BUYER BEHAVIOR MODELS AND ATTRIBUTE MODELS: A SYNTHESIS

Donald R. Lehmann, Columbia University

INTRODUCTION

Recently there has been substantial interest in developing models of individual consumer

choice. Two of the most popular types of models are large-scale models of buyer behavior

of the type proposed by Nicosia (1966) and Howard and Sheth (1969) and attribute models

of preference based on the models of Fishbein (1967) and Rosenberg (1956). This paper will

begin by summarizing the current state of research in these two areas, and then will suggest

how the two types of models might be combined.

BUYER BEHAVIOR MODELS

Buyer behavior models have addressed the question of how a buyer goes about gathering

information for making a decision, how he makes a decision, and nally how the decision

a ects his attitudes and hence future decisions. In other words, they are attempts to

describe buyers from "cradle to grave." These models are thus directed at the Herculean

task of explaining buyer behavior in every facet.

These buyer behavior models are usually stated in terms of a owchart. These owcharts

suggest the general direction of ows from one endogenous variable to another. They do

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 1/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

not, however, provide operational de nitions of the constructs in each box of the owchart,

nor do they in general specify what exogenous variables a ect the various endogenous

variables. Moreover, they do not specify the mathematical form of the links between

variables. Thus as such, these owcharts are di cult to operationalize and study empirically

(and in a predictive testing sense, impossible to test at their current stage of development).

Because of the problems involved in investigating these models, most initial "tests" of the

models have been relatively simplistic, albeit relatively sophisticated statistically. Using

examinations of the Howard-Sheth model as an example (Farley & Ring, 1970; Lehmann,

Farley, & Howard, 1971; and Lehmann, O'Brien, Farley & Howard, 1971), several interesting

observations are possible:

1. The "tests" have been largely cross-sectional.

2. The mathematical form used has been linear.

3. Parameter estimates have been made across people using regression (either OLS or

TSLS).

4. The results are encouraging but mixed. The links in the cognitive side of the model,

including such variables as brand comprehension, attitude, intention, and purchase have

been both signi cant and plausible. The links among the informational variables, such as

attention, perceptual bias, and overt search, on the other hand, have been much weaker.

At this point, many areas of the Howard-Sheth model are largely unexplored, including:

1. Non-linear forms

2. Lagged forms

3. Alternative operational de nitions 4. Individual parameter estimates.

Thus the major characteristic of these general buyer behavior models is their limited

operationalization.

PERCEPTUAL MAPPING MODELS

Perceptual mapping models di er substantially from full-scale buyer behavior models. They

focus on explanation of individual preference, and are not immediately concerned with

either information reception on the one hand or choice on the other. The essential feature of

these models is that they view brands as a collection of positions on a set of attributes, and

preference toward a brand as some weighted combination of the positions.

Perceptual mapping models can be expressed graphically as in Figure 2. The essential

postulate of these models is that the "closer" an alternative is to the ideal, the more

preferred it is. In Figure 2, this would imply, assuming attributes 1 and 2 were equally

important. that alternative A is the most preferred.

A variety of trends in the literature has suggested the perceptual mapping approach. In

economics, Lancaster (1966) has proposed a utility theory based on the characteristics of a

good instead of the good as a whole. The multidimensional scaling literature suggests that

preference is a function of the distance of an object from the ideal (Green & Carmone, 1969;

Kruskal, 1964 a & b; and Shepard, 1962 a & b). In social psychology, two very similar

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 2/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

theories of attitude have been provided (Fishbein, 1967; and Rosenberg, 1956) which

suggest that attitude is a weighted sum of positions on dimensions. Thus the essential

concept that an object can be viewed as a point in n dimensional space is widely supported.

One reason why these research traditions were not merged sooner is the di erences in

terminology used to describe them. In order to make the similarity more obvious, the

following glossary is useful:

TABLE

With one important exception (Einhorn & Gonedes, 1971), all the perceptual mapping

models proposed have been of the following form:

EQUATION

where

th
W = weight of the i dimension
i

th th
P = position of the j object on the i dimension
ji

I = ideal position on the ith dimension

i

K = an integer

and n = number of relevant dimensions.

In other words, the attitude is a weighted sum of distance to the ideal on each of the

relevant dimensions.

Depending on the way Ii and K are de ned, Yj can take on many forms. For example, a K = 1

implies city block distance while a K = 2 implies Euclidean distance. In two past tests, city

block distance has proven best predictively (Bass, Pessemier & Lehmann, 1971; and

Lehmann, 1971). However, other considerations, such as stability under orthogonal rotation

(city block distance is not, while Euclidean is) and utility theory implications (city block

implicitly assumes constant marginal utility on the attributes, while Euclidean is one form of

diminishing marginal utility) may dominate in the selection of a distance measure. In any

event, several alternative distance measures are available.

The relationship of distance to the ideal, similarity (which is the inverse of distance) to the

ideal, attitude, and preference are also somewhat confusing. The relationship can be

summarized as follows:

TABLE

Actually, preference is usually a comparative measure between attitudes, but for purposes of

these perceptual mapping models, the two terms are largely synonymous. Thus the

di erences between the traditions in the literature are largely semantic.

A more fundamental reason why these traditions in the literature were not synthesized

sooner is that there are essential di erences between the models in terms of the way the

dimensions arise. Two basic approaches exist, and they di er in some important features:

TABLE

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 3/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

Yet in spite of these di erences, the essential similarity of these approaches is obvious.

Tests of these perceptual mapping models have di ered substantially from those of the

Howard-Sheth model. Because the mathematical form of the relation is pre-speci ed, the

model is more operational. E orts have centered around measurement of the three basic

constructs (preference, weight, and position) and deducing the relevant dimensions.

In general, the tests have been greatly encouraging. Indirectly derived dimensions have

proved useful in explaining preference among such diverse alternatives as automobiles

(Green & Carmone, 1969), jobs (Hill & Pessemier, 1971), and political candidates ( Johnson,

1970). Ratings on pre-speci ed dimensions have proved successful in analyzing such

alternatives as television shows (Lehmann, 1971), so drinks (Bass, Pessemier & Lehmann,

1971), and numerous branded products (Bass & Talarzyk, 1972; Ginter, 1972; and Winter,

1972). In all these examples, predictions based on a perceptual mapping model have

greatly outperformed both demographics and random models.

In spite of these encouraging results, there are some important problems involved with

applying perceptual mapping models. As stated, these models are largely tautological and

as such can be investigated but not truly tested. Also attempts to use a subject-estimated

ideal point have been disappointing (Bass et al; 1971; and Lehmann, 1971). Finally, the

weights have not proved to be very useful (Lehmann, 1971; and Sheth & Talarzyk, 1972) for a

variety of reasons (Beckwith & Lehmann, 1972). Thus substantial testing and re nement of

these models is also needed.

A SYNTHESIS

Looking at the pictorial representations of the two models of individual behavior (Figures 1

and 2), one is struck more by the di erences than by the similarities. Considering the

problems involved in testing either separately, the obvious question which arises is: "Why

attempt to synthesize them?" The answer is that by combining them, both may bene t.

The obvious weakness of the perceptual mapping approach is that it does not suggest

either how information in uences the individual or how preference is related to choice.

Placing it in the context of a general buyer behavior model suggests both. On the other

hand, the obvious weakness of the buyer behavior approach is the imprecise formulation of

the links between blocks in the owchart. Using perceptual mapping makes some of the

links both explicit mathematically and empirically viable.

To see how a perceptual mapping model might be combined, consider the Howard-Sheth

model (Howard & Sheth, 1971), which is currently under revision (Howard & Ostlund, 1973),

portrayed in Figure 1, and the perceptual mapping model represented by Figure 2. The

perceptual mapping model can be viewed as a combination of four constructs: 1) Choice

criteria, 2) Weights, 3) Brand comprehension, and 4) Con dence. The choice criteria can be

viewed as the dimensions of the perceptual map and the weights as the weights attached to

the dimensions. Brand comprehension could be treated as the position of the brand on the

dimensions. Finally, the random component representing uncertainty suggested for

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 4/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

introduction into the perceptual mapping models (Lehmann, 1971 a;$ 1972 a $ b) can be

considered as a measure of con dence. In other words, the center of the Howard-Sheth

model could be viewed as a perceptual mapping model.

FIGURE 1

HOWARD-SHETH MODEL

FIGURE 2

TWO-DIMENSIONAL EXAMPLE

One advantage of this synthesis is the improved explanatory power for the center of the

Howard-Sheth model. Another is that the "new" model can be expressed very simply

(Figure 3). Possibly the most important advantage of the synthesis, however, is that it

suggests how advertising and other information a ects choice. Simply stated, this new

model suggests that advertising in uences choice by changing either the positions on the

dimensions, the weights of the dimensions, or the ideal position on the dimensions. As

such, it provides a structure for future research on the informational side of the model which

has to date proved the most di cult to investigate.

CONCLUSION

Two major research traditions dealing with the individual consumer have emerged: Buyer

Behavior Models and Perceptual Mapping. In spite of the problems involved in attempting

to test (or at least investigate) these models, both have shown great promise. This paper

suggests that combining the two traditions will be to the mutual bene t of both.

FIGURE 3

A SYNTHESIZED MODEL

REFERENCES

Bass, Frank M., Edgar A. Pessemier, & Donald R. Lehmann. An Experimental Study of

Relationships Between Attitudes, Brand Preference, and Choice. Paper No. 307, Institute for

Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Herman C. Krannert

Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Purdue University, April, 1971.

Bass, Frank M. & W. Wayne Talarzyk. An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference.

Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 93-96.

Beckwith, Neil E. & Donald R. Lehmann. The Importance of Importances in Attribute Models

of Consumer Preference. Working paper, Columbia University Graduate School of Business,

1972.

Einhorn, Hillel J. & Nicholas J. Gonedes. An Exponential Discrepancy Model for Attitude

Evaluation. Behavioral Science, 1971, 16, 152-157.

Farley, John U. & L. Winston Ring. An Empirical Test of the Howard-Sheth Model of Buyer

Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 1970, 7, 427-438.

Fishbein, Martin. Attitude and the Prediction of Behavior. In Martin Fishbein (Ed.), Readings

in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967, pp. 477-492.

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 5/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

Ginter, James L. An Experimental Study of Attitude Change and Choice of New Brands.

Proceedings. Spring Conference, American Marketing Association, 1972.

Green, Paul E. & Frank J. Carmone. Multidimensional Scaling: An Introduction and

Comparison of Nonmetric Unfolding Techniques. Journal of Marketing Research, 1969, 4,

330-341.

Hill, Raymond E. & Edgar A. Pessemier. Multidimensional and Unidimensional Metric

Scaling of Preference for Job Descriptions. Paper No. 308, Institute for Research in the

Behavioral,Economic, and Management Sciences, Herman C. Krannert Graduate School of

Industrial Administration, Purdue University, April, 1971.

Howard, John A. & Lyman E. Ostlund. Buyer Behavior: Theoretical and Empirical

Foundations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1973 (in press).

Howard, John A. & Jagdish N. Sheth. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1969.

Johnson, Richard M. Political Segmentation. Marketing Review, 1970, 25, 20-24.

Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric

Hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964a, 29, 1-27.

Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method. Psychometrika,

1964b, 29, 115-129.

Lancaster, Kelvin J. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy,

1966, 74, 132-157.

Lehmann, Donald R. A Study of Television Show Preference and Attributes of Programs.

Proceedings. Spring Conference, American Marketing Association, 1972a.

Lehmann, Donald R. Preference Among Similar Alternatives. Working paper, Columbia

University, 1972b.

Lehmann, Donald R. Evaluating Marketing Strategy in a Multiple Brand Market. Journal of

Business Administration, 1971a, 3, 15-26.

Lehmann, Donald R. Television Show Preference: Application of a Choice Model. Journal of

Marketing Research, 1971b, 8, 47-55.

Lehmann, Donald R. John U. Farley $ John A. Howard. Testing of Buyer Behavior Models.

Proceedings. Second Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, SePtember

1-3, 1971c, 232-242.

Lehmann, Donald R. Terrence V. O'Brien, John U. Farley, & John A. Howard. Empirical

Contributions to Buyer Behavior Theory. Working paper, Columbia UniversitY, 1971.

Nicosia, Francesco. Consumer Decision Processes: Marketing and Advertising Implications.

Englewood Cli s, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal A ect. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1956, 53, 367-372.

Shepard, Roger N. The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown

Distance Function L Psychometrika, 1962a, 27, 125-139.

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 6/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

Shepard, Roger N. The Analysis of Proximities: Multidimensional Scaling with an Unknown

Distance Function II. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 219-246.

Sheth, Jagdish N. $ W. Wayne Talarzyk. Perceived Instrumentality and Value Importance as

Determinants of Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 1972, 9, 6-9.

Winter, Frederick W. Laboratory Experimental Study of Attitude Change and Brand Choice.

Proceedings. Spring Conference, American Marketing Association, 1972.

----------------------------------------

AUTHORS

Donald R. Lehmann, Columbia University

VOLUME

SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research |

1972

SHARE PROCEEDING

Featured papers See More

F E AT U R E D

Decreasing Impatience with Bundled Donations

Sachin Banker, University of Utah, USA

R d M
https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 7/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR
Read More

F E AT U R E D

H4. Anthropomorphism Moderates the E ect of Ownership on Self

Perceptions

Qiang Zhou, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Dengfeng Yan, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Read More

F E AT U R E D

Data... the 'Hard' & 'So ' of it: Impact of Embodied Metaphors on

Attitude Strength

Sunaina Shrivastava, University of Iowa, USA

Gaurav Jain, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

JaeHwan Kwon, Baylor University

Dhananjay Nayakankuppam, University of Iowa, USA

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is

relatively inexpensive, but brings signi cant bene ts to its members.

Join ACR now!

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 8/9
3/23/2021 Buyer Behavior Models and Attribute Models: a Synthesis | ACR

© 2021 Association for Consumer Research Contact Privacy Terms of Use Proceedings

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12027 9/9