An Examination of Consumer Decision

Making for a Common Repeat

Purchase Product
WAYNE D. HOYER*

Despite the large amount of theory and research on consumer choice, current
understanding is still at a less than desirable level-especially in the cases where
involvement with or importance of the choice is low and the product is purchased
frequently. The present paper provides a view of decision making based on the
notion that consumers are not motivated to engage in a great deal of in-store
decIsion making at the time of purchase when the product is purchased repeatedly
and is relatively unimportant. As a result, consumers tend to apply very simple
choice rules or tactics that provide a satisfactory choice while allowing a quick
and effortless decision. An empirical test of this proposition is provided and
implications are discussed.

I n recent years, a considerable amount of effort has

been devoted to understanding the processes by
which consumers arrive at some type of decision
(usually a purchase). A large portion of this research
has focused on two basic aspects: information acqui~
sition (e.g., Bettman and Park 1980; Jacoby 1977;
Russo and Rosen 1975) and information integration
(e.g., Ryan and Bonfield 1975; Wilkie and Pessemier
1973; Wright 1975). Despite the attention this topic
has received, a large portion of the variance in con~
sumer choice has yet to be explained (Kassarjian
1978). Although broad generalizations can be made
regarding choice processes, our ability to predict and
understand this behavior is still at a less than desirable
level. The present paper is an attempt to account for
some of this unexplained variance.
CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES
Although a number of specific explanations for the
shortcomings of consumer decision research can be
generated, the present paper focuses on two major
aspects. First, researchers have tended to apply decision
models which have been borrowed from other areas
of inquiry (e.g., social psychology, economics, and
cognitive psychology). The problem is that these mod~
els were developed to understand processes in situa~
• Wayne D. Hoyer is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Marketing Administration, University of Texas at Austin, TX
787 I 2. Thanks are extended to Rohit Deshpande, Mark Alpert,
and Julia Brown for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
822
tions which elicit a considerable degree of cognitive
effort and commitment.
For example, the widely employed Fishbein model
(Fishbein 1963, 1967) was developed to understand
social attitudes of major importance to individuals.
Some authors, however, have suggested that many
common product decisions may not be that important
or involving to consumers (e.g., Hupfer and Gardner
197 I; Kassarjian 1978). One must therefore question
whether these models are accurate representations of
how decisions are made for a variety of decision
contexts. Indeed, Wright (1975) states that certain
decision strategies require a considerable degree of
cognitive effort which the consumer may be unwilling
to expend. Thus, when examining these decision con~
texts, a driving issue is the extent to which consumers
engage in processing that is consistent with traditional
models of consumer choice (e.g., compensatory or
noncompensatory models), or whether some other
form of processing occurs.
Second, much of the research on consumer decision
making has focused on cognitive processing that occurs
immediately prior to the act of purchase (or selection).
Yet many decisions are made repeatedly or frequently
over time and thus involve continuous-as opposed
to discrete-processing (Hogarth 1981). In these in~
stances, consumers may rely not only on previously
acquired product information stored in memory, but
also on judgments of brand satisfaction or dissatisfac~
tion which occur in the post-purchase evaluation (or
usage) stage of the decision process. In addition,
consumers may engage in other types of processing
outside the immediate choice context. For example,
© JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Vol. J J • December J984

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKING
consumers may decide to choose a product based on
knowledge from an advertisement or because of a
coupon acquisition. Again, one must question whether
traditional models of consumer choice adequately
explain processing in these types of situations.
AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
In light of these two issues, Deshpande et al. (1982)
proposed a view which attempts to describe consumer
decision making in situations that involve repeated
purchases over time and that can be typically consid-
ered as low in importance or involvement. This per-
spective is based on the notion that "when purchase
behavior is preceded by a choice process, it is likely
to be very limited" (Olshavsky and Granbois 1979,
p. 99). It assumes that the major goal in repetitive
and relatively unimportant decisions is not to make
an "optimal" choice but, rather, to make a satisfactory
choice while minimizing cognitive effort. It therefore
postulates that consumers optimize time and effort as
opposed to consequences (Einhorn and Hogarth 1981).
This emphasis on effort is the result of three major
factors:
1. These decisions are not important enough to indi-
viduals and do not involve a degree of risk large
enough to warrant significant decision making effort.
2. Consumers have made these decisions numerous
times in the past and thus do not need to expend a
great deal of decision making effort.
3. A typical shopping trip involves numerous decisions,
and it is likely that the consumer does not want to
expend a great deal of time and effort on anyone
decision.
Preliminary support for the concept of reduced cog-
nitive effort in these types of situations is provided in
a study of Deshpande and Hoyer (1983), in which it
was found that consumers exerted considerably less
effort in choosing peanut butter than in choosing a
pair of running shoes and an automobile. Consistent
with this notion are Wright's (1975) findings that
certain decision strategies-especially those which
"optimize" the decision-require a considerable degree
of cognitive effort, and that in some cases, a strategy
may be chosen because of its "simplifying" potential.
Thus it is postulated that consumers employ very
simple choice heuristics or tactics when making repeat
decisions which are relatively low in importance or
involvement. I These tactics are rules of thumb which
allow consumers to make a very quick and effortless
decision. For example, tactics could be related to price
(e.g., "buy the cheapest brand" or "buy the brand on
sale"), performance ("buy the brand which works the
1 It must be noted that consumers may also apply these very
simple rules in very complex and involving tasks, but discussion
here is limited to the low-involvement situation.
Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved
823
best"), affect ("buy the most pleasing brand"), or
normative factors ("buy the same brand my mother
buys;" Deshpande et al. 1982). It is important to note
that these tactics are even more simple and involve
less effort than many of the heuristics already suggested
in the consumer literature (Bettman 1979; Engel and
Blackwell 1983).
The notion of decision heuristics is not new to
consumer research. However, a choice tactic approach
differs distinctly from previous models in the process
of tactic development. Most of the previous approaches
assume that cognitive evaluation of the evoked set is
performed prior to each choice (i.e., a discrete process;
Hogarth 1981); but a choice tactic view assumes that
since purchase (or choice) occurs fairly often, evalua-
tion occurs over a repeated number of trials (or
purchase occasions). This focus on processing over
trials distinguishes the present approach from more
traditional simplifying heuristics (e.g., the lexicographic
model).
In the process of tactic development, initial choices
may be either haphazard, based on the modeling of
others (e.g., "buy what my friends or parents buy"),
or constructed at the time of the choice (Bettman and
Zins 1977). Also, the familiarity which results from
passive exposure to advertisements may play an im-
portant role in the early stages of choice tactic devel-
opment. Over time, however, consumers refine their
tactics until a satisfactory decision can be made with
very little effort. For example, a consumer might
initially employ the tactic "buy the cheapest brand."
If this results in a satisfactory choice, this tactic will
have an increased probability of being employed on
the next purchase occasion. Alternatively, consumers
might purchase the same brand on subsequent occa-
sions to minimize the cognitive effort associated with
checking all the prices. If an unsatisfactory choice
results, the consumer might then employ a more
refined or stringent rule, such as "buy the cheapest
national brand," or use another tactic altogether.
It is recognized that brand choice may occur as the
result of a brand evaluation process. But in contrast
to the traditional view, which assumes that this eval-
uation is developed at the moment of choice, the
choice tactic view suggests that an evaluation may
occur if the product is perceived to be satisfactory (or
unsatisfactory) when it is used (i.e., at the post-
purchase evaluation stage). Thus the consumer still
does not engage in extensive processing; rather, s/he
relies on a simple judgment which is acquired over
time.
It should also be mentioned that two familiar con-
cepts in the consumer behavior literature-habitual
purchase and brand loyalty-are easily incorporated
into this framework. Habitual purchase would consist
of the continued use of the tactic "buy the same brand
I bought last time." As Jacoby and Kyner (1973)
point out, habitual purchase is not necessarily the
result of a strong positive brand evaluation. The
 824
habitual purchaser does not engage in repeat purchase
because of a strong preference for the brand; rather,
repeat purchasing represents a convenient way of
reducing cognitive effort.
Brand loyalty involves a preference for the brand.
This preference probably results from a post-purchase
evaluation of product performance in which the con-
sumer perceives that the brand satisfies needs better
than do existing alternatives. Thus, habitual and brand-
loyal consumers possess different motivations for the
same behavior, and any effort to change these behaviors
would involve a different strategy (e.g., altering habit
vs. changing brand preference).
The basic point is that-through a series of trials
which involve either positive, negative, or neutral
experiences-the post-purchase evaluation will stabi-
lize and consumers will come to possess a set of very
simple decision heuristics. That is, consumers acquire
a set of choice tactics which are learned over time.
These tactics make it unnecessary for the consumer
to engage in extended cognitive processing each time
a decision is made; all that is required is the application
of the simple rule of thumb. This enables the consumer
to minimize cognitive effort and still make a satisfac-
tory choice. Support for this view is provided by
Hogarth (1981), who states that in continuous contexts,
decision makers apply simple heuristics and "adjust"
these rules on the basis of outcome feedback.
EXAMINING CHOICE TACTICS
The main thrust of the present study is that choice
tactics make it unnecessary to engage in extended
cognitive effort in any given purchase situation. If
decision making is examined at anyone point in time,
the process is very likely to be very limited-involving
only the application of a choice tactic. The purpose
of the present study is to examine both the degree
and the type of processing that occurs when consumers
are making a choice for a common, frequently pur-
chased, and typically low-involvement product. In
examining these issues, however, an important meth-
odological issue arises.
Many of the previous studies examining the con-
sumer choice process have employed methodologies
which are obtrusive. In some instances, this obtrusive-
ness occurs because the measurement technique struc-
tures the problem for the consumer. (Examples include
compensatory models and conjoint measurement.)
Given that decision makers are highly responsive to
task structure variables (Bettman 1979), there is a
potential for the "true" decision process to be obscured.
Further, with many of the decision process techniques,
consumers are well aware that their behavior is being
observed, and this may alter their responses due to
reactivity of measurement (Cook and Campbell 1979).
In addition, many techniques rely heavily on detailed
verbal reports, and as Wells and Lo Scuito (1966) and
Jacoby (1977) report, what consumers say they do (on
-------~-------"'c::-o::::py-:::r;;:;ig~ht;:-;©i"\c~2001
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
the basis of verbal responses) may not agree with what
they actually do (under direct observation).
One data collection technique which may partially
overcome these problems is that of direct, in-store
observation. Wells and Lo Scuito (1966) suggest that
this technique provides a more accurate view of con-
sumer behavior because it allows the consumer to
behave without as much interference from the re-
searcher and because it does not rely on the consumer's
ability to interpret a question or remember an event.
In the present study, consumers were unobtrusively
observed while making a repetitive, low-involvement
purchase. This was done to gain a clearer picture of
how the choice process proceeds in a natural, in-store
environment. Particularly important was an exami-
nation of the degree of decision effort (measured in
terms of the amount of information search and time
taken). Then, by supplementing natural observation
with a simple questioning technique, an attempt was
made to determine the type of choice strategy consu-
mers used while making their decisions.
METHOD
Subjects
A total of 120 subjects was interviewed in three
major chain grocery stores in a metropolitan area.
These stores were selected to provide a typical sample
of consumers living in the city (in terms of social
class, age, and race). Subjects were interviewed in
three major parts of the day (morning, afternoon, and
evening) across all three stores to reduce biases due
to shopping environment and time period (Wells and
Lo Scuito 1966). Every consumer who entered a
supermarket aisle (when the experimenter was free)
was approached immediately after having selected a
brand of laundry detergent. All age categories (over
18) were represented: the 25-34-year-old group was
the most common (35 percent), followed by 45-54
(19 percent) and 35-44 (18 percent). About 80 percent
of the subjects were female, 72 percent were white, 16
percent were black, and 10 percent were Hispanic.
The subjects had been purchasing laundry detergent
from one to 61 years, with a mean of about 19 years.
The number of brands each consumer had purchased
ranged from one to 15, with a mean of about five.
Each potential subject was offered a 25-cent coupon
good on any brand of laundry detergent. This appears
to have been an adequate incentive, since only JO of
the 130 consumers approached declined to participate.
Choice Task
Laundry detergent was selected as the choice task
for several reasons. 2 First, detergent is clearly a repeat
2 The examination of only one product category poses limitations
on the ability to draw conclusions. This fact will be discussed at
more length in a later section.
All Rights Reserved
COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKING
purchase product that appears to be similar to generally
recognized low-involvement products (e.g., Lastovicka
and Gardner 1979; Rothschild 1979). Second, deter-
gent was found to possess a very low level of perceived
risk in a pre-test. Third, there is a wide variety of
brands available, which might enhance the number
and variety of tactics that consumers could employ.
Fourth, large laundry detergent displays are common
in supermarkets. It would be difficult to observe search
behavior in front of a very small display.
Assessment of the Search
and Decision Process
Consumers were carefully observed by a single
experimenter (who was naive to the purpose of the
study) as they were making their laundry detergent
purchase. 3 The observer appeared to be a store em-
ployee who was taking inventory. Since the observer
stood behind and slightly to the side of the shopper
as the choice was being made, consumers appeared to
be unaware that they were being observed while they
were searching. The very large size of the laundry
detergent display greatly facilitated the recording of
information search behavior, since fairly substantial
movement was required to examine different brands.
An observation chart was developed which mirrored
the laundry detergent display in each store and which
was used to record each subject's behavior as s/he
made a brand selection. A coding system was also
developed which allowed the interviewer to record the
search process easily. When a package was examined
a line was drawn next to that brand and size packag~
on the chart. If the package was picked up, a circle
was drawn around the line. An "X" was made through
the circle for the package selected for purchase. The
amount of time (in seconds) spent examining each
package was placed next to the other markings. If a
shelf tag was examined, a circle was made along the
line representing the shelf at the point where the tag
was located.
The major dependent variables of interest included
the number of packages examined, the total amount
of time taken, the time taken for the chosen brand,
the number of cross-brand comparisons (i.e., exam-
ining different brands), the number of within-brand
comparisons (i.e., examining different sizes within
brands), and the number of shelf tags examined. The
latter four measures represent rough approximations
given the difficulty of acquiring detailed in-store ob~
servations of in-store brand choice behaviors.
Assessment of Choice Tactics
Upon completion of choice, consumers were ap-
proached by the experimenter and offered a 25-cent
. It should be mentioned that the observer was carefully trained
J laundry detergent decisions was measured on a three-
In the conducting of the experiment and also engaged in live
"practice" observations before actual data were collected.
Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved
825
coupon for the brand they purchased in return for
participating in the study. A 12-question instrument
was then administered to assess several aspects of
consumers' laundry detergent purchases. Choice tactics
used by consumers were measured two ways. First,
consumers were asked to tell the interviewer why they
made their laundry detergent purchase. Specifically,
consumers were asked, "Can you tell me why you
selected the brand you have chosen?" This open-
ended question was intended to elicit an immediate
post-decision response concerning the way the chosen
brand had been selected. This question was strictly
"free response" with an absence of probes, to allow
consumers to describe their choice process in their
own terms. It was felt that more detailed questioning
would have been too obtrusive.
Later in the interview, subjects were presented with
a list of 10 possible choice tactics from which they
were asked to select the one that best represented the
way their decision had been made that day. The
selection of these tactics was based on data acquired
in an earlier study. Multiple measures of the choice
tactic variable were included to provide greater con-
fidence in reported findings. Thus the purpose of such
closed questions was to provide an additional "check"
on the type of tactic employed.
Other variables of interest were product class ex-
perience, brand loyalty, perceived influence of in-store
factors, perceived influence of out-of-store factors and
demographics. Product class experience was mea~ured
with two questions. Subjects were asked how long
they had been purchasing laundry detergent and how
many brands they had purchased. Brand experience
was also measured by asking how long the subject had
been purchasing the brand s/he had selected on the
day of the interview. Both of these variables were
measured on seven-point scales ranging from I (0-3
years) to 7 (over 40 years). Both the repeated purchase
and the affective aspects of brand loyalty were mea-
sured by asking subjects to rate their frequency of
purchasing the chosen brand (on a six-point scale
ranging from always purchased to never purchased)
and the strength of preference for that brand (on a
five-point scale ranging from very strong preference
to very weak preference).
The perceived influence of in-store situational factors
was assessed on several three-point scales that ranged
from a lot of attention to no attention. Subjects were
asked how much attention they paid to sale signs,
shelf tags, end-of-aisle and point-of-purchase displays,
and package information other than the price. In
addition, as mentioned previously, attention to in-
store factors was coded as part of the observational
data.
Two questions determined the influence of factors
outside the store. Influence of advertising on subjects'
point scale ranging from a lot of influence to no
influence. It is recognized that this measure is some-
826 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEARCH DATA

Frequency distribution proportions

Variable Mean Median 0 2 3 4 5

Number of packages
examined 1.42 1.19 .00 .72 .18 .07 .02 .02
Number of packages
picked up 1.23 1.10 .00 .83 .13 .02 .01 .01
Number of across-brand
comparisons .45 .17 .74 .17 .01 .07 .02 .00
Number of within-brand
comparisons .07 .03 .95 .03 .02 .00 .00 .00
Number of shelf tags
examined .13 .06 .89 .08 .03 .00 .00 .00

Frequency distribution seconds

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40

Time per brand 7.72 4.77 .86 .10 .03 .01 .00
Total time 13.16 8.49 .75 .10 .08 .01 .06

NOTE N = 120

what simplistic; however, the focus of the present
study was not a detailed examination of advertising
influence. Subjects were also asked if they had a
coupon for the brand they had selected.
The final questions covered demographic variables
such as family size, education, and age. The interviewer
also observed whether the subject was shopping alone
or with others, as well as the subject's sex and race.
The interviewer read each question to the subject.
Subjects were given cards with the possible answers
to the multiple-choice questions in order to speed up
the interview process and to aid subjects in answering
the questions. The interview generally took three to
four minutes to complete.
RESULTS
Information Search
The first area of interest concerned the extent of
information search and the amount of time taken
while making a laundry detergent choice. Table I
presents summary data for the observation-based
search categorization. Consumers examined a very
small number of packages (X = 1.42, median = 1.19).
According to the frequency distribution, 72 percent
of the consumers looked at only one package, and
only II percent looked at more than two. An even
lower number of packages was actually picked up (X
= 1.23, median = 1.10): 83 percent of the consumers
picked up only one package, and only 4 percent
picked up more than two.
Given that consumers must examine at least one
package in order to make a choice, it is clear that in-
store pre-purchase evaluation was almost nonexistent.
This is further supported by the finding that extremely
few across-brand and within-brand (i.e., size) compar-
isons were made (X = 0.45 and 0.07, respectively).
Further, these means are as high as they are because
of several outliers. Finally, only a very small number
of shelf tags was examined.
Consumers took an average of 13 seconds from the
time they entered the aisle to complete their in-store
decision. Given that the laundry detergent display
spans an entire aisle, it takes consumers some amount
of time to arrive in the physical proximity of their
desired brand. When one considers that the time taken
to locate the brand is included in the overall time
estimate, it is obvious that the typical consumer is
making an extremely quick decision with only a
minimal degree of cognitive effort in the store envi-
ronment. This finding is given further support by the
fact that a majority of the time taken (median = 4.77)
was devoted to the chosen brand.
In summary, the data from the present study present
clear evidence that a majority of consumers engage in
very little pre-purchase deliberation when making a
laundry detergent purchase. Given this, the next ques-
tion concerns the nature of this brief decision process.
Consumer Usage of Choice Tactics
Immediately following their choices, consumers were
approached and asked how they had made their pur-
chases. If consumers use simplified heuristics, this
should be reflected in their free responses to the open-
ended question.

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKING 827

TABLE 2 (n = 20), and "because of the price" or "it is cheapest"

(n = 18). Further, many of the other responses are
RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED CHOICE TACTIC QUESTION
quite similar (e.g., "cleans better" and "cleaner whites"
Total number of
are similar to "it works well").
Response consumers Percentage Based on the judgments of two separate individuals,
responses were categorized into five major groups.
Price tactics 27 22.5 The two judges exhibited an agreement rate of 93
Cheapest 18 15.0 percent in the categorizations. Discrepancies were
Coupon 5 4.2
Use less so costs less 3 2.5 discussed and resolved by the experimenters. Based
On sale 0.8 on these categorizations, the following groups emerged:
price tactics (n = 27), affect or "I like it" tactics (n
Affect tactics 24 20.0
16.7 = 24), performance tactics (n = 34), normative tactics
Like it 20
Love it 4 3.3 (n = 13), and other tactics (n = 22). Thus it appears
that a large number of consumers based their decision
Performance tactics 34 28.3
Works well 14 11.7 on one of four major types of tactics. One group tends
Cleans clothes better 7 5.8 to purchase a brand based on price, another chooses
Cleaner whites 5 4.2 a brand that is perceived to perform well in fulfilling
Best brand 4 3.3 needs, another buys a brand simply because the brand
Other 4 3.3
"is liked," and still another bases its decision on the
Normative tactics 13 10.8 preferences of others.
Wife likes it 8 6.7 In addition to identifying the types of tactics em-
Mother bought 3 2.5
Girlfriend likes 1 0.8 ployed, this study sought to discover whether there
Husband likes 1 0.8 are meaningful differences between different types of
decision makers. For exploratory purposes only, a
Nonclassified 11 9.2
Multiple statements 11 9.2 discriminant analysis was performed to determine
whether other variables measured in the study could
Total 120 differentiate among the major categories of tactics.
NOTE 11 5ubtects gave multiple statements such as "works well and IS the Cheapest ..
Due to the sample size, only major demographic and
search variables were employed as predictors. Also,
while there are meaningful conceptual differences be-
In these responses, 91 percent of the 120 consumers tween affect and performance tactics, present data do
provided a simple, one-statement reason for their not permit a clear distinction between these two
choice. Of the 11 who did not, all provided a combi- groups (i.e., one could like the product because it
nation of two simple statements (e.g., it works well performs well). As a result, these two categories were
and has a low price). If one views these multiple combined. Thus differences between the price, affect/
statements as more refined or specific choice tactics, performance, and normative groups were examined.
even greater credence is given to the choice tactic Results indicate that a set of variables was able to
view. When compared with the closed question, the discriminate between the three groups (Wilk's A
degree of inter-question agreement was 72.5 percent. = 0.369, p < 0.0001). The results of group classification
However, most of the disagreement was due to the indicate that 81.6 percent of the cases were correctly
fact that only 10 tactics were listed for the closed classified. In addition, a jackknife procedure (Lach-
question and that, as a result, many of the idiosyncratic enbruch and Mickey 1968) which was employed to
responses were not included. This instrument was validate this finding resulted in a 73.5 percent correct
developed in the absence of knowledge about the classification. Both of these percentages are significantly
diversity of tactics that consumers would provide and better than chance (t = 7.41, P < 0.001 and t = 5.78,
is thus limited. Since it was unable to fully capture p < 0.001}.4
the richness of the choice process, only findings per- The seven variables responsible for discriminability
taining to the open-ended responses are reported. are presented in Table 3. To examine specific differ-
One alternative explanation for these results is that ences between groups, an examination of the univariate
consumers were unable or unmotivated to provide a tests was made. Differences between each specific
complete description of the choice process. However, group mean were tested by employing a Student
if one remembers that the typical choice time was
approximately 4-5 seconds, it is clear that consumers 4 As computed by the formula;
were not engaging in a more detailed in-store evalua-
tion process. P-1I"
t=--
Table 2 presents a summary of the answers to the S.
where
free response question. A variety of choice tactics
was employed. The most frequent responses were:
"because it works well" (n = 14), "because I like it"

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

828 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 3 comparison, perceived attention to point-of-purchase

UNIVARIATE TESTS FOR DISCRIMINATING VARIABLES displays, packages, end-of-aisle displays, perceived ad
influence, coupon usage, family size, and age.
Means

Per-
DISCUSSION
formance- Nor- The data from the present study allow one important
Variable F Price Affect mative
conclusion: in the case ofa laundry detergent decision,
Sex (1 = F; 2 = M) 24.49" 1.19 1.07 1.77 consumers engage in remarkably little in-store decision
Brand loyalty (higher deliberation. This finding is consistent with the con-
scores = less clusion reached by Olshavsky and Granbois (1979)
loyalty) 19.92" 6.40 3.16 4.08 about other products.
Length of time This implies that when decision making occurs, a
purchasing laundry large portion of the process may occur outside the
detergent 3.54" 4.07 4.62 3.15 immediate in-store decision context (at least for de-
(1 = 1 year or less)
(7 = Over 40 years) tergents). In light of this, it is likely that a better
understanding of consumer behavior may be aided by
Perceived attention to further investigation of how consumers process infor-
sale signs 4.68 c 1.70 2.24 2.38
(1 = A lot of attention) mation continuously. In particular, research is needed
(3 = No attention) to determine how consumers come to apply different
types of choice tactics. For example, there are probably
Information search 4.46 c 1.52 1.76 1.92
(1 = Search) key reasons why some consumers employ price-related
(2 = No search) tactics while others base their decisions on a perfor-
mance judgment. This study suggests that a variety of
Examination of shelf
tags 2.94" .33 .09 .15
product-related experiences-such as product usage,
Length of time numerous exposures to advertisements, and influence
purchasing brand 3.22" 2.33 3.62 2.85 by others in a social environment (either by direct
pressure or by modeling)-may play an important
·p<0001.
• p < 005
role in the decision-making process .
'p < 0.01 It must be noted that the present study possesses
several limitations. First, it examines decision making
for only one product category. Before solid conclusions
Newman-Kuehls procedure. In particular, several spe- can be drawn, research is needed to make comparisons
cific differences are worth noting. not only with other repeatedly purchased products,
First, consumers employing price-related tactics dif- but also with important, less frequently purchased
fered in several aspects. They were less likely to be products. The latter comparison would serve as an
brand loyal and to have purchased a chosen brand for important means of differentiating the types of decision
a long period of time. Also, they were more likely to strategies employed in different choice situations.
engage in search, examine shelf tags, and state that Deshpande and Hoyer (1983) have already found that
they had paid greater attention to sale signs. Given consumers reported (from a retrospective question-
that search time was generally brief, it is likely that naire) using choice strategies which involved signifi-
these activities involved the search for price informa- cantly higher degrees of cognitive effort for a choice
tion, and hence that price-conscious consumers were that involved high risk (e.g., automobile) compared
no more likely to pay attention to information other to a choice that involved low risk (e.g., peanut butter).
than price than were other consumers. Second, this study examines decision making at
Affect performance tactic users are most strongly only one point in time. If decision making in many
characterized by a higher degree of brand loyalty and common choice contexts is truly of a continuous
longer experience in purchasing laundry detergent. nature, an attempt must be made to examine the
Also, this category displays a higher proportion of process over a repeated number of choice trials. We
females and a low level of attention to shelf tags. need information concerning the extent to which
Normative tactic users possessed the lowest level of choice tactic usage is either consistent or altered over
laundry detergent purchase experience and tended to time, as well as information on which factors may
show the lowest level of actual search (based on lead to the adoption of an alternative choice tactic.
observation), although they indicated paying greater The third limitation of this study is that it employed
attention to package information other than price. A only one observer. Future research of this nature
higher proportion of male consumers fall into this should use multiple observers in order to permit
category. reliability assessment.
The following variables did not discriminate between In summary, the present study has attempted to
groups: education, across-board and within-board extend work on consumer choice by demonstrating

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

COMMON PRODUCT DECISION MAKING
that consumers employ simple choice tactics when
making a low-involvement decision. This choice is
not necessarily habitual (Howard 1977), nor is it
necessarily characterized by the total absence of any
pre-purchase deliberation (Olshavsky and Granbois
1979); rather, this study suggests that choice is the
result of numerous experiences and evaluations which
occur over a repeated number of trials (or purchases).
Over these trials, consumers develop a set of simple
choice tactics which permit a quick yet satisfactory
decision. While the present study does not provide
full support for this notion, it represents an important
first step in developing a more descriptive theory of
consumer choice. Research is now needed to test this
view and to examine how situational and individual-
level variables interact in the usage of choice tactics
over time.
[Received June 1983. Revised July 1984.]
REFERENCES
Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory
of Consumer Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- - - and C. Whan Park (1980), "Implications of a
Constructive View of Choice for Analysis of Protocol
Data: A Coding Scheme for Elements of Choice Pro-
cesses," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. VII,
ed. Jerry C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, 148-153.
- - - and Michael Zins (1977), "Constructive Processes
in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research,
4 (September), 75-85.
Cook, Thomas D. and Donald T. Campbell (1979), Quasi-
Experrmentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field
Settings, Chicago: Rand-MCNally.
Deshpande, Rohit and Wayne D. Hoyer (1983), "Consumer
Decision Making: Strategies, Cognitive Effort and Per-
ceived Risk," in /983 AMA Educators' Proceedings,
eds. P. E. Murphy et aI., Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 88-91.
- - - , Wayne D. Hoyer, and Scot Jeffries (1982), "Low
Involvement Decision Processes: The Importance of
Choice Tactics," in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of
Science Perspectives, eds. R. F. Bush and S. D. Hunt,
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 155-158.
Einhorn, Hillel J. and Robin M. Hogarth (1981), "Behavioral
Decision Theory: Processes of Judgment and Choice,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53-58.
Engel, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1983), Consumer
Behavior, 4th Edition, Chicago: Dryden Press.
Fishbein, Martin (1963), "An Investigation of the Relation-
ships between Belief about an Object and the Attitude
toward the Object," Human Relations, 16,233-240.
Co ri ht © 2001 All Ri hts Reserved
829
___ (1967), "Attitude and Prediction of Behavior," in
Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, ed.
Martin Fishbein, New York: Wiley.
Hogarth, Robin M. (1981), "Beyond Discrete Biases: Func-
tional and Dysfunctional Aspects of Judgmental Heu-
ristics," Psychological Bulletin, 90 (2), 197-217.
Howard, John A. (1977), Consumer Behavior: Application
of Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hupfer, Nancy T. and David M. Gardner (1971), "Differ-
ential Involvement with Products and Issues: An Ex-
ploratory Study," in Proceedings of the Second Annual
Conference, ed. D. M. Gardner, College Park, MD:
Association for Consumer Research, 262-269.
Jacoby, Jacob (1977), "The Emerging Behavioral Process
Technology in Consumer Decision Making Research,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. William
D. Perreault, Chicago: Association for Consumer Re-
search, 263-265.
- - - and David B. Kyner (1973), "Brand Loyalty vs.
Repeat Purchase Behavior," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 10 (February), 1-9.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1978), "Presidential Address, 1977:
Anthropomorphism and Parsimony," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann
Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, xiii-xiv.
Lachenbruch, Peter A. and M. Ray Mickey (1968), "Esti-
mation of Error Rates in Discriminant Analysis," Tech-
nometrics, 10 (February), I-II.
Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979), "Com-
ponents of Involvement," in Attitude Research Plays
for High Stakes, eds. J. Maloney and B. Silverman,
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-73.
Olshavsky, Richard W. and Donald H. Granbois (1979),
"Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction?" Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 6 (September), 93-100.
Rothschild, Michael L. (1979), "Advertising Strategies for
High and Low Involvement Situations," in Attitude
Research Plays for Higher Stakes, eds. J. Maloney and
B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion, 74-93.
Russo, Edward J. and Larry D. Rosen (1975), "An Eye
Fixation Analysis of Multialternative Choice," Memory
& Cognition, 3 (May), 267-276.
Ryan, Michael J. and E. H. Bonfield (1975), "The Fishbein
Extended Model and Consumer Behavior," Journal of
Consumer Research, 2 (September), 118-136.
Wells, William D. and Leonard A. Lo Scuito (1966), "Direct
Observation of Purchasing Behavior," Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 3 (August), 227-233.
Wilkie, William L. and Edgar A. Pessemier (1973), "Issues
in Marketing's Use of Multi-attribute Models," Journal
of Marketing Research, to (November), 428-441.
Wright, Peter L. (1975), "Consumer Choice Strategies: Sim-
plifying vs. Optimizing," Journal of Marketing Research,
II (February), 60-67.