The Service Industries Journal

ISSN: 0264-2069 (Print) 1743-9507 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

A study of preferences in a simulated online

shopping experiment

Asle Fagerstrøm , Erik Arntzen & Gordon R. Foxall

To cite this article: Asle Fagerstrøm , Erik Arntzen & Gordon R. Foxall (2011) A study of
preferences in a simulated online shopping experiment, The Service Industries Journal, 31:15,
2603-2615, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2011.531121

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.531121

Published online: 21 Mar 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 654

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
The Service Industries Journal
Vol. 31, No. 15, November 2011, 2603–2615

A study of preferences in a simulated online shopping experiment

Asle Fagerstrøma∗ , Erik Arntzenb and Gordon R. Foxallc
a
The Norwegian School of Information Technology, Oslo, Norway; bAkershus University College,
Akershus, Norway; cCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum
Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK
(Received 10 July 2010; final version received 30 September 2010)

The current study seeks to expand understanding of how brand loyalty develops by
arranging environmental contingencies in online stores. A simulated online shopping
experiment was prepared where participants purchase products (116 in all) from two
different online stores. A concurrent reinforcement schedule was arranged for two
groups of 20 participants. Free shipment was presumed to reinforce purchase
behaviour. For the first group, the concurrent schedule was a VR4/VR8 arrangement
for choices between two online stores. The researchers wanted to replicate this with
different VR values and the second group was exposed to a VR4/VR16 arrangement
for choice between two online stores. The results showed that the preference of 13
out of the 40 participants was not under the control of the experimenter-defined
contingencies. For the remaining 27 participants, it was found that 18 showed
preferences according to the experimenter-defined contingencies. In the first phase of
the experiment, there was more variability, switching between the alternatives, than
in the maintenance phase. In addition, average choice time decreased as a function
of number of trials.

Keywords: brand loyalty; preferences; transition; concurrent schedules; online-

consumer choice; consumer behaviour analysis

Introduction
Since the satisfaction-loyalty approach was established, it has dominated the thinking of
researchers and marketing practitioners (Oliver, 1999). Companies put considerable
emphasis on providing great customer service – and for good reason. To stay competitive,
or even to stay in business, it is vital to know your customers. Kotler and Keller (2005) sum
this up when they state: ‘It is wise to measure customer satisfaction regularly because one
key to customer retention is customer satisfaction’ (p. 145). Consequently, customer
satisfaction with a company’s products or services is seen as the key to their success
and long-term competitiveness.
Despite the considerable attention that the satisfaction-loyalty approach has attracted
within the context of marketing, only some studies support the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty, and only a few studies address its nature (Bloemer & Poiesz,
1989; Hennig-Thurau & Klee, 1997; Oliver, 1999). According to Hennig-Thurau and
Klee (1997), existing studies in these areas can be categorized into three groups:
(1) studies that use monetary data, such as revenues or profit, as dependent variables
(see Anderson, Fornell, & Lehman, 1994; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990);

∗
Corresponding author. Email: asle.fagerstrom@nith.no

ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.531121
http://www.tandfonline.com
2604 A. Fagerstrøm et al.

(2) studies at the individual level, using repurchase intentions of customers to inves-
tigate the relation between satisfaction and loyalty (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault,
1990; Oliver, 1980; Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Oliver & Swan, 1989); and
(3) studies using repeat purchase data on an individual level to investigate the satis-
faction – loyalty relationship (Bolton, 1995; LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983;
Newman & Werbel, 1973).
Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997) have pointed out some weaknesses in these existing sat-
isfaction-loyalty studies. Firstly, the use of aggregated data in the first group renders any
analysis at the individual level impossible. Moreover, profits and revenues in studies
based on aggregation of data are often determined by a multitude of variables, which in
addition are highly correlated. The authors conclude that a valid assessment of the relation-
ship between satisfaction and loyalty based on aggregation of data are barely possible.
Secondly, using repurchase intention at the individual level in group two is also
accompanied by limitations. Because satisfaction values and intention measures are
normally obtained through the same questionnaires, the data is inherently correlated
(Hennig-Thurau & Klee, 1997). This may lead to an overestimation of the strength of the
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. In addition, the predictive validity of intention
measures ‘varies depending on the product, the measurement scale, the time frame, and the
nature of the respondents’ (Bolton, 1995, p. 2), and altogether must be seen as rather low
(LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983; Oliva, Oliver, & MacMillan, 1992). Thirdly, Hennig-
Thurau and Klee (1997) emphasize that studies in group three, based on real repeat purchase
data on an individual level, have the advantage of avoiding the problems mentioned in the
first two groups. However, studies on real purchasing data on an individual level show only a
weak (sometimes non-existent) relation between satisfaction and loyalty (see Bolton, 1995).
Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997; see also Oliver, 1999) suggest some avenues for future
research. One avenue is to explore new determinants of loyalty.
In response to the above-mentioned suggestion, we have studied brand loyalty from a
consumer behaviour analysis perspective. Consumer behaviour analysis is the application
of behaviour analysis/behavioural economics to the field of human consumer choice,
particular in the context of advanced marketing-oriented economies, and attempts to
redress the balance by exploring the nature of radical behaviourist explanation and its
capacity to understand consumer choice (Foxall, 2010). Consumer behaviour analysis
seeks to understand consumer behaviour by describing the interrelationship between
the occasion upon which the behaviour occurs, the specific choice behaviour, and the
consequences the behaviour produces. The focus is, therefore, to understand consumer
behaviour in relation to its context.
A number of studies within consumer behaviour analysis have investigated consumer
brand loyalty. For example, studies based on supermarket till receipts for weekly grocery
shopping (Foxall & James, 2002, 2003) and studies based on panel data for fast-moving
consumer goods (Foxall, Oliveira-Castro, & Schrezenmaier, 2004; Foxall & Schrezenma-
ier, 2003) have accumulated comprehensive knowledge about consumers’ preference and
brand loyalty. However, due to the use of aggregated data, these studies do not acquire data
about how individual consumer purchase patterns are developed, as pointed out by
Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997).
One way to study preferences is to arrange different reinforcement contingencies for
two or more choices. Reinforcers can be programmed according to different arrangements
in which responses in a class that are followed by reinforcers are specified, i.e. schedules of
reinforcement. Such arrangements can either be continuous or intermittent. Every correct
 The Service Industries Journal 2605

response in a class is reinforced on a continuous reinforcement schedule, while on

intermittent reinforcement schedules, some of the responses in a class are reinforced.
There are four main types of simple schedules of reinforcement. These are arranged
according to number of responses (R) or an interval plus a response (I) in combination
and if the interval or number is fixed (F) or variable (V). Hence, in fixed-interval (FI)
schedules, the interval remains constant from trial to trial, while in variable-interval
(VI) schedules the interval varies from one reinforcement to next. In fixed-ratio (FR)
schedules the arrangement is that the number of responses required before reinforcement
is constant from trial to trial, while in variable-ratio (VR) schedules, the number of
required responses changes. A number of studies have shown that VR schedules
produce the highest relative response rates and also that behaviour maintained on such
schedules is quite resistant to extinction. Extinction is the discontinuation of any reinforce-
ment that once maintained a given response. Extinction, as a behavioural process, refers to
a decline in rate of response caused by withdrawal of reinforcement (Catania, 2007).
In real life situations schedules of reinforcement work in combinations. For example,
two schedules can operate simultaneously for two or more different responses, i.e. concur-
rent schedules (Catania, 2007). Concurrent schedules can be used for studying choice in
which one alternative may be chosen more frequently than the other. Such a response
pattern is labelled preference (Pierce & Cheney, 2008). For example, a consumer may
choose between two online stores (Blue shop and Orange shop) on the basis of price,
product assortment and shipment cost. Each time the consumer shops at one store rather
than the other, the person is said to choose. In the long run, the consumer may shop
more frequently at the Blue shop than at the Orange shop, and when this occurs, the
person is showing preference for the Blue shop.
In the present experiment, we wanted to explore how environmental contingencies can
contribute to an understanding of what has been labelled as brand loyalty. We arranged an
experiment in which participants were asked to buy items from two different simulated
online stores. We arranged two different concurrent schedules; VR4/VR8 for one group of
participants and VR4/VR16 for another group of participants. Furthermore, we wanted to
see if there was a different response pattern, more switching between the alternatives,
from the start of the experiment to the end of the experiment, i.e. is there more variation
in response patterns in the early phases of the experiment than in the later maintenance phase?

Methodology
Participants
Forty college students, from The Norwegian School of Information Technology, were
recruited to participate in the current study. They were assigned to two different groups.
In the first group, all participants were male and the age-range was from 20 to 38, with
an average age of 23.7. In the second group, there were sixteen males and four females
with an age-range from 19 to 40, with an average age of 22.5. All participants had
purchased on-line before. None of the students had any prior knowledge about the
experiment. By volunteering, each participant obtained a coupon with a face value of
50 Norwegian Kroner (approximately 5.2 GBP) that could be used in the student canteen.

Apparatus and setting

TM
Two online stores were designed in Adobe Dreamweaver . The experiment was con-
ducted in a lecture room with eight computers. The lecture room was 56.3 m2 and one
2606 A. Fagerstrøm et al.

wall had a window (1.30 m × 1.87 m). The monitors were arranged so that no participant
could see the stimuli on other participants’ monitors. All computers had 2.4 GHz Intel’
Celeron’ processors, together with 19-inch monitors and resolution of 1280 × 960
TM
pixels. A standard keyboard and mouse were used to make choices. MediaLab (Empiri-
soft, 2007) was used as a tool to present the tasks and record data.

Procedure
Upon arrival in the laboratory, each participant was led by the experimenter to one of the
computers. They were informed about their general rights as participants in the experiment
and, in particular, that they could leave the experiment at any time. The experimenter then
explained that all necessary information for the task would be presented via the monitor.
However, each participant’s first choice in the experiment was made while the exper-
imenter was still present so that they could ask questions about the tasks. Participants
then completed the experiment alone. When the experiment was over, the participants
were asked if they had any questions, and were told that they could contact the exper-
imenter if they thought of any questions later.
The task for the participants was to buy 116 products on-line. All products belonged to
the product category of consumer electronics (for example: video cameras, mp3 players,
mobile phones), and the average price for the products was Kr. 2746, – (1000 Norwegian
Kroners are approximately 105 GBP). Participants were told that, for each choice, they
could buy from either a blue online store or from an orange online store (in Norway
‘orange’ or ‘blue’ are not the names of any particular shops or brands). Free shipment was
presumed to be a reinforcing stimulus, and was presented after the participant had chosen
and confirmed the order. An FR1 schedule of reinforcement was arranged for the first four
choices. Two different VR schedules of reinforcement were arranged for the next 112
choices, i.e. VR4 and VR8 for Group 1, and VR4 and VR16 for Group 2. Beyond that, the
online stores and the products were identical.
Participants were told that the blue online store and the orange online store had
the product in stock. For each choice, participants could browse through the following
steps represented by a single web page: (1) switch between the blue online store and
the orange online store, (2) display information about product and price, (3) display
information about delivery and conditions, and (4) confirm their order. In Step 1, the par-
ticipant could switch between the two online stores by clicking on different icons (Figure
1). Step 2 displayed a picture of the product and gave information about product func-
tionality and price. In Step 3, the screen display gave information about delivery
options, payment options and total price. Step 4 displayed order confirmation. It was
in Step 4 that participants were eventually given information about free shipment
(Figure 2). The offer of free shipment was depicted with a star and the money saved
by accepting this option was displayed. The participant could browse back and forth
between Steps 1 – 3. In Step 4, the only possibility was to continue to the purchase of
the next product.

Post-experimental interviews
When all 116 products had been bought, the participants were asked two questions: ‘What
influenced you in your choice of online store?’ and ‘What were the differences between the
two online stores?’.
 The Service Industries Journal 2607

Figure 1. Design of the two online stores.

Figure 2. Design of the confirmation order step.

Recordings and definitions

TM
MediaLab recorded automatically the participants’ responses (mouse clicking) on the
two online stores for each of the 116 choices, time spent on each online store and
frequency of switching between alternatives. In addition, answers in the post-experimental
TM
interview were recorded by MediaLab .
2608 A. Fagerstrøm et al.

The number of trials was divided into two halves, the first 56 trials and last 56 trials
(trials on FR1 were not included). For each half, a choice index was made to show the
participants’ preference for the two online stores. The index was a calculation of total
number of responses on the most preferred alternative divided by the total number of
responses on the most preferred alternative plus the total number of responses on the
least preferred alternative.

Results
Table 1 shows how often participants in Groups 1 and 2 switched between alternatives
from choice five to choice 116 (choices on FR1 are not included). Table 1 shows that
most of the participants in Groups 1 and 2 switched between alternatives except
for Participants 1, 12, 20, 23, 30, 35, and 37, who rarely did so. Hence, results from
Table 1 indicate that 33 of 40 participants switched between alternatives from choice
five to choice 116. The seven participants who did not switch between alternatives were
not exposed to the contingency in the present experiment, and for that reason are excluded
in the further analysis.
Figure 3 shows switching patterns in one participant as an example. The switching
pattern for Participant 7 is shown in detail when he had completed choices on either of
the two alternatives (VR4 and VR8). Choices marked by a light grey square are those
for which a reinforcer (free shipment) was presented. The first response was the online
store with the VR8 schedule. The second, third and fourth choices were completed on
the alternative VR4 schedule, the fifth choice on alternative VR8 schedule, and so
forth, denoting that he switched between the two web stores. As Figure 3 shows, Partici-
pant 7 allocated choices to both alternatives (VR4 and VR8) throughout the experimental
session.

Table 1. Frequency of switching between alternatives for participants in Groups 1 and 2 (choices
5–116).
Switching between Switching between
Participants Group 1 alternatives Participants Group 2 alternatives
1 1 21 24
2 12 22 22
3 28 23 1
4 18 24 26
5 31 25 28
6 13 26 12
7 27 27 24
8 12 28 22
9 24 29 26
10 24 30 4
11 19 31 25
12 4 32 20
13 7 33 15
14 24 34 25
15 11 35 1
16 36 36 29
17 12 37 4
18 10 38 42
19 38 39 10
20 5 40 10
 The Service Industries Journal 2609

Figure 3. Switching between the alternatives for Participant 7.

Figure 4 shows switching patterns for Participants 1 – 20. This figure shows that most
participants switched between alternatives throughout the experiment session. However,
extinction probably occurred for Participants 6, 8, 12, and 20, since reinforcers (free ship-
ment) are not presented after choice one to four were completed. Figure 5 shows switching
patterns for Participants 21– 40, respectively. As for Group 1, most participants switched
between alternatives throughout the experimental session. However, results in Figure 5
indicate a lower incidence of extinction than for Group 1: extinction occurred only for
Participant 37. Cases where extinction occurred were excluded from further analysis
since these participants were not exposed to the contingencies throughout the whole
experimental session.

Post-experimental interview
Answers from the two debriefing questions (‘What influenced you in your choice of
online store?’ and ‘What were the differences between the two online stores?’) were

Figure 4. Switching between the alternatives for each participant in Group 1.

2610 A. Fagerstrøm et al.

Figure 5. Switching between the alternatives for each participant in Group 2.

also helpful when analysing the cases. Participant 15 answered: ‘I think the colour is
important when I choose. I examined the prices of all the products, but found that the
prices were the same. Most often I chose the colour blue. I feel that orange or reddish
do not give me the same warm feeling’ and ‘It was only the colour, I think. However,
I feel I was more often granted a discount in the Blue shop than in the Orange shop’.
And Participant 39 answered ‘Since I did not know anything about them and both
shops had the similar product, I chose the side that seemed most attractive to me’ and
‘I felt more comfortable being in the Blue shop. The orange colour was tiresome to the
eyes’. Finally, Participant 40 said ‘I chose the Blue shop most of the time, since I
found the orange site a bit too sharp and tiresome to look at. However, once in a while
I bought from the orange shop to see whether it had any influence on the price, etc.’,
and ‘As far as I could see it was the colours that made the difference. The blue site
had a simple colour that was not especially annoying, whereas the orange colour was tire-
some to look at’. From these statements, it is apparent that the behaviour of Participants
15, 39, and 40 was colour sensitive when choosing between alternatives; they were there-
fore excluded from the analysis.

Analysis of preference
As can be seen in Table 2, Participants 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13 (Group 1) showed
preferences for the VR4 alternative. The remaining Participants (11, 14, 16, 17, 18, and
 The Service Industries Journal 2611

Table 2. Choice index and average choice time(s) for Group 1.

Choice index Average choice time (s)
Participants Choice 5– 60 Choice 61 –116 Choice 5– 60 Choice 61–116
On VR4 schedule
2 0.80 0.89 08.37 05.83
3 0.71 0.71 14.62 08.92
4 0.82 0.80 18.32 12.26
5 0.59 0.50 13.11 07.45
7 0.48 0.63 12.12 07.85
9 0.50 0.61 13.60 08.94
10 0.73 0.73 09.51 05.37
13 0.59 1.00 17.73 11.83
VR8 schedule
11 0.41 0.68 10.75 06.46
14 0.77 0.79 21.62 11.21
16 0.57 0.66 14.12 07.78
17 0.84 0.89 07.30 05.60
18 0.64 0.55 09.82 08.66
19 0.45 0.64 12.12 08.35
Participants that did not switch between alternatives and cases where extinction appear are excluded.

19) showed preference for the VR8 alternative. The choice index (Table 2) shows an
increasing value from the first-half session (choice 5 – 60) to the second-half session
(choice 61– 116) for Participants 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19. Table 2 also shows
that average choice times decrease for all participants in Group 1.
For Group 2 (Table 3), Participants 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 38 showed
preference for the VR4 alternative and Participants 32, 33, and 34 showed preference for
the VR16 alternative. Participant 36 was excluded because responses to each alternative

Table 3. Choice index and average choice time(s) for Group 2.

Choice index Average choice time (s)
Participants Choice 5– 60 Choice 61 –116 Choice 5– 60 Choice 61–116
On VR4 schedule
21 0.68 0.73 15.66 12.85
22 0.64 0.77 20.30 21.98
24 0.55 0.63 11.26 09.32
25 0.57 0.66 14.26 10.48
26 0.84 0.86 18.36 11.48
27 0.64 0.70 25.46 10.92
28 0.54 0.57 06.67 05.48
29 0.64 0.59 17.21 13.91
31 0.73 0.59 10.07 08.50
38 0.54 0.54 25.69 18.32
On VR16 schedule
32 0.82 0.64 15.78 14.55
33 0.75 0.77 18.85 13.53
34 0.73 0.73 17.03 12.07
Participants that did not switch between alternatives and cases where extinction appear are excluded. In addition,
Participant 36 was excluded because responses on each alternative were equal.
2612 A. Fagerstrøm et al.

were equal (56 for VR4 and 56 for VR16). From Table 3, it can be seen that the choice
index increases from the first half of the session (choice 5 – 60) to the second half of the
session (choice 61– 116) for Participants 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 33. In addition,
Table 3 shows that average choice time decreases for almost all participants in Group
2; only Participant 22 shows an increase in the average choice time.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent manipulation of environmental
contingencies could contribute to the understanding of how brand loyalty develops by
arranging environmental contingencies. Thus, an experiment with two different schedules
of reinforcement was arranged to study participants’ choice in an online shopping context.
In the present study, preference was studied by arranging different schedules of reinforce-
ment simultaneously for two responses. When one of the alternatives is chosen more
frequently than the others, it is denoted as preference for an alternative source of reinforce-
ment. Results from the present experiment show that responses in nine out of 40 partici-
pants were not under the control of the experimenter-contingencies, one had an equal
preference for the two alternatives, and three participants showed colour sensitive
behaviour. For the remaining 27 participants, 18 showed preference according to the
experimenter-defined contingencies (shop most frequently on the alternative with the
highest number of programmed reinforcements), 9 were not under the control of experi-
menter-defined contingencies (shop most frequently on the alternative with the smallest
number of programmed reinforcements).
Results from the present experiment showed that, of the 27 participants who showed
preference for one of the two alternatives, 17 participants showed a response pattern with
more switching between alternatives in the first phase of the experiment, and a response
pattern with less switching between alternatives in the last phase of the experiment. In
addition, results show that average choice time decreases through training for 26 out of
the 27 participants. Such a change in response pattern is in accord with findings on tran-
sition-state performance which show that steady-state behaviour on concurrent schedules
takes time to develop (Sidman, 1960). Hence, in studies on concurrent schedules, a gradual
change in stimulus control has been observed during the session (Hanna, Blackman, &
Todorov, 1992). This is in accordance with the data from the current study. Also, the
verbal report data indicate this pattern with participants who report less and less switching
between alternatives during the experiment session.
Oliver (1997, p. 392) described the loyal consumer as a person who ‘fervently desires
to rebuy a product or service and will have no other’. Results from the present study
indicate that participants did not tend to act in this way, since 33 out of 40 participants
switched between alternatives. This supports the findings by Ehrenberg (1988) who
showed that in stationary conditions (i.e. the absence of any marked short-term trends
in sales) only a few consumers are loyal to one alternative, and most consumers choose
several brands over a sequence of purchases, selecting them apparently randomly from
a ‘repertoire’ of known alternatives. Ehrenberg (1988) explained these patterns of
behaviour in terms of the functional similarities of alternatives within a product category,
i.e. the consumer typically switches between alternatives because the benefits gained from
one alternative are directly substitutable by those provided by others.
Rule-governed behaviour is quite common in experiments with humans and especially
in experiments with different schedules of reinforcement. For some of the participants in
the current study, the data could be interpreted according to the behaviour governed by
 The Service Industries Journal 2613

self-generated verbalizations about what is going on in the experiment, i.e. the colour pre-
ference. If we had run longer sessions, i.e. more exposure to the contingencies, the effects
of these incidental stimuli could have been minimized.
Analyses of choice and preferences have been related to the matching law. The match-
ing law states that it is a quantitative relationship between the relative rates of response and
the relative rates of reinforcement in concurrent schedules of reinforcement (Herrnstein,
1961, 1970). A number of studies within the area of consumer behaviour have been
done based on panel data and the data analysis based on an interpretation of matching
law (Foxall & James, 2002, 2003; Foxall & Schrezenmaier, 2003; Foxall et al., 2004).
The panel studies are more like an open-setting correlation panel with no control over
reinforcement, and different prices are supposed to be different ratio values. However,
future research should focus on combinations of different concurrent schedules in single
research designs.
Since the current study is a simulation of online purchasing, there are some limit-
ations. First, the participants do not spend their own money when they ‘purchase’
items in the current experiment. However, the experiment presented in this study can
be categorized as a type of computer-simulated microworld study (DiFonzo, Hantula,
& Bordia, 1998). Brehmer (1992) as well as Brehmer and Dörner (1993) define micro-
world as computer-generated simulation environments with which real subjects interact
and that possess, to varying degrees, a dynamic, complex, and opaque character. The
consumer preference experiment presented in this paper can be categorized as a type of
computer-simulated microworld study in which the dynamic aspect is only partly pro-
nounced. The use of simulated microworlds in an on-line education study (Davis &
Hantula, 2001) and e-commerce studies (DiClemente & Hantula, 2003; Rajala &
Hantula, 2000; Smith & Hantula, 2003) have shown that participants do not necessarily
discern a difference between a simulated laboratory setting and the real world. Thus,
microworlds bring favourable features to the study of preferences and the establishment
of brand loyalty, including realism and high levels of control. Second, free delivery was
assumed to be a reinforcer. The effects of free delivery and other types of reinforcers
should be explored further in future experiments. Despite the limitations, the contri-
butions of this study are (1) it offers an indication of how preference and brand loyalty
can be established and (2) it purposes a methodology on how to conduct functional
analysis of consumer preferences and brand loyalty.

Conclusion
The current study extended knowledge about how customer brand loyalty develops by
studying environmental contingencies that shape and maintain preferences. We found
that 18 out of 27 participants showed preferences according to the experimenter-defined
contingencies. In the first phase of the experiment, during the first part of training, we
observed more switching between the alternatives than later in the maintenance phase.
In addition, choice time decreased as a function of the number of trials. The present
experiment showed that it was possible to study consumer preference on concurrent
ratio schedules, where the researcher controls the reinforcement. Moreover, we expanded
knowledge about consumer behaviour when we have a closed-setting experiment with
control over reinforcement, only two options, responses and ‘reinforcement’ presentation
(the free shipment). The current study represents one of only a few attempts to apply
experimental analysis to understand consumer preferences from observing individual
behaviour.
2614 A. Fagerstrøm et al.

References
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., & Lehman, D.R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and prof-
itability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53–66.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., & Tetreault, M.S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71–84.
Bloemer, J.M.M., & Poiesz, T.B.C. (1989). The illusion of customer satisfaction. Journal of
Customer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2, 43–48.
Bolton, R.N. (1995). Linking customer satisfaction to the duration of customer-provider relation-
ships and to revenues. Waltham, MA: GTE Laboratories.
Brehmer, B. (1992). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta
Psychologica, 81, 211–241.
Brehmer, B., & Dörner, D. (1993). Experiments with computersimulated microworlds: Escaping
both the narrow straits of laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Computers in
Human Behavior, 9, 171–184.
Catania, C.A. (2007). Learning (Interim edition, 4 ed.). New York, NY: Sloan Publishing.
Davis, E.S., & Hantula, D.A. (2001). The effects of download delay on performance and end-user
satisfaction in an Internet tutorial. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 249–268.
DiClemente, D.F., & Hantula, D.A. (2003). Optimal foraging online: Increasing sensitivity to delay.
Psychology & Marketing, 20, 785–809.
DiFonzo, N., Hantula, D.A., & Bordia, P. (1998). Microworlds for experimental research: Having
your (control and collection) cake, and realism too. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments & Computers, 30, 278–286.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988). Repeat buying: Facts theory and applications. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Empirisoft. (2007). User’s guide and reference: MediaLabTM version 2008.1. New York, NY:
Empirisoft corporation.
Foxall, G.R. (2010). Invitation to consumer behavior analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 30, 92–109.
Foxall, G.R., & James, V.K. (2002). Behavior analysis of consumer brand choice: A preliminary
analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 209–220.
Foxall, G.R., & James, V.K. (2003). The behavioral ecology of brand choice: How and what do con-
sumers maximize? Psychology and Marketing, 20, 811–836.
Foxall, G.R., Oliveira-Castro, J.M., & Schrezenmaier, T.C. (2004). The behavioral economics of
consumer brand choice: Patterns of reinforcement and utility maximization. Behavioural
Processes, 65, 235–260.
Foxall, G.R., & Schrezenmaier, T.C. (2003). The behavioural economics of consumer brand choice:
Establishing a methodology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 675–695.
Hanna, E.S., Blackman, D.E., & Todorov, J.C. (1992). Stimulus effects on concurrent performance
in transition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 335–347.
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Klee, A. (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality
on customer retention: A critical reassessment and model development. Psychology and
Marketing, 14, 737–764.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of
reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13,
243–266.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. (2005). Marketing management (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
LaBarbera, P., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatis-
faction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of Marketing Research, 20,
393–404.
Newman, J.W., & Werbel, R.A. (1973). Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for major houshold
appliances. Journal of Marketing, 10, 404–409.
Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L., & MacMillan, I.C. (1992). A catastrophe model for developing service
satisfaction strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56, 83–95.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedence and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
 The Service Industries Journal 2615

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Oliver, R.L., & Bearden, W.O. (1985). Disconfirmation processes and consumer evaluation. Journal
of Business Research, 13, 235 –246.
Oliver, R.L., & Swan, J.E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transactions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 21–35.
Pierce, W.D., & Cheney, C.D. (2008). Behavior analysis and learning. New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Rajala, A.K., & Hantula, D.A. (2000). Towards a behavioural ecology of consumption: Delay
reduction effects on foraging in a simulated online mall. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 21, 145–158.
Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, E.W. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard
Business Review, 68, 105–112.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Smith, C.L., & Hantula, D.A. (2003). Pricing effects on foraging in a simulated Internet shopping
mall. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 653–674.