台大消费者行为pre-purchase evaluation
合集下载
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
AND
Consideration set
Choice
DECISION MAKING
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
High Effort Evaluation Process
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Loyalty: consumer actively seeks out product
Evaluative criteria Epson Canon Compaq Samsung IBM
Price Weight
5
3
3
4
2
3
4
5
4
3
Processor
5
5
5
2
5
Battery life
1
3
1
4
1
After-sale support
3
3
4
3
5
Display quality
3
3
3
5
3
* evaluations: 1 = very poor; 5 = very good ,
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Noncompensatory Attribute Processing Models
Lexicographic Model
Attributes ordered by importance If one alternative dominates on that attribute, it is chosen; otherwise, proceed to next most important attribute I want to get the brand that does best on the attribute(s) most important to me.
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NONCOMPENSATORY
EVALUATION
SURVIVING ALTERNATIVES
COMPENSATORY EVALUATION
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Low Effort Evaluation Process
____ 370
Toshiba 1 4 5 5 3 3
Importance 30 25 10 05 10 20
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Compensatory Attribute Processing Models
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Type of Low-Effort Evaluation Process
Choice Heuristics • Performance-related tactics
• Habit tactics Choice Heuristics • Variety seeking tactics • Normative tactics
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Some Common Heuristics
Representativeness: Comparison to known alternatives Availability: More accessible or vivid impressions are more impactful
Contextual effect and decision making
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Making Choices
All brands in
Compensatory Brand Processing Models
Multiattribute Models (or weighted
additive rule)
n
Ab
(bi x Ii)
i 1
Ab Attitude toward
brand i
bi Belief strength associated
Additive Difference Model
Brands Compared by Attribute, Two at a Time Differences Added Up as Decision Maker Proceeds by Attribute; e.g.:
Epson Canon Diff
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Definition
Heuristic: A simplified decision rule frequently employed by consumers to make a satisfactory decision of limited importance. In a heuristic, some available information is not processed.
Pre-Purchase Evaluation
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Overview
High effort evaluation process
Low effort evaluation process
If choosing among unfamiliar products...
• Choose something different. Live a little!
• Choose the one others recommend.
• Price-tactics
• Buy the least expensive (or the most expensive, depending on your beliefs about relationship between price and quality).
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Brand Loyalty vs. Habit
Habit: consumer picks product without much thought; may be due to convenience
Consumers tend to employ very simple heuristics or choice tactics in making decisions when motivation and ability are low, e.g.,
decision is of limited importance Few product differences perceived Distractions or time constraints
Score for Samsung Score for Epson
30 * 4 = 120 25 * 4 = 100 10 * 2 = 20 05 * 4 = 20 10 * 3 = 30 20 * 5 = 100
____ 390
30 * 5 = 150 25 * 3 = 75 10 * 5 = 50 05 * 1 = 05 10 * 3 = 30 20 * 3 = 60
If choosing among familiar products...
• Choose the product that you think works best - that provides the best level of performance. • Select the one you typically buy as long as it is satisfactory.
Elimination by Aspects (EBA)
Attributes ordered by importance; alternatives acceptable on first attribute proceed to evaluation on further attributes I will eliminate any brands that have a value of 3 or below, beginning with the most important attribute.
with attribute i
Ii Importance of attribute I
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
• Evaluations of brands as good or bad based on information retrieved from memory or generated through external search. • Importance weights based on needs, values, goals, problem recognition
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Reality of Consumer Decision Making
Consumers may use multiple decisionmaking strategies Emotions and imagery often accompany rational, cognitive analysis
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Noncompensatory Brand Processing Models
Conjunctive Models (Weight on Negative Info)
Minimum Cutoffs Set for Each Attribute (Reject if Below Cutoff) Need Additional Rule to Rule Out Remaining Alternatives (If More Than One)
Known brands
Brands found accidentally
Brands found through
search
Brands recalled from memory
Unrecalled brands
Inept set
(unacceptable)
JUDGMENT
Inert set
(indifference)
Disjunctive Model (Weight on Positive Info)
Acceptable Levels for Attributes Decided (Reject if Below Cutoff) Decision Based on Several, but Not All, Important Attributes
Price
5
3
2
Weight
3
4
-1
Processor
5
5
0
Battery Life
1
3
-2
After Sale Support 3
3
0
Display Quality 3
3
0
-----------------------------
TOTAL
-1 (Canon is marginally
better)
Consideration set
Choice
DECISION MAKING
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
High Effort Evaluation Process
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Loyalty: consumer actively seeks out product
Evaluative criteria Epson Canon Compaq Samsung IBM
Price Weight
5
3
3
4
2
3
4
5
4
3
Processor
5
5
5
2
5
Battery life
1
3
1
4
1
After-sale support
3
3
4
3
5
Display quality
3
3
3
5
3
* evaluations: 1 = very poor; 5 = very good ,
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Noncompensatory Attribute Processing Models
Lexicographic Model
Attributes ordered by importance If one alternative dominates on that attribute, it is chosen; otherwise, proceed to next most important attribute I want to get the brand that does best on the attribute(s) most important to me.
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NONCOMPENSATORY
EVALUATION
SURVIVING ALTERNATIVES
COMPENSATORY EVALUATION
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Low Effort Evaluation Process
____ 370
Toshiba 1 4 5 5 3 3
Importance 30 25 10 05 10 20
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Compensatory Attribute Processing Models
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Type of Low-Effort Evaluation Process
Choice Heuristics • Performance-related tactics
• Habit tactics Choice Heuristics • Variety seeking tactics • Normative tactics
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Some Common Heuristics
Representativeness: Comparison to known alternatives Availability: More accessible or vivid impressions are more impactful
Contextual effect and decision making
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Making Choices
All brands in
Compensatory Brand Processing Models
Multiattribute Models (or weighted
additive rule)
n
Ab
(bi x Ii)
i 1
Ab Attitude toward
brand i
bi Belief strength associated
Additive Difference Model
Brands Compared by Attribute, Two at a Time Differences Added Up as Decision Maker Proceeds by Attribute; e.g.:
Epson Canon Diff
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Definition
Heuristic: A simplified decision rule frequently employed by consumers to make a satisfactory decision of limited importance. In a heuristic, some available information is not processed.
Pre-Purchase Evaluation
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Overview
High effort evaluation process
Low effort evaluation process
If choosing among unfamiliar products...
• Choose something different. Live a little!
• Choose the one others recommend.
• Price-tactics
• Buy the least expensive (or the most expensive, depending on your beliefs about relationship between price and quality).
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Brand Loyalty vs. Habit
Habit: consumer picks product without much thought; may be due to convenience
Consumers tend to employ very simple heuristics or choice tactics in making decisions when motivation and ability are low, e.g.,
decision is of limited importance Few product differences perceived Distractions or time constraints
Score for Samsung Score for Epson
30 * 4 = 120 25 * 4 = 100 10 * 2 = 20 05 * 4 = 20 10 * 3 = 30 20 * 5 = 100
____ 390
30 * 5 = 150 25 * 3 = 75 10 * 5 = 50 05 * 1 = 05 10 * 3 = 30 20 * 3 = 60
If choosing among familiar products...
• Choose the product that you think works best - that provides the best level of performance. • Select the one you typically buy as long as it is satisfactory.
Elimination by Aspects (EBA)
Attributes ordered by importance; alternatives acceptable on first attribute proceed to evaluation on further attributes I will eliminate any brands that have a value of 3 or below, beginning with the most important attribute.
with attribute i
Ii Importance of attribute I
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
• Evaluations of brands as good or bad based on information retrieved from memory or generated through external search. • Importance weights based on needs, values, goals, problem recognition
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Reality of Consumer Decision Making
Consumers may use multiple decisionmaking strategies Emotions and imagery often accompany rational, cognitive analysis
Copyright © 2001 Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Noncompensatory Brand Processing Models
Conjunctive Models (Weight on Negative Info)
Minimum Cutoffs Set for Each Attribute (Reject if Below Cutoff) Need Additional Rule to Rule Out Remaining Alternatives (If More Than One)
Known brands
Brands found accidentally
Brands found through
search
Brands recalled from memory
Unrecalled brands
Inept set
(unacceptable)
JUDGMENT
Inert set
(indifference)
Disjunctive Model (Weight on Positive Info)
Acceptable Levels for Attributes Decided (Reject if Below Cutoff) Decision Based on Several, but Not All, Important Attributes
Price
5
3
2
Weight
3
4
-1
Processor
5
5
0
Battery Life
1
3
-2
After Sale Support 3
3
0
Display Quality 3
3
0
-----------------------------
TOTAL
-1 (Canon is marginally
better)