Cue-based decision making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved food consumer
Abstract
This article examines the processes that occur within the consumer's head as they make a choice between alternative market offers at a low level of involvement. It discusses recent research that indicates that the Theory of Planned Behaviour and its derivatives have restricted validity as a predictor of food consumers' evaluations and purchase patterns. This has significant implications as Planned Behaviour is the dominant paradigm within food industry research. The article demonstrates that Planned Behaviour has acquired this status more by default than by proven merit. The specific reasons for the failure of Planned Behaviour are discussed. An alternative paradigm, Cue-Based Decision Making is developed from an existing literature, and is proposed as a basis for increasing our understanding of the uninvolved food consumer in order to predict and influence their behaviour.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The consumer behaviour research literature cannot at present offer a widely accepted model of low-involvement decision making, which leads to the application of high-involvement decision models to low-involvement FMCG decisions by a process of default.
“the remarkable fact that the consumer behaviour research literature cannot at present offer a widely accepted model of low-involvement decision making [65], which leads to the application of high-involvement decision models to low-involvement FMCG decisions by a process of default [66].”
From Marketing Tactics for Sustainable Fashion and the Circular Economy: The Impact of Ethical Labels on Fast Fashion Choice (2023) · cites this paper as [66]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 70 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Hamlin, R. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Hamlin, Robert P.
- ORCID
- Hamlin, Robert P.
- Venue
- Appetite
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 89-98
- ISSN
- 0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049392509
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Appetite (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- food consumers, theory of planned behavior, consumer choice, purchase behaviour, customer behavior prediction
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Behavior, Cognition, Consumer Behavior, Cues, Decision Making, Food Preferences, Humans, Models, Psychological, Food Industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
