The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets
Abstract
If utility (net of price) varies by consumption occasion, the consideration set of a rational consumer will represent trade-offs between decision costs and the incremental benefits of choosing from a larger set of brands. If evaluating a brand decreases biases and uncertainty in perceived utility, the decision to evaluate a brand for inclusion in a consideration set is different from the decision to consider an evaluated brand. The decision to consume is, in turn, different from the decision to consider. This article provides analytical expressions for these decision criteria and presents four aggregate implications of the model: (1 ) distributions of consideration set sizes, (2) order-of-entry penalties, (3) dynamic advertising response, and (4) competitive promotion intensity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Cited by
When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995 · Cited by 2,878
Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids
Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.19.1.4.15178 · Cited by 1,731
Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2000) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(00)00024-5 · Cited by 1,571
Understanding online purchase intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives
van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000445 · Cited by 1,230
Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand
Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0020198 · Cited by 1,141
Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651235 · Cited by 1,070
Hajli, N., Sims, J., Zadeh, A. H., & Richard, M.-O. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.004 · Cited by 644
Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation
Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/s0167-8116(98)00022-6 · Cited by 603
UPC Scanner Pricing Systems: Are They Accurate?
Goodstein, R. C. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800202 · Cited by 265
Opportunity Cost Consideration
Spiller, S. A. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/660045 · Cited by 236
Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience
Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2004) · Marketing Theory · doi:10.1177/1470593104047643 · Cited by 213
Structural Estimation of the Effect of Out-of-Stocks
Musalem, A., Olivares, M., Bradlow, E. T., Terwiesch, C., & Corsten, D. (2010) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1170 · Cited by 196
Li, X., Grahl, J., & Hinz, O. (2022) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2021.1074 · Cited by 93
Active Machine Learning for Consideration Heuristics
Dzyabura, D., & Hauser, J. R. (2011) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1110.0660 · Cited by 92
Self-citationSatisficing: Integrating Two Traditions
Artinger, F. M., Gigerenzer, G., & Jacobs, P. (2022) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20201396 · Cited by 90
The moderating role of switching barriers on customer loyalty in the life insurance industry
Chen, M.-F., & Wang, L.-H. (2009) · The Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642060902764574 · Cited by 86
Consumer search: What can we learn from pre-purchase data?
Honka, E., Seiler, S., & Ursu, R. (2024) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2024.02.003 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1990-03-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 393-408
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2093507294
- Cited by
- 1,021
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 36.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
