The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goal–Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice
Abstract
This research advances the notion that product evaluations are a function of the compatibility of consumers’ goals with the attributes describing choice alternatives. Building on the concept of self-regulation, it is argued that attribute evaluations are moderated by individuals’ goal orientation and, specifically, that attributes compatible with individuals’ regulatory orientation tend to be overweighted in choice. This proposition is tested by examining the impact of goal orientation on consumer preferences in 3 different contexts: (a) hedonic versus utilitarian attributes, (b) performance versus reliability attributes, and (c) attractive versus unattractive (good vs. bad) attributes. The data show that prevention-focused individuals are more likely to overweight (in relative terms) utilitarian, reliability-related, and unattractive attributes than promotion-focused consumers, who are more likely to place relatively more weight on hedonic, performance-related, and attractive attributes. Considered together, these findings support the proposition that attributes compatible with individuals’ goal orientation tend to be overweighted in choice.
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
Higgins, E. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 · Cited by 6,775
Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209376 · Cited by 6,020
Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298204600314 · Cited by 5,616
The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001 · Cited by 1,094
Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 · Cited by 964
Cited by
Does variety seeking vary between hedonic and utilitarian products? The role of attribute type
Baltas, G., Kokkinaki, F., & Loukopoulou, A. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1649 · Cited by 115
Inspiration and wellness tourism: The role of cognitive appraisal
Liu, B., Li, Y., Kralj, A., Moyle, B., & He, M. (2022) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2022.2061676 · Cited by 113
Lee, K., Lee, K. Y., & Sheehan, L. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09975-1 · Cited by 95
Perceived Marketplace Influence and Consumer Ethical Action
Bret Leary, R., Vann, R. J., & Mittelstaedt, J. D. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/joca.12220 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Chernev, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 141-150
- ISSN
- 1057-7408 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7663
- OpenAlex
- W2032035405
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 4.28
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Goal–Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_16
- The paper
- Chernev, A. (2004). Goal–Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401%262_16
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.