1. Chapter 12 Decision Making II: Alternative Evaluation and Choice
Babin/Harris
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

2. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Learning Outcomes
Understand the difference between evaluative criteria and determinant criteria.
Comprehend how value affects the evaluation of alternatives.
Explain the importance of product categorization in the evaluation of alternatives process.
Distinguish between compensatory and noncompensatory rules that guide consumer choice.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

3. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Decision Making Model
Need recognition
Search for information
Alternative evaluation
Choice
Postchoice evaluation
LO1
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

4. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Evaluative Criteria
The attributes, features, or potential benefits that consumers consider when reviewing possible solutions to a problem.
Feature – a performance characteristic of an object.
Benefit - a perceived favorable result that is derived from the presence of a particular feature.
LO1
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

5. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Determinant Criteria
The evaluative criteria that are related to the actual choice that is made.
Can depend largely on the situation in which a product is consumed.
LO1
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

6. Value and Alternative Evaluation
Hedonic criteria – emotional, symbolic, and subjective attributes or benefits that are associated with an alternative.
Utilitarian criteria – functional or economic aspects associated with an alternative.
Bounded rationality – perfectly rational decisions are not always feasible due to constraints found in information processing.
LO2
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

7. Types of Evaluation Processes
Affect-based evaluation – consumers evaluate products based on the overall feeling that is evoked by the alternative.
Attribute-based evaluation – alternatives are evaluated across a set of attributes that are considered relevant to the purchase situation.
LO2
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

8. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Product Categories
Mental representations of stored knowledge about groups of products.
Category levels:
Superordinate categories – abstract in nature and represent the highest level of categorization.
Subordinate categories – more detailed.
LO3
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

9. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Attributes
Perceptual attributes – visually apparent and easily recognizable.
Search qualities
Underlying attributes – not readily apparent and can only be learned through experience.
Experience qualities
Signal – a characteristic that allows a consumer to diagnose something distinctive about an alternative.
LO3
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

10. Factors Determining Evaluative Criteria Used
Situational influences
Product knowledge
Social influences
Expert opinions
Online sources
Marketing communications
LO3
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

11. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Consumer Judgment
Mental assessments of the presence of attributes and the benefits associated with those attributes.
Consumers make judgments about:
Presence of features
Feature levels
Benefits associated with features
Value associated with the benefit
How objects differ from each other
LO3
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

12. Issues Affecting Consumer Judgments
Just noticeable difference
Attribute correlation
Quality perceptions
Brand name associations
LO3
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

13. Consumer Choice: Decision Rules
Compensatory rules – allow consumers to select products that may perform poorly on one attribute by compensating for the poor performance by good performance on another attribute.
Noncompensatory rules – strict guidelines are set prior to selection, and any option that does not meet the specifications is eliminated from consideration.
LO4
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

14. © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Compensatory Model
Attitude-toward-the-object model (Fishbein model)
LO4
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.

15. Noncompensatory Models
Conjunctive rule
Disjunctive rule
Lexicographic rule
Elimination-by-aspects rule (EBA)
LO4
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.