Reason-product (in)compatibility : implications of consumer reasoning for post-choice satisfaction
Abstract/Contents
- Abstract
- This dissertation challenges and extends longstanding research on the topic of deliberative reasoning in consumer choice, a decision strategy whereby consumers carefully consider or articulate their arguments for or against making a choice. This literature has accepted that such reasoning (versus not reasoning) leads to less satisfying choices. I argue that this view is too narrow. Instead, I propose that reasoning does not lead to reduced satisfaction as a rule, but rather as a function of a mismatch between the content of consumers' reasons and the types of products under their consideration. I refer to this as "reason-product (in)compatibility." This framework proposes that deliberative consumer reasoning includes two broad types: reasoning which relies on "cognition-based" reasons, grounded in defensible evaluations and beliefs; and reasoning which relies on "affect-based" reasons, grounded in feelings and emotional reactions. In hedonic product choice contexts, only cognition-based reasoning leads to reduced satisfaction, while in utilitarian contexts, only affect-based reasoning leads to reduced satisfaction. The mechanism behind these results is a change in consumers' choice behavior: the type of reasoning (cognition- or affect-based) influences how consumer evaluate their options, and ultimately, what kind of product they choose (utilitarian or hedonic). Thus, deliberative reasoning appears to lead to less satisfying choices not as a rule, but rather as a result of when the reasons and products are incompatible. By contrast, when reasons and products are compatible, deliberative reasoning does not reduce post-choice satisfaction. I note that much of the extant literature has focused only on the effect of relying on cognition-based reasoning in hedonic contexts. I confirm these patterns of results both in surveys of real world purchase retrospections, and in experimental studies. Finally, I cover the contributions of the work, identify and address alternative accounts and limitations, and outline future research directions.
Description
| Type of resource | text |
|---|---|
| Form | electronic; electronic resource; remote |
| Extent | 1 online resource. |
| Publication date | 2017 |
| Issuance | monographic |
| Language | English |
Creators/Contributors
| Associated with | DePaoli, Alexander Michael |
|---|---|
| Associated with | Stanford University, Graduate School of Business. |
| Primary advisor | Khan, Uzma Aslam |
| Primary advisor | Simonson, Itamar |
| Thesis advisor | Khan, Uzma Aslam |
| Thesis advisor | Simonson, Itamar |
| Thesis advisor | Shiv, Baba, 1960- |
| Advisor | Shiv, Baba, 1960- |
Subjects
| Genre | Theses |
|---|
Bibliographic information
| Statement of responsibility | Alexander Michael DePaoli. |
|---|---|
| Note | Submitted to the Graduate School of Business. |
| Thesis | Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2017. |
| Location | electronic resource |
Access conditions
- Copyright
- © 2017 by Alexander Michael DePaoli
- License
- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC).
Also listed in
Loading usage metrics...