To Buy or Not to Buy: Response Mode Effects on Consumer Choice

This article extends research on evaluation differences in response modes to situations in which the no-choice option is available. Prior research on choice deferral has presented the no-choice option as just another response option (i.e., an unconditional brand-choice response mode), which has its primary focus on the selection decision. However, consumers in many marketplace situations may consider the buy/no-buy decision before the selection decision (i.e., a buy/no-buy response mode). This article examines the differences in evaluation processes and choice deferral for the two response modes. The authors' theoretical account suggests that an initial focus on the buy/no-buy decision activates greater use of alternative-based evaluations, thus making purchase deferral more sensitive to the valence of shared features and category reference information than in the unconditional brand-choice mode. The authors provide process evidence for their account and consider limiting conditions.

[1]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis , 1980 .

[2]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers , 1987 .

[4]  Sunil Gupta.  Impact of Sales Promotions on when, what, and how Much to Buy , 1988 .

[5]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[6]  J. Chiang.  A Simultaneous Approach to the Whether, What and How Much to Buy Questions , 1991 .

[7]  B. Kahn,et al.  The Influence of External Constraints on Brand Choice: The Lone-Alternative Effect , 1991 .

[8]  Bryan Gibson,et al.  The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment , 1991 .

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision , 1992 .

[10]  G. Kalyanaram,et al.  Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research , 1995 .

[11]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice , 1996 .

[12]  R. Dhar.  The Effect of Decision Strategy on Deciding to Defer Choice , 1996 .

[13]  Timothy B. Heath,et al.  Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty☆ , 1996 .

[14]  I. Simonson,et al.  Attribute–Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals: , 1997 .

[15]  R. Dhar.  Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[16]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions , 1998 .

[17]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together? , 1998 .

[18]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

[19]  Lyle Brenner,et al.  Comparison, Grouping, and Preference , 1999 .

[20]  B. Shiv,et al.  Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making , 1999 .

[21]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral , 1999 .

[22]  Randolph E. Bucklin,et al.  The Role of Internal Reference Points in the Category Purchase Decision , 1999 .

[23]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Comparison Effects on Preference Construction , 1999 .

[24]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[25]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice , 2003 .