Goal-Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice

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.

[1]  Ran Kivetz,et al.  Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence , 2002 .

[2]  E. Higgins,et al.  Enjoying Goal-Directed Action: The Role of Regulatory Fit , 2002, Psychological science.

[3]  Joel Brockner,et al.  Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events , 2002 .

[4]  J. Förster,et al.  The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  HEDONIC AND UTILITARIAN MOTIVATIONS FOR ONLINE RETAIL SHOPPING BEHAVIOR , 2001 .

[6]  Joel Brockner,et al.  Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work , 2001 .

[7]  Jennifer Aaker,et al.  “I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion , 2001 .

[8]  Rashmi Adaval Sometimes It Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect-Consistent and Affect- Inconsistent Product Information , 2001 .

[9]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  The Impact of Common Features on Consumer Preferences: A Case of Confirmatory Reasoning , 2001 .

[10]  E. Higgins Making a good decision: value from fit. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[11]  N. Liberman,et al.  Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity , 2000 .

[12]  R. Dhar,et al.  Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods , 2000 .

[13]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect , 1999 .

[14]  M. Strahilevitz,et al.  Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You are Trying to Sell , 1998 .

[15]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. , 1998 .

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

[17]  E. Higgins,et al.  Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations : Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making , 1997 .

[18]  E. Higgins,et al.  Beyond pleasure and pain. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[19]  E. Higgins,et al.  Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of regulatory focus as moderator. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[21]  I. Simonson,et al.  The Effect of New Product Features on Brand Choice , 1996 .

[22]  William R. Darden,et al.  Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value , 1994 .

[23]  E. Higgins,et al.  Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[25]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

[26]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Insights in decision making : a tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn , 1990 .

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[28]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences , 1989 .

[29]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

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

[31]  E. Hirschman,et al.  Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions , 1982 .