Chapter 12
Decision Making II:
Alternative Evaluation and
Choice
BABIN / HARRIS
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
Learning Outcomes
LO1
Understand the difference between evaluative
criteria and determinant criteria.
LO2
Comprehend how value affects the evaluation of
alternatives.
LO3
Explain the importance of product categorization
in the evaluation of alternatives process.
LO4
Distinguish between compensatory and
noncompensatory rules that guide consumer
choice.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-2
LO1
Exhibit 12.1: Consumer Decision
Making Process
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-3
LO1
Understand the difference
between evaluative criteria and
determinant criteria.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
LO1
Evaluative Criteria
The attributes, features, or
potential benefits that
consumers consider when
reviewing possible solutions
to a problem.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-5
LO1
Features and Benefits
Feature – snooze
button.
Benefit – kinder way
to wake up.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-6
LO1
Value Equation
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-7
LO1
Determinant Criteria
The evaluative criteria that
are related to the actual
choice that is made.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-8
LO1 Example of a Determinant Criterion
The ultra-sleek
design of the
MacBook Air
makes thinness a
determinant
criterion for
consumers.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-9
LO2
Comprehend how value affects
the evaluation of alternatives.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
LO2
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.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-11
LO2
Types of Evaluation Processes
Affect-based evaluation
Evaluate products based
on the overall feeling that
is evoked by the
alternative.
Attribute-based evaluation
Evaluate alternatives across a
set of attributes that are
considered relevant to the
purchase situation.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-12
LO3
Explain the importance of
product categorization in the
evaluation of alternatives
process.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
LO3
Product Categories
• Mental representations of stored
knowledge about groups of
products.
• Category levels:
– Superordinate
– Subordinate
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-14
LO3
Exhibit 12.4: Superordinate and
Subordinate Categorization
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-15
LO3
Factors Determining
Evaluative Criteria Used
•
•
•
•
•
•
Situational influences
Product knowledge
Social influences
Expert opinions
Online sources
Marketing communications
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-16
LO3
Social Influences
Social influences have a substantial
effect on consumer decision making.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-17
LO3
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
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-18
LO3
Issues Affecting Consumer
Judgments
Just noticeable
difference
Attribute correlation
Quality perceptions
Brand name
associations
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-19
LO3
Get Real!
At the heart of the issue with
counterfeit products is whether
consumers can tell the difference
between a fake and the original. The
just noticeable difference applies
here.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-20
LO3
Brand Names and Judgment
What can a brand name tell you
about a product?
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-21
LO4
Distinguish between
compensatory and
noncompensatory rules that
guide consumer choice.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
LO4 Consumer Choice: Decision Rules
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-23
LO4 Application of a Decision Rule
Example of a noncompensatory model (negative info.
leads to the immediate rejection of the brand):
Product: snack food
Criteria
Importance
Taste
1
Price
2
Nutrition
3
Convenience 4
A
exc
vg
g
fa
B
exc
g
g
g
C
vg
exc
p
g
D
exc
fa
exc
exc
Result: Brand A wins
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-24
LO4 Application of a Decision Rule
Example of a compensatory model (consumers choose the
brand with the best positive/neg. feature ratio):
Product: snack food
Criteria
Importance
Taste
1
Price
2
Nutrition
3
Convenience 4
A
exc
vg
g
fa
B
exc
g
g
g
C
vg
exc
p
g
D
exc
fa
exc
exc
Result: Brand D wins
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-25
LO4
Choosing a Car
This is a highly
involving decision
and probably
involves both
compensatory and
noncompensatory
rules.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-26
LO4
Retail Outlet Selection
Online retailers have to thoroughly
describe the evaluative criteria that
consumers may use.
© 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning.
12-27