Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper extends the familiar multi-stage framework for choice by explicitly describing the role that goals play at each stage. We first present a typology of goals, ranging from content to process and from immediate to long-term illustrating it in the context of two examples—purchasing a new car and earthquake retrofitting. We then delineate each stage of the choice process based on recent advances from the descriptive literature on the influence of the various goals. Finally, we draw the prescriptive implications as to how goals can inform what we know, or need to know, about the choice process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1–16 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (2008). Consumer decision making: A goals choice approach (chapter 23, pp. 589–610). In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (in press).

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217 (December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S., Carlson, K. A., & Keeney, R. (2008). Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Science, 54, 56–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brendl, C. M., Markman, A. B., & Messner, C. (2003). The devaluation effect: Activating a need devalues unrelated objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 463–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K. A. (2007). Consumers’ decision process goals. Working paper, Duke University.

  • Carlson, K. A., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(1), 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models. American Psychologist, 34(7), 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (1999). Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: Highlighting versus balancing. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1990: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 199–235). Lincoln, NE, USA: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., Dhar, R., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Subgoals as substitutes or complements: The role of goal accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 232–242 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not unto temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 296–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, C., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2005). Behavior activation is not enough. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 218–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives. Science, 1. 302(5649), 1338–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, U., & Dhar, R. (2007). Where there is a way, is there a will? The effect of future choices on self-control” (with U. Khan). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2007). Practical value models. In W. Edwards, R. F. Miles Jr, & D. von Winterfeldt (Eds.) Advances in decision analysis. New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2007). Goals and plans in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(3), 137–168 (June).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A., et al. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. (2001). Protective decisions: Fear or prudence. In S. J. Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, & R. E. Gunther (Eds.) Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. (2006). Disaster mitigation and insurance: learning from Katrina. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 208–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laran, J., Janiszewski, C., & Cunha, M. Jr. (2007). Content-dependent effects of goal primes. Working paper, University of Florida.

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 409–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (2001). Emotional decisions: Tradeoff difficulty and coping in consumer choice. Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (1999). Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranyard, R. (1997). Decision-making: Cognitive models and explanations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rettinger, D. A., & Hastie, R. (2001). Content effects on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 336–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12, 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., & Carlson, K. A. (2002). Individual decision-making. In B. Weitz, & R. Wensley (Eds.) Handbook of marketing, (pp. 371–408). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., & Yong, K. (2007). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. Working Paper, Cornell University, August.

  • Russo, J. E., & Kolzow, K. J. (1994). Where is the fault in fault trees? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(1), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Managing frames to make better decisions. In S. J. Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, & R. E. Gunther (Eds.) Wharton on making decisions (pp. 131–155). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, C. M., et al. (2002). Case-based learning: Predictive features in indexing. In T. A. Polk, & C. M. Seifert (Eds.) Cognitive modeling (pp. 987–1007). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280 (December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., et al. (2008). Nonconscious goals and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research (in press).

  • Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49, 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., et al. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: Affect and deliberation in donation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Osselaer, S. M. J., et al. (2005). Choice based on goals. Marketing Letters, 16(3–4), 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U. (1997). The utility of measuring and modeling perceived risk. In A. A. J. Marley (Ed.) Choice, decision, and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce (pp. 45–57). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yntema, D. B., & Torgerson, W. S. (1961). Man-computer cooperation in decisions requiring common sense. IRE Transactions of the Professional Group on Human Factors in Electronics, 2, 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Kurt A. Carlson, Ralph L. Keeney & Mary Frances Luce

  2. Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Chris Janiszewski

  3. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    David H. Krantz

  4. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, 500 Jon M. Huntsman Hall, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Howard C. Kunreuther

  5. JGSM, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853-6201, USA

    J. Edward Russo

  6. RSM Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Stijn M. J. van Osselaer

  7. Lewis Hall, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Detlof von Winterfeldt

Authors
  1. Kurt A. Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Janiszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralph L. Keeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David H. Krantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Howard C. Kunreuther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mary Frances Luce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Edward Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stijn M. J. van Osselaer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Detlof von Winterfeldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Edward Russo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlson, K.A., Janiszewski, C., Keeney, R.L. et al. A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis. Mark Lett 19, 241–254 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9043-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9043-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation