Abstract
Due to its origins in the literature on judgment and decision-making, context effects in marketing are construed exclusively in terms of how choices deviate from utility maximization principles as a function of how choices are presented (e.g., framing, sequence, composition). This limits our understanding of a range of other relevant context effects on choice. This paper broadens the scope of context effects to include social (e.g., with friends or family) and situational factors (e.g., location (home/store), time, weather).We define contexts as any factor that has the potential to shift the choice outcomes by altering the process by which the decision is made. We use this lens to integrate the psychology literature on habitual choice, System I and II decision-making, and a recent stream of empirical work that involves social and situational effects into the scope of context effects. We distinguish between exogenous and endogenous context effects, based on whether the decision-maker chooses the context. We then discuss issues of empirically identifying context effects when using either experimentally generated data or naturally occurring secondary data. We conclude with a discussion of trends and opportunities for new research on context effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In some cases, the line between innate preferences and other decision processes might be blurred, such as under the theory of context-dependent constructed preferences [8].
One could argue that the EBA strategy is rather conscious and intentional, and as such should be characterized as Type 2 processing. However, Shah and Oppenheimer [68] classify it as a heuristic that examines fewer cues, integrates less information, and examines fewer alternatives than under a fully compensatory model in System 2. In addition, both intuitive (System 1) and deliberate (System 2) thinking can be conscious and nonconscious in nature (Evans and [24]).
References
Amir O, Levav J (2008) Choice construction versus preference construction: the instability of preferences learned in context. J Mark Res 45(2):145–148. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.2.145
Andrews M, Luo X, Zheng F, Ghose A (2016) Mobile ad effectiveness: hyper-contextual targeting with crowdedness. Mark Sci 35(2):218–233. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0905
Arora N, Huber J (2001) Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization in choice experiments. J Consum Res 028(2):273–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/322902
Arora N, Henderson T, Liu Q (2011) Non-compensatory dyadic choices. Mark Sci 30(6):1028–1047. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0667
Ataman MB, Rooderkerk RP, Otter T (2017) Context dependence in stated choice experiments, Working Paper
Barsalou LW (1982) Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Mem Cogn 10(1):82–93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197629
Ben-Akiva M, de Palma A, McFadden D, Abou-Zeid M, Chiappori P-A, de Lapparent M, Durlauf SN et al (2012) Process and context in choice models. Mark Lett 23(2):439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9180-7
Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J Consum Res 25(3):187–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535
Boldt L, Arora N (2017) Dyadic compromise effect. Mark Sci 30(3):436–452
Bollinger B, Gillingham K (2012) Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark Sci 31(6):900–912. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0727
Bradley JV (1958) Complete counterbalancing of immediate sequential effects in a Latin square design. J Am Stat Assoc 53(June):525–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501456
Bronnenberg BJ, Dubé J-P, Gentzkow M (2012) The evolution of brand preferences: evidence from consumer migration. Am Econ Rev 102(6):2472–2508
Carden, Lucas, Wood, Wendy, Neal, David T., Pascoe, Anthony. (2017) "Incentives Activate ControlMindset: Benefits Deliberate Behaviors but Impedes Habit Performance." Journal of the Association forConsumer Research, 2(3).
Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(5):752–766
Chandon P, Wesley Hutchinson J, Bradlow ET, Young S (2009) Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J Mark 73(6):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.1
Chandon P, Ordabayeva N (2009) Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and preferences. J Mark Res 46(6):739–775. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.6.739
Cheema A, Soman D (2008) The effect of partitions on controlling consumption. J Mark Res 45(6):665–675. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.665
Cumming G (2014) The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci 25(1):7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
Dellaert BGC, Swait J, Vic Adamowicz WL, Arentze TA, Bruch EE, Cherchi E, Chorus C, Donkers B, Feinberg FM, Marley AAJ, Court Salisbury L (2017) Individuals decisions in the presence of multiple goals, forthcoming in Customer Needs and Solutions
Dhar R, Gorlin M (2013) A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. J Consum Psychol 23(4):528–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.002
Eliaz K, Spiegler R (2011) Consideration sets and competitive marketing. Rev Econ Stud 78(1):235–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdq016
Ent MR, Baumeister RF, Tice DM (2015) Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation. Personal Individ Differ 74:12–15
Evans JSBT (2012) Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Think Reason 18(1):5–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2011.637674
Evans JSBT, Stanovich K (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(3):223–241
Evans JSBT, Handley SJ, Harper CNJ (2001) Necessity, possibility, and belief: a study of syllogistic reasoning. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 54(3):935–958
Galla BM, Duckworth AL (2015) More than resisting temptation: beneficial habits mediate the relationship between self-control and positive life outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 109(3):508–525
Gardete P (2015) Social effect in the in-flight marketplace: characterization and managerial implications. J Mark Res 52(3):360–374. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0527
Geier A, Wansink B, Rozin P (2012) Red potato chips: segmentation cues can substantially decrease food intake. Health Psychol 31(3):398–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027221
Gneezy A (2017) Field experimentation in marketing research. J Mark Res 54(1):140–143. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0225
Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Laura D (2014) Reference-dependent model of the price-quality heuristic. J Mark Res 51(April):153–164
Griffin D, Liu W, Khan U (2005) A new look at constructed choice processes. Mark Lett 16(3-4):321–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-005-5895-z
Hansen K, Singh V, Kahn R (2016) Aging and decision making: evidence from a mundane activity, mimeo
Hedgcock W, Rao AR (2009) Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: a functional effect magnetic resonance imaging study. J Mark Res 46(February):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.1
Huang G, Khwaja A, Sudhir K (2015) Short-run needs and long-term goals: a dynamic model of thirst management. Mark Sci 34(5):702–721. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0939
Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33(3):307–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152127
Hutchison JW, Kamakura WA, Lynch JG Jr (2000) Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for ‘reversal’ effects in behavioral research. J Consum Res 27(December):324–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/317588
John LK, Donnelly GE, Roberto CA (2017) Psychologically informed implementations of sugary drink portion limits. Psychol Sci 28(5):620–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617692041
Johnson EJ, Goldstein D (2003) Do defaults save lives? Science 302(5649):1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721
Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilvich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics of intuitive judgment: extensions and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39(4):341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
Karmarkar U, Bollinger B (2015) BYOB: how bringing your own shopping bags leads to treating yourself and the environment. J Mark 79(4):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0228
Kelman M, Rottenstreich Y, Tversky A (1996) Context-dependence in legal decision making. J Leg Stud 25(2):287–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/467979
Kessels R, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2006) A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. J Mark Res 43(3):409–419. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.409
Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V (2004) Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J Mark Res 41(August):237–257. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.3.237.35990
Kivetz R, Netzer O, Schrift R (2008) The synthesis of preference: bridging behavioral decision research and marketing science. J Consum Psychol 18:179–186
Klauer KC, Musch J, Naumer B (2000) On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychol Rev 107(4):852–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852
Kuhfeld WF, Tobias R (2005) Large factorial designs for product engineering and marketing research applications. Technometrics 47(2):132–141
Lamp S (2015) Projection bias in solar electricity markets, Working Paper
Lee L, Amir O, Ariely D (2009) In search of homo economicus: cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. J Consum Res 36.2:173–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/597160
Li C, Luo X, Cheng Z, Wamg X (2017) Sunny, rainy, and cloudy with a chance of mobile promotion effectiveness. Mark Sci 36(5):762–779. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2017.1044
Liu W (2008) Focusing on desirability: the effect of decision interruption and suspension on preferences. J Consum Res 35(4, December):640–652
Liu W, Simonson I (2017) Sequential shortlists, working paper
Louviere JJ, Woodworth GG (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 20(November):350–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151440
Lubow RE, Rifkin A, Alek M (1976) B The context effect: the relationship between stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determines subsequent learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 2.1:38
Lucas RE (1976) Econometric policy evaluation: a critique. Carn-Roch Conf Ser Public Policy 1:19–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2231(76)80003-6
Lynch JG Jr (2015) Handout 10: within subjects ANOVA—omnibus analysis and contrasts. Teaching Note
Mailath GJ, Postlewaite A (2003) The social context of economic decisions. J Eur Econ Assoc 1(2/3):354–362. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322390991
Miller G, Mobarak AM (2015) Learning about new technologies through social networks: experimental evidence on nontraditional stoves in Bangladesh. Mark Sci 34(4):480–499. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0845
Neal DT, Wood W, Labrecque JS, Lally P (2012) How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. J Exp Soc Psychol 48(2):492–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.011
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances of experimental social psychology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 123–205
Pocheptsova A, Amir O, Dhar R, Baumeister RF (2009) Deciding without resources: resource depletion and choice in context. J Mark Res 46(2):344–355. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.344
Qing Liu and Neeraj Arora (2011) “Efficient choice designs for a consider-then choose model,” Marketing Science, 30(2): pp 321–338.
Ratner RK, Soman D, Zauberman G, Ariely D, Carmon Z, Keller PA, Kim BK, Lin F, Malkoc S, Small DA, Wertenbroch K (2008) How behavioral decision research can enhance consumer welfare: from freedom of choice to paternalistic intervention. Mark Lett 19(3-4):383–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9044-3
Rooderkerk RP, van Heerde HJ, Bijmolt T (2011) Incorporating context effects into a choice model. J Mark Res 48(4):767–780. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.4.767
Sándor Z, Wedel M (2002) Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Mark Sci 21(4):455–475
Sela A, LeBoeuf RA (2017) Comparison neglect in upgrade decisions. J Mark Res 54(August):556–571. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0394
Sela A, Berger J, Liu W (2009) Variety, vice, and virtue: how assortment size influences option choice. J Consum Res 35(6, April):941–951
Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM (2008) Heuristics made easy: an effort reduction framework. Psychol Bull 134(2):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207
Sharpe KM, Staelin R, Huber J (2008) Using extremeness aversion to fight obesity: policy implications of context dependent demand. J Consum Res 35(October):406–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/587631
Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consum Res 16(September):158–174. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205
Simonson I, Nowlis SM (2000) The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: unconventional choices based on reasons. J Consum Res 27(1):49–68
Simonson I, Sela A (2011) On the heritability of consumer decision making: an explanatory approach for studying genetic effects on judgment and choice. J Consum Res 37(6):951–966
Smith SA, E Vela (2001), Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis, Psychon Bull Rev, 8 (2), 203–220, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196157
Stanovich KE, West RF (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci 23(5):645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
Sudhir K (2016) Editorial: the exploration-exploitation tradeoff and efficiency in knowledge production. Mark Sci 35(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0974
Sudhir K, Talukdar D (2015) The ‘Peter Pan syndrome’ in emerging markets: the productivity-transparency trade-off in IT adoption. Mark Sci 34(4):500–521
Sudhir K, Tewari I (2015) Long term effects of ‘prosperity in youth’ on consumption: evidence from China. Working Paper, Yale School of Management
Sudhir K, Roy S, Cherian M (2016) Do sympathy biases induce charitable giving? The effects of advertising content, Mark Sci, forthcoming
Swait J, Adamowicz W, Hanemann M, Diederich A, Krosnick J, Layton D, Provencher W, Schkade D, Tourangeau R (2002) Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Mark Lett 13(3):195–205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020262503119
Tetlock PE (1985) Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. Res Organ Behav 7:297–332
Thaler RH (1999) Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Mak 12(3):183–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F
Time.com (2017) Apple-watch is getting way better heart-rate monitoring. Appeared online on September 12, 2017
Tversky A (1972) Eliminations by aspects: a theory of choices. Psychol Rev 79(4):281–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955
Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39(10):1179–1189
Wakefield KL, Inman JJ (2003) Situational price sensitivity: the role of consumption occasion, social context and income. J Retail 79(4):199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2003.09.004
Wedel M, Pieters R (2008) A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Rev Mark Res 4, Naresh K. Malhotra, ed. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 123-147
Wernerfelt, Birger (1995), "A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: using market data to infer utilities," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 627–633.
Wood W, Rünger D (2016) Psychology of habit. Annu Rev Psychol 67:289–314
Wood W, Tam L, Guerrero M (2005) Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(6):918–933
Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M (2009) Efficient conjoint choice designs in the presence of respondent heterogeneity. Mark Sci 28(1):122–135
Zeithammer R, Otter T, Rooderkerk RP (2017) Modeling context effects in choice: a critical review. Working Paper
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This paper is based on the presentations and discussions in the “How Context Affects Choice” workshop at the 2016 Choice Symposium held at Lake Louise, AB, Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomadsen, R., Rooderkerk, R.P., Amir, O. et al. How Context Affects Choice. Cust. Need. and Solut. 5, 3–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0084-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0084-9