Skip to main content
Log in

Role of Forgetting in Memory-Based Choice Decisions: A Structural Model

  • Published:
Quantitative Marketing and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a structural model to investigate the impact of forgetting on consumers' brand choice decisions in frequently purchased products. Forgetting results in consumers imperfectly recalling their prior brand evaluations when making a purchase decision in the category. We conceptualize the imperfect recall by positing that consumers recall their prior evaluations with noise. Based on prior research in the behavioral area, we characterize the extent of forgetting as an increasing and concave function of time. Our framework generates analytical results on the impact of forgetting on consumers' brand evaluations and their consequent purchase behavior. We calibrate our model using scanner panel data for liquid detergents. Furthermore, we obtain insights into the consumers' extent of forgetting in the category, extent of learning, predicted price elasticities and implications on state dependence and habit persistence. Our results underscore the importance of modeling consumers' ability to recall only imperfectly.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alba, J.W., J.W. Hutchinson, and J.G. Lynch Jr. (1991). “Memory and Decision Making.” In H.H. Kassarjian and T.S. Robertson (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall Professional, pp. 1–48.

  • Anderson, J.R. (1999). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. Wiley, John and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, A.E. and A.A. Mitchell. (1985). “Advertising Recall and Persuasion.” In L.F. Alwitt and A.A. Mitchell (eds.), Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Applications. Hillslade, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 129–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beihal, G. and D. Chakravarti. (1983). “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 10(June), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattberg, R.C. and C.J. Wisniewski. (1989). “Price Induced Patterns of Competition,” Marketing Science 8(4), 291–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chintagunta, P., D. Jain and N. Vilcassim. (1991). “Investigating Heterogeneity in Brand Preference in Logit Models for Panel Data,” Journal of Marketing Research 28, 417–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins B.E. and M.F. Hoyt. (1972). “Personal Responsibility for Consequences. An Integration and Extension of Forced Compliance Literature,” Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 8, 558–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T.D. and B.R Flay. (1978). “The Persistence of Experimentally Induced Attitude Change,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 11, 1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T. and M.P. Keane. (1996). “Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets,” Marketing Science 15(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R.H. and M.P. Zanna. (1981). “Direct Experience and Attitude Behavior Consistency.” In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 161–202.

  • Fazio, R.H. (1990). “Multiple Processes by Which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The MODE Model as an Integrative Framework.” In M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego CA: Academic Press, vol. 23, pp. 75–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonul, F. and K. Srinivasan. (1993). “Modeling Unobserved Heterogeneity in Multinomial Logit Models: Methodological and Substantive Implications,” Marketing Science 12, 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagni, P.M. and J.D.C. Little. (1983), “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data,” Marketing Science 2(3), 203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. and B. Park. (1986). “The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment Task is Memory Based or On-line,” Psychological Review 93(July), 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J.J. (1981). “Statistical Models for Discrete Panel Data.” In C. Manski and D. McFadden (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H.H. and T.A. Watkins. (1971). “The Effects of Message Repetition on Immediate and Delayed Attitude Change,” Psychonomic Science 22, 101–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.G. (2002). “Three Essays on Bayesian Choice Models,” Unpublished Dissertation, Department of Marketing, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

  • Lichtenstein, M. and T.K. Srull. (1985). “Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Examining the Relationship between Consumer Memory and Judgment.” In L.F. Alwitt and A.A. Mitchell (eds.), Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Applications. Hillslade, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J.G. Jr., H. Marmonstein, and M.F. Weigold. (1988). “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research 15(Sept.), 225–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, N., S. Rajiv, and K. Srinivasan. (2003). “Price Uncertainty and Consumer Search: A Structural Model of Consideration Set Formation,” Marketing Science 22(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R.A. (1984). “Job Matching and Occupation Choice,” Journal of Political Economy 92(6), 1086–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A.A. (1993). “Attitude towards the Advertisement Effects Over Time and in Attitude Change Situations.” In A.A. Mitchell (ed.), Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  • Mullainathan, Sendhil. (2002). “A Memory Based Model of Bounded Rationality,” Quarterly Journal of Economics CXVII(3), 735–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, P. (1990). “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research 17(December), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgis, D. (1963), “Bartlett Effect and the Persistence of Induced Opinion Change,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C.W., E.S. Iyer, and D.C. Smith. (1989). “The Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of Store Environment and Time Available for Shopping,” Journal of Consumer Research 15(March), 422–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronis D.L., M.H. Baumgardner, M.R. Leppe, J.T. Cacioppo, and A.G. Greenwald. (1977). “In Search of Reliable Persuasion Effects: I. A Computer Controlled Procedure for Studying Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 548–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R., P.K. Chintagunta, and S. Haldar. (1996). “A Framework for Analyzing Habits, “Hand-of-Past,” and Heterogeneity in Dynamic Brand Choice,” Marketing Science 15(3), 280–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D.C. and A.E. Wenzel. (1996). “One Hundred Years of Forgetting: A Quantitative Description of Retention,” Psychological Review 103(4), 734–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanbonmatsu, D.M. and R.H. Fazio. (1990). “The Role of Attitudes in Memory Based Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(4), 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seetharaman, P.B., A. Ainslie, and P.K. Chintagunta. (1999). “Investigating Household State Dependence effects across Categories,” Journal of Marketing Research 36(4), 488–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, W.A. and W.J McGuire. (1964). “Persistence of Induced Opinion Change and Retention of Inducing Message, Content,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 233–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. and H. Miller. (1968). “Repetition, Order of Presentation and the Timing of Arguments and Measures as Determinants of Opinion Change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9, 184–188.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nitin Mehta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mehta, N., Rajiv, S. & Srinivasan, K. Role of Forgetting in Memory-Based Choice Decisions: A Structural Model. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 2, 107–140 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QMEC.0000027775.65062.50

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QMEC.0000027775.65062.50

Navigation