Intention superiority perspectives on preference-decision consistency

Journal of Business Research

Volumn 65, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 692-700

  Van Kerckhove, Anneleen ^a   Geuens, Maggie ^a,b   Vermeir, Iris ^a,c  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b VLERICK BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GHENT   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Choice; Consistency; Intention; Preference

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857453959     PISSN: 01482963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ajzen Icek, Fishbein Martin Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior 1980, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. Bagozzi Richard P., Baumgartner Johann, Yi Youjae An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude behavior relationship. J Econ Psychol 1989, 10(1):35-62.
3. Biehal Gabriel, Chakravarti Dipankar Information accessibility as a moderator of consumer choice. J Consum Res 1983, 10(1):1-14.
4. Block Lauren G., Morwitz Vicki G. Shopping lists as an external memory aid for grocery shopping: influences of list writing and list fulfillment. J Consum Psychol 1999, 8(4):343-375.
5. Carlston Donal E. The recall and use of traits and events in social inference processes. J Exp Soc Psychol 1980, 16(4):303-328.
6. Carpenter Gregory S., Glazer Rashi, Nakamoto Kent Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation-the dependence on irrelevant attributes. J Mark Res 1994, 31(3):339-350.
7. De Cannière Marie Hélène, De Pelsmacker Patrick, Geuens Maggie Relationship quality and the theory of planned behavior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior. J Bus Res 2008, 62(1):82-92.
8. Ephron Erwin Point of view: optimizers and media planning. J Advert Res 1998, 38(4):47-56.
9. Fazio Russel H. A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. Research methods in personality and social psychology 1990, vol. 11:74-97. CA Sages, Newbury. C. Hendrick, M.S. Clark (Eds.).
10. Feldman Jack M., Lynch John G. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. J Appl Psychol 1988, 73(3):421-435.
11. Goschke Thomas, Kuhl Julius Representation of intentions-persisting activation in memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1993, 19(5):1211-1226.
12. Higgins Tory E. Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. Social psychology: a handbook of basic principles 1996, 133-168. Guilford, New York. A. Kruglanski, E.T. Higgins (Eds.).
13. Janiszewski Chris, Chandon Elise Transfer-appropriate processing, response fluency, and the mere measurement effect. J Mark Res 2007, 44(2):309-323.
14. Kardes Frank R., Cronley Maria L., Kim John Construal-level effects on preference stability, preference-behavior correspondence, and the suppression of competing brands. J Consum Psychol 2006, 16(2):135-144.
15. Laroche Michel, Kim Chankon, Zhou Lianxi Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand context. J Bus Res 1996, 37(2):115-120.
16. Lee Leonard, Amir On, Ariely Dan In search of Homo economicus: cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. J Consum Res 2009, 36(2):173-187.
17. Levin Irwin P., Gaeth Gary J. How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. J Consum Res 1988, 15(3):374-378.
18. Marsh Richard.L., Hicks Jason L., Bink Martin L. Activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1998, 24(2):350-361.
19. Morwitz Vicki G., Fitzsimons Gavan J. The mere-measurement effect: why does measuring intentions change actual behavior. J Consum Psychol 1996, 14(1-2):64-74.
20. Morwitz Vicky G., Johnson Eric, Schmittlein David Does measuring intent change behavior. J Consum Res 1993, 20(1):46-61.
21. Muthukrishnan A.V., Wathieu Luc Superfluous choices and the persistence of preference. J Consum Res 2007, 33(4):454-460.
22. Nedungadi Prakash Recall and consumer consideration sets-influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. J Consum Res 1990, 17(3):263-276.
23. Nedungadi Prakash, Chattopadhyay Amitava, Muthukrishnan A.V. Category structure, brand recall, and choice. Int J Res Mark 2001, 18(3):191-202.
24. Nordgren Loran F., Dijksterhuis Ap The devil is in the deliberation: thinking too much reduces preference consistency. J Consum Res 2009, 36(1):39-46.
25. Pieters Rik G.M., Verplanken Bas Intention-behaviour consistency: effects of consideration set size, involvement and need for cognition. Eur J Soc Psychol 1995, 25(5):531-543.
26. Posavac Steven S., Sanbonmatsu David M., Ho Edward A. The effects of selective consideration of alternatives on consumer choice and attitude-decision consistency. J Consum Psychol 2002, 12(3):203-213.
27. Ratchford Brian T. New insights about the FCB grid. J Advert Res 1987, 27(4):24-38.
28. Shapiro Stewart, Krishnan H. Shanker Consumer memory for intentions: a prospective memory perspective. J Exp Psychol Appl 1999, 5(2):169-189.
29. Sheeran Paschal, Abraham Charles Mediator of moderators: temporal stability of intention and the intention-behavior relation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2003, 29(2):205-215.
30. Sherman Steven J. On the self-erasing nature of errors in prediction. J Pers Soc Psychol 1980, 39(2):211-221.
31. Simonson Itamar, Tversky Amos Choice in context-tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J Mark Res 1992, 29(3):281-295.
32. Thelen Eva M., Woodside Arch G. What evokes the brand or store? Consumer research on accessibility theory applied to modeling primary choice. Int J Res Mark 1997, 14(2):125-145.
33. Trope Yaacov, Liberman Nira Temporal construal. Psychol Rev 2003, 110(3):403-421.
34. Tversky Amos, Kahneman Daniel Loss aversion in riskless choice-a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 1991, 106(4):1039-1061.
35. Zaichkowsky Judith L. Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res 1985, 12(3):341-352.
36. Zhao Min, Hoeffler Steve, Zauberman Gal Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: the role of process- versus outcome-focused thoughts. J Mark Res 2007, 44(3):379-388.