Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of involvement and product class quality on consumer choice sets

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study findings suggest that the level of response involvement (high versus low) and the variability of product class quality (high versus moderate versus low) influence the size of the consumer’s choice set. By manipulating product class quality the authors show that as the variability in product class quality increases, consumers reduce the number of brands they will consider purchasing (evoked set) and increase the number of brands they won’t consider (inept set). They also use the response involvement variable a priori to categorize the (sample) population. The results indicate that, as the variability in product class quality increases, the high response involvement groups form smaller evoked sets and larger inept sets than the low response involvement groups.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpert, Mark I. 1971. “Identification of Determinant Attributes: A Comparison of Methods.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (May): 184–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, Raj 1982. “Validation of an S-O-R Model for Situation, Enduring, and Response Components of Involvement.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (November): 505–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisoux, Jacques E. and Michael Laroche 1981. “Evoked Set Formation and Composition: An Empirical Investigation Under a Routinized Response Behavior Situation.”Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8 Ed. Kenneth B. Monroe. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research: 357–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Juanita J. and Albert R. Wildt. 1987. “Factors Influencing Evoked Set Size.” Working Paper Series. University of Missouri—Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Brian M. 1969. “The Existence of Evoked Set & Determinants of Its Magnitude in Brand Choice Behavior.” Dissertation. Columbia University.

  • Chaffee, Steven H. and Jack M. McLeod. 1969. “Consumer Decision and Information Use.” InConsumer Behavior: Theoretical Series. Eds. Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Donald F. 1967.Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Busines Administration. Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eroglu, Sevgin A., Glenn S. Omura and Karen A. Machleit. 1983. “Evoked Set Size and Temporal Proximity to Purchase.”Educators Conference Proceedings. Eds. Patrick Murphy et al., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidenard, Jon B. and Douglas S. Bible. 1982. “The Home Purchase Process: Measurements of Evaluative Criteria through Purchase Measures.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Fall): 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gensch, Dennis H. and Rajshekhar G. Javalgi 1987. “The Influence of Involvement on Disaggregate Attribute Choice Models.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (June): 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronhaug, Kjell 1974. “Some Factors Influencing the Size of the Buyer’s Evoked Set.”European Journal of Marketing 7 (Winter): 232–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Dell, Roger J. Best and Kenneth A. Coney 1986.Consumer Behavior, Third Edition, Plano, TX: Business Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson, James G., E. Alan Kluge, Jons Magler and Cheri Taylor. 1984. “Trends in Consumer Behavior Research: A Content Analysis.”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (March): 449–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild 1977. “A Paradigm for Research on Comsumer Involvement.” Working Paper No. 11-77-46, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1978. “Conceptualand Methodological Perspectives on Involvement”Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directors. Ed. Subash Jain, Chicago: American Marketing Association: 184–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, John A. 1963.Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning. Homewood: Richard Irwin Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Jagdish N. Sheth 1969.The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, Lance P. and James B. Wilcox 1973. “Evoked Set Size—Some Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evidence.”Combined Proceedings, No. 35, Ed. T.V. Greer, Chicago: American Marketing Association: 236–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Kevin Lane and Richard Stallin 1987. “The Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (September): 200–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, Roger E. 1968.Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, Herbert E. 1965. “The Impact of Television Advertising: Leaming Without Involvement,”Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (Fall): 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1966. “Measurement of Advertisig Involvemen.”Public Opinion-Quarterly 30 (Winter): 583–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, R. Neil, Kjell Gronhaug, Richard E. Homans and Frederick E. May 1978. “Correlates of Information Gathering and Evoked Set Size for New Automobile Purchases in Norway and the U.S.”Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 167–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Frederick E. and Richard E. Homans 1977. “Evoked Set Size and the Level of Information Processing in Product Comprehension and Choice Criteria.”Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, Ed. William D. Perreault, Ann Arbor: Advances in Consumer Research: 172–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayana, Chem L. and Rom J. Markin 1975. “Consumer Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative Conceptualization.”Journal of Marketing 39 (October): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostlund, Lyman E. 1973. “Evoked Set Size: Some Empirical Results”Combined Proceedings, No. 35, Ed. T.V. Greer, Chicago: American Marketing Association: 226–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, Thomas L. and Michael Reilly 1978. “An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation”Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Ed. William Wilkie, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 227–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdue, Barbara C. and John O. Summers 1986. “Checking the Success of Manipulations in Marketing Experiments.”Journal of Marketing Research 23 (November): 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Robert A. 1982.Marketing Research. Plano: Business Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, Michael L. and Michael J. Houston 1977. “The Consumer Involvement Matrix: Some Preliminary Findings.”Contemporary Marketing Thought. Eds. B. Greenberg and David Bellenger, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 95–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1986. “The Consumer Involvement Matrix: A Strategic Marketing Tool.”Singapore Marketing Review 1 (March): 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, Muzafer and C.E. Hovland 1961.Social Judgment. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slama, Mark E. and Amen Tashchian 1987. “Validation of the S-O-R Paradigm for Consumer Involvement for a Convenience Good.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15 (Spring): 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, David W. and Girish Punj 1982. “Factors Associated with Changes in Evoked Set Among Purchasers of Automobiles.”Educators Conference Proceedings. Eds. B.J. Walker et al. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 61–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, William L. 1986.Consumer Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. 1975. “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing.”Journal of Marketing Research 12 (February): 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belonax, J.J., Javalgi, R.G. The influence of involvement and product class quality on consumer choice sets. JAMS 17, 209–216 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729812

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729812

Keywords

Navigation