IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eaiere/v19y2022i2d10.1007_s40844-022-00234-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining preferences and heuristics in analysing consumer behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Pere Mir-Artigues

    (University of Lleida)

Abstract

This paper proposes a seminal model that combines heuristics and preferences to analyse decision-making processes related to the consumption of goods and services. The model has been built by recombining different results from economic psychology and in particular from the research programme called ecological rationality or environment-consistent rationality. With regard to heuristics and their algorithms, in addition to the well-known lexicographic rule, the importance of the heuristics of recognition, weighting and adding, sufficient satisfaction, reciprocity, default choice and imitate-the-majority heuristic in consumer behaviour is underscored. This last heuristic is complemented by the critical mass model and preliminary ideas on the loyalty effect. With respect to preferences, a distinction is made between elementary and final preferences, and between raw and inferential preferences. These two dimensions can be combined, giving rise to a conceptual framework which allows the concept of preferences to be consolidated and expanded. Although much work remains to be done, it should be stressed that this approach could be very fertile in gaining thorough understanding of the determinants of consumption choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Pere Mir-Artigues, 2022. "Combining preferences and heuristics in analysing consumer behaviour," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 523-543, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:19:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40844-022-00234-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40844-022-00234-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-022-00234-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40844-022-00234-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Rationality of belief or: why savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality," Post-Print hal-00745599, HAL.
    2. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812.
    3. Herbert Simon, 2000. "Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 1(1), pages 25-39, March.
    4. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    5. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107695122.
    6. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Bounded rationality: the two cultures," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 361-374, December.
    7. Konstantinos Katsikopoulos & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2008. "One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 35-56, August.
    8. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107015432.
    9. R. M. Harstad & R. Selten, 2014. "Bounded-rationality models:tasks to become intellectually competitive," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 5.
    10. Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2018. "The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(3-4), pages 303-336, December.
    11. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    12. Berg, Nathan, 2003. "Normative behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 411-427, September.
    13. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    14. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    15. Laura Martignon & Ulrich Hoffrage, 2002. "Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 29-71, February.
    16. Rusetski, Alexander, 2014. "Pricing by intuition: Managerial choices with limited information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1733-1743.
    17. John F. Tomer, 2017. "Advanced Introduction to Behavioral Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16653.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Gerardo Infante & Guilhem Lecouteux & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    4. Moscati, Ivan, 2021. "On the recent philosophy of decision theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115039, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    6. Christian Schubert, 2021. "Opportunity meets self-constitution," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 68(1), pages 51-65, March.
    7. Berg, Nathan, 2014. "Success from satisficing and imitation: Entrepreneurs' location choice and implications of heuristics for local economic development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1700-1709.
    8. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron, 2016. "Climate policy when preferences are endogenous – and sometimes they are," INET Oxford Working Papers 2016-04, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    9. GHIURCÄ‚ Camelia, 2020. "Construction Of Preferences," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 72(1), pages 65-75, April.
    10. Marek Jenöffy-Lochau, 2013. "Information, Credibility, and Endogenous Preferences," Post-Print hal-04139636, HAL.
    11. Andreas Ortmann & Leonidas Spiliopoulos, 2017. "The beauty of simplicity? (Simple) heuristics and the opportunities yet to be realized," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 7, pages 119-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    14. Andrea Polonioli, 2013. "Re-assessing the Heuristics debate," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 12(2), pages 263-271, November.
    15. Marchionni, Caterina & Reijula, Samuli, 2018. "What is mechanistic evidence, and why do we need it for evidence-based policy?," SocArXiv 4ufbm, Center for Open Science.
    16. Mollie Painter-Morland & Geert Demuijnck & Sara Ornati, 2017. "Sustainable Development and Well-Being: A Philosophical Challenge," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(2), pages 295-311, December.
    17. Cheng Li, 2019. "Morality and value neutrality in economics: a dualist view," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 97-118, May.
    18. Giacomo Bonanno, 2013. "Counterfactuals and the Prisoner?s Dilemma," Working Papers 6, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    19. Gordon Menzies & Donald Hay & Thomas Simpson & David Vines, 2019. "Restoring Trust in Finance: From Principal–Agent to Principled Agent," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 95(311), pages 497-509, December.
    20. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer behaviour; Heuristics; Behavioural economics; Microeconomics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:19:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40844-022-00234-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.