PURCHASING DECISION
Tham khảo tài liệu 'purchasing decision', kinh doanh - tiếp thị, kỹ năng bán hàng phục vụ nhu cầu học tập, nghiên cứu và làm việc hiệu quả
Economic Decisions within the
Private Household
Hanoi, Vietnam
October 2006
Erich Kirchler
Well-being
Money and tax (€)
Leadership, advertisement, consumer loyalty etc.
Group decision making (economic decisions within the
private household)
1
Economic decisions within
the private household
15 years of studies
on expenditures and
other economic
decisions within the
family 2
Decisions within private
households
• Normative (rational) model
Identifiable decision-maker(s)
Complete knowledge about all available alternatives
All the consequences are clear and evaluable
Evaluation on the basis of clear, stable goals
All consequences have known probabilities
Relevance of information can be evaluated, information can be collected
• Description (K. Weick)
Isolation of decisions
Multiple goals
Tiredness and simultanous solving of problems
3
Questions
• Who is/are the decision maker(s)?
• Which decisions can be taken?
• How do decisions proceed?
• How can decisions be analysed?
• Who has got influence and why?
• Are decisions isolated incidents?
• Which tactics do partners use?
4
Who are the decision makers?
Power structure
Patriachy
Harmony in the relationship
Egoism principle
Equity Credit Love
low principle principle principle high
Egoism principle
Matriarchy 5
Interaction characteristics
(a) Interdependence vs independence of partners: People in relationships that can be
described using the love principle are dependent upon one another in their feelings, thoughts and actions and are
considerate on each other.
(b) Long-term vs short-term credit: In ad hoc groups or economic relationships, give and take
are directly linked (principle of reciprocity).When partners trust one another, they look for experiences that satisfy
both partners and distribute the available ressources according to needs. Balance is sought over the long term. If
the relationship progresses harmoniously, then in the end „book-keeping“ – to use a banking analogy – is no
longer necessary.
(c) Joint maximisation of profits vs cost-benefit analysis:Unhappy partners whose
relationship has become an economic relationship seek to exploit their opporunities for profit to the full.The more
harmonious the relationship, the less interest a partner has in concluding a trade with their partner.
(d) The distribution of rewards using rules of need vs equity rules.
(e) Abundance vs scarcity of ressources: Whilst in economic relationships only certain types
of ressources are traded, which are mainly universalistic in terms of the concept of Foa and Foa (1974), in close
relationships also particularistic ressources besides universalistic ones are exchanged.
(f) Spontaneous altruism vs control of demands and obligations: Happy partners
do not seek to keep an account of demands and obligations. They act spontaneously in an partner-oriented manner.
(v. experiments of Clark, 1984).
6
Which decisions are there?
Decisions in private
housholds
Economic Non-economic
-
decisions decisions
Money management
Savings decisions
Capital investment
management
Purchase decisions
7
Non existent Individual Interest Collectivist
High
Syncratic
Financial commitment
decisions
Decision script
Autonomous
decisions
Habitual
decisions
Spontanous
decisions
Ready
Low
Unimportant Socialvisibility Symbolic
8
Syncratic
decisions
Interpersonal
Probability conflict Agreement
conflict
Value conflict
Distribution
conflict
9
How do decisions proceed?
Umwelt
(z. B. Marktgeschehen,
Referenzpersonen)
Person A Person B
Bedürfnis Bedürfnis
Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder
Set von Gewohnheits-
Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen
entscheidung entscheidung
Informationssuche Informationssuche
egoistische egoistische
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Machtrelation Machtrelation
Harmonie Harmonie
altruistische altruistische
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Präferenzordung Präferenzordung
Machtrelation Machtrelation
autonome autonome
Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung
Produkttyp Produkttyp
Vergleich der
Meinungen
Konflikt Übereinstimmung
Wert- Sach- Verteilungs- intra-
konflikt konflikt konflikt individueller
Konflikt
Machtrelation Nutzens-
regelung
Harmonie
synkratische
Konfliktlösungs- Entscheidung
versuche
10
Umwelt
(z. B. Marktgeschehen,
Referenzpersonen)
Person A Person B
Bedürfnis Bedürfnis
Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder
Set von Gewohnheits-
Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen
entscheidung entscheidung
Informationssuche
egoistische
Bewertung der
Alternativen
Informationssuche
egoistische
Bewertung der
Alternativen
Context
Machtrelation Machtrelation
Harmonie Harmonie
altruistische altruistische
(e.g. market events,
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Präferenzordung Präferenzordung
Machtrelation Machtrelation
reference people)
autonome autonome
Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung
Produkttyp Produkttyp
Vergleich der
Meinungen
Konflikt Übereinstimmung
Wert- Sach- Verteilungs- intra-
konflikt individueller
konflikt konflikt
Konflikt
Machtrelation Nutzens-
regelung
Harmonie
synkratische
Konfliktlösungs- Entscheidung
versuche
Person A Person B
Need Need
Spontansous or Spontaneous or
Set of Set of habitual
habitual alternatives alternatives
decision decision
Inform. search Inform. search
Egoistic Egoistic
evaluation of evaluation of
alternatives alternatives
Power Power
Harmony Harmony
Altruistic Altruistic
evaluation of evaluation of
alternatives alternatives
Preferences Preferences
Comparison
11
Umwelt
(z. B. Marktgeschehen,
Referenzpersonen)
Person A Person B
Bedürfnis Bedürfnis
Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder
Set von Gewohnheits-
Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen
entscheidung entscheidung
Informationssuche Informationssuche
egoistische egoistische
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Machtrelation Machtrelation
Harmonie Harmonie
altruistische altruistische
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Präferenzordung Präferenzordung
Machtrelation Machtrelation
autonome autonome
Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung
Produkttyp Produkttyp
Vergleich der
Meinungen
Konflikt Übereinstimmung
Wert-
konflikt
Sach-
konflikt
Machtrelation
Harmonie
Verteilungs-
konflikt
intra-
individueller
Konflikt
Nutzens-
regelung
Power Power
synkratische
Konfliktlösungs- Entscheidung
versuche
Autonomous Autonomous
decision Harmony Harmony decision
Product type Product type
Comparison
of opinions
Agreement
Conflict
12
Umwelt
(z. B. Marktgeschehen,
Referenzpersonen)
Person A Person B
Bedürfnis Bedürfnis
Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder
Set von Gewohnheits-
Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen
entscheidung entscheidung
Informationssuche Informationssuche
egoistische egoistische
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Machtrelation Machtrelation
Harmonie Harmonie
altruistische altruistische
Bewertung der Bewertung der
Alternativen Alternativen
Präferenzordung Präferenzordung
Machtrelation Machtrelation
autonome autonome
Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung
Produkttyp Produkttyp
Comparison
Vergleich der
Meinungen
Konflikt Übereinstimmung
Wert- Sach- Verteilungs- intra-
konflikt individueller
konflikt konflikt
Konflikt
Machtrelation
Harmonie
Konfliktlösungs-
Nutzens-
regelung
synkratische
Entscheidung
of opinions
versuche
Agreement
Conflict
Value Probability Distribution Intra-
individual
conflict
Power Regulation
of benefit
Harmony
The end
Syncratic
Resolution decision
of conflict
13
How can decisions be analysed?
• Observation in the laboratory and in private settings:
• Ad hoc small groups: In close relationships, processes develop that are unique.
Typically small groups were mainly observed in the laboratory and were ad hoc
acquaintances who had only recently met. These volunteers were asked to
perform a task that was neither particularly interesting nor particularly
challenging. Because these participants had neither a shared past nor the
prospect of a shared future in front of them, there was no reason for them to
show particular commitment to the joint task and the interactions were at best an
ordered series of actions, whilst in close relationships complex patterns of
interaction can develop over a short period of time which can be difficult to
decipher for an external observer.
• Synthetic families are, compared to partners in close relationships, like a
"good-looking car with no engine" (Kemp, 1970, p. 30).
14
• Interview techniques
• Who is the informant? Davis (1970) reports that the perceived pattern of influence of
partners in discussions about purchasing a car or furniture is a near-perfect match if the
information provided by men and women is taken across the sample as a whole. At the
aggregated level, differences between individual couples' responses are balanced out;
whereas at the level of individual couples there are clear differences in male and female
perceptions.
• When partners are asked to recount their shared experiences, their accounts often differ
markedly. The differences are partly caused by the difficulty of recalling and
"reconstructing" mundane events, and partly because people distort their account to
bolster their own self-esteem.
• Kirchler (1989) summarized the results of 16 studies looking at influence patterns in
relationships, as reported by both partners, and found that in about 60% of cases overall
there was congruence in reports. In over a third of cases the reports differed.
• Partners in close relationships describe shared events differently and are also barely able to
imagine themselves in the position of their partner. Even happy partners lack „empathic
accuracy“. Increasing relationship quality is associated with increasing presumed similarity
between the behaviour of the partners and increasing „false consensus effect“.
15
... and
then he said that
he would neverExactly!! You let
leave me. yourself go...
16
Correlation between self-perception and the partner perception (results of the
Italian study are shown in brackets; Kirchler, 1999; Kirchler and Berti, 1996)
Information about r=.54 (.58) Information about
tactics: man reports tactics: woman
on woman reports on man
r=.61 Accuracy of
information
(.52) from woman
r=.71 (.71) r=.69 (.67)
Perceived Perceived
r=.60 Accuracy of
congruence information congruence
(.55) from man
Self-perception r=.57 (.60) Self-perception
by the man by the woman
Congruence
17
Sources of divergence
Different tendencies to provide socially desirable answers.
Strong emotions can "blind" participants to the feelings of their partner
and to details of social interactions.
Unclear remembrance due to relative unimportance of the everyday
events being reported.
Finally, it is known from narrative interviews and studies of "accounts of
one's own relationship" (Hinde, 1997) that partners construct different
images of their shared reality and "plug the gaps" in their own memory so
that the past appears consistent, meaningful and logical (Ross, 1989).
When complex information needs to be processed with little time
available, and when events have been perceived and dealt with without
much attention and are therefore recalled poorly, then interviewees will
often resort to stereotypes, prejudices or schematized images in the hope
that reality will in correspond to this to some degree (Hastie, 1982).
18
Sources ...
Everyday life at home is marked by a variety of mundane, routine events which are
rarely paid any attention. Because attention is directed elsewhere, the reliability of
memory of those events is called into question. Memory fades if events lie a long
time back in the past ... Saltfort and Roy (1981) compared data from
questionnaires with diary records and found that the diaries reported the purchase
of cheap, unimportant, non-fashionable products far more often than the
questionnaires. It is probable that in retrospect special events are recalled more
often than routine actions.
The mood influences the evaluation of events. Bower (1981) hypothesizes that
experiences which are congruent with one's feelings are remembered better than
those which are incongruent.
Everyday life is complex and is structured cognitively by relationship partners in
their own subjective manner. The private language of the partners is an indication
of the subjective organization of shared events. In a questionnaire, the possibilities
for subjective structuring of the experienced reality is severely limited.
19
Sources ...
Questionnaire responses are ultimately also dependent on the possible alternative
answers provided. This may sound banal – however, this does not simply mean that the
researcher is presenting his or her picture of reality through the order of the answers and
forcing those interviewed to answer within a defined framework. Schwarz and Scheuring
(1988) demonstrated impressively that the differentiation contained within the scale of
answers can also lead to completely different sets of results.
Schwarz and Scheuring (1988) asked about the frequency of sex with the partner and
frequency of masturbation, offering in each case a 6-point scale. In one test condition,
answers were differentiated using a high-frequency field, and in the other test condition a
low-frequency field was covered (see Table 4). After this a question was put asking
about the quality of the relationship, with an 11-point scale given. When high-frequency
alternative answers were offered, results were obtained which showed that around 77%
of those interviewed had sex with their partner at least once a week, and around 69%
reported a masturbation frequency of at least once a week. If the low-frequency
alternative answers were used, then the corresponding figure for sex with the partner fell
to around 39% and for frequency of masturbation to around 42%. Satisfaction with the
relationship was however at the same level under both test conditions.
20
