MKF2111 · Buyer Behaviour
The Consumer Decision Process II: High-Effort Choice
This chapter covers deliberate, high-MAO choice. It contrasts compensatory models (a strength offsets a weakness — multi-attribute value V = Σ(Importance × Rating)) with non-compensatory models (conjunctive, lexicographic, elimination-by-aspects) where one weakness can kill an option. It also covers anchoring, the compromise and attraction effects, construal, and Prospect Theory with loss aversion and framing. The oral can ask you to run a multi-attribute table and to argue which choice rule a marketer should encourage.
What this chapter covers
- 011. Anchoring & adjustment: estimates start from a reference anchor and adjust insufficiently (high opening price, 'Limit 10')
- 022. Compromise effect (extremeness aversion): the middle of three options gains share as the 'safe' choice
- 033. Attraction effect (asymmetric dominance): adding an inferior decoy makes the option that dominates it more attractive
- 044. Goals & time (construal): distant choices weight abstract desirability; near choices weight concrete feasibility
- 055. Compensatory model: V = Σ(Importanceᵢ × Ratingᵢ); strengths offset weaknesses; pick the highest total
- 066. Non-compensatory models: conjunctive (clear a minimum on every attribute), lexicographic (best on the top attribute), elimination-by-aspects
- 077. Processing by brand vs processing by attribute
- 088. Prospect Theory: value from a reference point, steeper for losses (loss aversion ~2:1); gain vs loss framing
Multi-attribute compensatory vs non-compensatory: same data, different winner
- +2: three totalsCompensatory totals. Aurora: (5×4)+(4×5)+(3×3)+(2×2) = 20+20+9+4 = 53. Brixton: (5×3)+(4×4)+(3×5)+(2×3) = 15+16+15+6 = 52. Cobalt: (5×5)+(4×2)+(3×4)+(2×5) = 25+8+12+10 = 55.
- +1: compensatory resultCompensatory winner: Cobalt (55), because its strong battery and status compensate for weak price — the defining feature of a compensatory rule.
- +2: conjunctive resultConjunctive (cut-off 3 on every attribute). Aurora fails (status 2 < 3); Cobalt fails (price 2 < 3); Brixton passes all (3,4,5,3). Only Brixton clears every cut-off → chosen.
- +1: lexicographic result + insightLexicographic (compare the most important attribute first). Battery (imp 5): Cobalt 5 beats Aurora 4 beats Brixton 3 → Cobalt wins outright on the top attribute; stop. Implication: same data, three rules, two different winners — a non-compensatory rule lets one weakness eliminate an option.
Key terms
- Compensatory choice model
- A high-effort rule where a strength can offset a weakness: overall value V = Σ(Importanceᵢ × Ratingᵢ) across attributes, and the option with the highest total is chosen.
- Non-compensatory choice models
- Rules where a weakness cannot be offset: conjunctive (must clear a minimum cut-off on every attribute), disjunctive (clear a high cut-off on at least one key attribute), lexicographic (best on the most important attribute wins) and elimination-by-aspects (drop options failing each cut-off in turn).
- Anchoring & adjustment
- Estimates start from an initial reference value (an anchor) and adjust insufficiently away from it, so different anchors lead to different decisions (e.g. a high opening price or a 'Limit 10' sign).
- Compromise & attraction effects
- Two context effects: the compromise effect (extremeness aversion) makes the middle of three options the 'safe' choice; the attraction effect (asymmetric dominance) adds an inferior decoy to make a dominating option look better.
- Prospect Theory
- Kahneman & Tversky's model: value is judged as gains or losses from a reference point, with a value function concave for gains, convex for losses, and steeper for losses — the source of loss aversion.
- Loss aversion & framing
- A loss is felt roughly twice as strongly as an equal gain, so describing the same outcome as a gain vs a loss changes choice; gain-framing tends to increase action while loss-framing increases delay and risk-aversion.
The Consumer Decision Process II: High-Effort Choice FAQ
When do consumers use compensatory vs non-compensatory rules?
Compensatory, attribute-trading rules need high MAO — the consumer is motivated, able and has time to weigh everything (V = Σ Imp × Rating). When MAO is lower or the choice set is large, consumers fall back on non-compensatory shortcuts (conjunctive cut-offs, lexicographic top-attribute) that are faster but let one weakness eliminate an option. So the same buyer may switch rules as effort changes.
Which choice rule should a marketer encourage?
It depends on your brand's profile. If you dominate on one attribute (e.g. safety), push a lexicographic/non-compensatory frame that makes that attribute the single diagnostic ('nothing matters more than safety'), so the comparison stops in your favour. If you're well-rounded, push a compensatory 'look at the whole package' frame. The rival usually wants the opposite frame.
How big is loss aversion and how do I use it?
Roughly 2:1 — a loss hurts about twice as much as an equal gain feels good. Use it by framing the action you want: loss frames ('don't lose your credit') deter quitting and drive urgency, while gain frames are generally safer for acquisition because loss framing also raises decision delay. The corollary: a price rise hurts demand more than an equal price cut helps it.
How is this chapter examined?
It carries the unit's main calculations: you may run a multi-attribute table (compensatory total) and contrast it with a conjunctive or lexicographic result, then explain why the winner differs. Prospect/framing, anchoring and the compromise/attraction effects come up as explain-and-apply with the marketing implication.
Exam move
This is the most quantitative chapter, so drill the multi-attribute table until you can compute V = Σ(Imp × Rating) for three options and then re-rank the same data under conjunctive and lexicographic rules, narrating why the winner changes — that contrast is the examinable insight. Memorise the defining one-liner: a compensatory rule lets strengths offset weaknesses; a non-compensatory rule lets one weakness eliminate an option. For Prospect Theory, rehearse a gain-vs-loss framing example with the ~2:1 ratio and the price-asymmetry corollary. Keep the context effects (anchoring, compromise, attraction) as short applied tactics. Always close by naming which choice frame a marketer should encourage given the brand's strengths.
