Consideration set

Last updated January 30, 2023

Consideration set is a model used in consumer behaviour to represent all of the brands and products a consumer evaluates before making a final purchase decision. The term consideration set was first used in 1977 by Peter Wright and Fredrick Barbour.^[1] The consideration set is a subset of the awareness set, which is all of the brands and products a consumer initially thinks of when faced with a purchasing decision.^[2] The awareness set is filtered into the consideration set through the consumer's individual thoughts, preferences, and feelings – such as price, mood, previous experiences, and heuristics. Conversely, products that do not meet the criteria for the consideration set are either placed into the inert set or the inept set. These sets are fluid and the products in each set can change rapidly when the consumer is presented with new information.^[3]

Set hierarchy and theory

Consider the universal set, $U$ , to be the set of all products and brands which will satisfy a given need.^[3] The awareness or knowledge set, $A$ , is defined as all of the products and brands within the universal set that the consumer is aware of.^[3] This awareness can be derived from a product search, brand familiarity, advertisements, word-of-mouth, or any other method which informs the consumer of a viable option. While the awareness set is largely composed of products that reside in the consumer's long-term memory, the awareness set can also be expanded by products found during the search process – such as recommended products on an e-commerce site or shelves in a supermarket. Thus $A\subseteq U$ .

The awareness set can be further divided into the following sets:

The consideration set: all of the brands or products seriously considered and evaluated by the consumer, denoted $C$ . It is not required (or typical) that the consumer has an equal level of knowledge about all of the alternatives in this set.
The inert set: all of the brands or products that the consumer has no opinion about,^[4] denoted $R$ . The consumer likely has little to no exposure to this product and therefore has neither negative nor positive associations.
The inept set: all of the brands or products the consumer eliminates from further consideration,^[4] denoted $P$ . The consumer likely has poor experiences with the brand or product, or has heard of others' bad experiences.

Thus, $C\cup R\cup P=A\subseteq U$

Psychological basis

The consideration set models how humans behave when faced with many choices. While the consideration set is not directly observable, researchers believe that its existence is evident by a logical conjunction of prominent economic and psychological theories.^[3]

In this model, consumers screen many product options before fully evaluating just a few options (usually 2-5),^[5] which reduces the cognitive load and fatigue of an exhaustive search.^[6] This screening process is mostly based on heuristics about the product, and is generally considered to be a lower-effort process than the evaluation of the consideration set, once it is formed. Studies on heuristic screening methodologies have shown that consumers are more satisfied with their purchase decision and less stressed by the decision-making process when the consideration set is smaller.^[7] This is particularly true when information overload is high; that is, the quantity of available information exceeds the processing power a consumer is willing to dedicate to it.

Researchers have several theories as to why the consideration set is formed. The formation of the consideration set is considered the first step in common decision-making frameworks, with the second step being choosing an alternative from the set.^[8]

Formation

Consumer behavior researchers have identified many frameworks, methodologies, and heuristics consumers often use to form a consideration set. It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list, and that the formation of the consideration set varies significantly depending on the consumer and context of the decision.^[5] Nonetheless, some commonly observed methodologies are:

Top n: Consumers may only choose to evaluate the top n alternatives based on a single common attribute.^[9] For example, consumers may only look at the first page of search results on Google, the 5 highest rated products on Amazon, or the highest safety rated cars.
Shortlisting: Consumers may create a shortlist of undominated options according to an asymmetric, incomplete, or cyclic binary relation. Alternatives outside of this shortlist are moved to the inept or inert set.^[9]
Top on Each: Consumers may consider several rankings or attributes, only considering the top n elements of each ranking class. For example, consumers may only fully evaluate the cheapest product, the highest rated product, and the most popular product.^[9]
Categorization: Consumers may enact a two-phase elimination procedure in which alternatives are first categorized into sets based on similarity.^[9] It is important to note that these sets are entirely distinct from the consideration, inert, and inept set and rather represent broader categories which focus on the product similarity rather than their relation to the consumer.^[10] The consumer then selects one of these sets to consider. An example would be to first group cars into subsets of sedan, SUV, and truck – and then make a selection of the optimal subset.
Rationalization: Consumers may provide a logical explanation for a product or brand choice, when the explained logical reason is different from the true reason. In this model, a consumer may only choose products that they can rationalize to choose because of a subjective appeal to themselves, their family, and/or society.^[9]
Narrowing Down: Consumers may reduce the awareness set to the consideration set by continuously adding more criteria to evaluate alternatives. For example, a consumer may narrow down a smartphone choice by first selecting Apple as the brand of choice, then only considering Apple smartphones released in the last year, and then only considering Apple smartphones released in the last year with 128gb of memory.^[9]

Decision-making

Once the consideration set is formed, the next step is to select an alternative from the evaluated options.^[8] There are several models that describe how consumers make these selections, however many researchers believe that this process is concurrent with the formation process; that is, product selection is often being contemplated while the consideration set is forming.^[11] Nonetheless, the following methodologies are widely considered to be the second step of consumer decision making:

Unweighted Linear Compensatory: Consumers may select important brand attributes to measure or quantify for each product, which are then summed and averaged. The product from the consideration set with the highest score is then selected.^[12]
Weighted Linear Compensatory: Consumers may evaluate brand attribute importance and assign each attribute a "weight", which represents the attribute's importance. These weighted attributes are then measured on all of the products in the consideration set, and a weighted sum and average are computed. Finally, the product with the highest score is selected.^[12]
Conjunctive Rule: Consumers may determine a cut-off point for each salient attribute of the products in the consideration set. Then, the product which meets the cut-off point for each salient attribute is selected.^[12]
Disjunctive Rule: Similar to the conjunctive rule, consumers may determine a cut-off point for each salient attribute of the products in the consideration set. Then, conversely, the first brand which meets the cut-off point for only one attribute is selected.^[12]
Lexiographic Rule: Consumers may select a cut-off point for the most salient attribute of the products in the consideration set. The products which meet this cut-off point are selected, and then the next most salient attribute is evaluated until only one product is remaining.^[12] This methodology is similar to the narrowing down formation heuristic.
Subset Conjunctive Rule: Consumers may determine a cut-off point for each salient attribute of the products in the consideration set. Then, a product is selected if at least $S$ features are at an acceptable level.^[13] The subset conjunctive rule is actually a broader category that encapsulates both the conjunctive and disjunctive rules. The conjunctive rule is a special case in which $S$ is equivalent to the total number of attributes. The disjunctive rule is a special case in which $S=1$ .

Limitations and critiques

The decision-making process is still not well enough understood to clarify the distinction between the models used to represent the process and the process of decision-making itself.^[3] Many researchers reject the idea of a two-step decision-making process using a consideration set, and instead insist on viewing the consideration set as simply an indicator of preferences.^[8] Many researchers claim that knowing a particular consumer's consideration set is not enough to predict their final product choice, and this knowledge is trivial when compared to something like the utility function, which is much more robust. Since neither the utility function or consideration set are directly observable,^[9] researchers are still unsure whether either is an accurate or useful model for describing choice.

Another criticism of the consideration set is how it is applied. Marketers often assume that all consumers have the same consideration set; that is, they assume all consumers are selecting between the same set of options. The consideration set is actually theorized to be highly individualistic – and the products within it reflect a variety of factors such as the consumer's socioeconomic status, attitudes, and perceptions.^[3] This implies that marketers should treat consideration set formation as probabilistic, rather than objective.

Related Research Articles

Marketing research is the systematic gathering, recording, and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data about issues relating to marketing products and services. The goal is to identify and assess how changing elements of the marketing mix impacts customer behavior.

Concept testing is the process of using surveys to evaluate consumer acceptance of a new product idea prior to the introduction of a product to the market. It is important not to confuse concept testing with advertising testing, brand testing and packaging testing, as is sometimes done. Concept testing focuses on the basic product idea, without the embellishments and puffery inherent in advertising.

Constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) are mathematical questions defined as a set of objects whose state must satisfy a number of constraints or limitations. CSPs represent the entities in a problem as a homogeneous collection of finite constraints over variables, which is solved by constraint satisfaction methods. CSPs are the subject of research in both artificial intelligence and operations research, since the regularity in their formulation provides a common basis to analyze and solve problems of many seemingly unrelated families. CSPs often exhibit high complexity, requiring a combination of heuristics and combinatorial search methods to be solved in a reasonable time. Constraint programming (CP) is the field of research that specifically focuses on tackling these kinds of problems. Additionally, Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT), the satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), mixed integer programming (MIP) and answer set programming (ASP) are all fields of research focusing on the resolution of particular forms of the constraint satisfaction problem.

The theory of consumer choice is the branch of microeconomics that relates preferences to consumption expenditures and to consumer demand curves. It analyzes how consumers maximize the desirability of their consumption as measured by their preferences subject to limitations on their expenditures, by maximizing utility subject to a consumer budget constraint. Factors influencing consumers' evaluation of the utility of goods: income level, cultural factors, product information and physio-psychological factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conjoint analysis</span>

Conjoint analysis is a survey-based statistical technique used in market research that helps determine how people value different attributes that make up an individual product or service.

Managerial economics is a branch of economics involving the application of economic methods in the managerial decision-making process. Economics is the study of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Managerial economics involves the use of economic theories and principles to make decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources.

A choice is the range of different things from which a being can choose. The arrival at a choice may incorporate motivators and models. For example, a traveler might choose a route for a journey based on the preference of arriving at a given destination at a specified time. The preferred route can then account for information such as the length of each of the possible routes, the amount of fuel in the vehicle, traffic conditions, etc.

Consumer behavior is the study of individuals, groups, or organizations and all the activities associated with the purchase, use and disposal of goods and services. Consumer behaviour consists of how the consumer's emotions, attitudes, and preferences affect buying behaviour. Consumer behaviour emerged in the 1940–1950s as a distinct sub-discipline of marketing, but has become an interdisciplinary social science that blends elements from psychology, sociology, social anthropology, anthropology, ethnography, ethnology, marketing, and economics.

In probability theory, Luce's choice axiom, formulated by R. Duncan Luce (1959), states that the probability of selecting one item over another from a pool of many items is not affected by the presence or absence of other items in the pool. Selection of this kind is said to have "independence from irrelevant alternatives" (IIA).

The buying decision process is the decision-making process used by consumers regarding the market transactions before, during, and after the purchase of a good or service. It can be seen as a particular form of a cost–benefit analysis in the presence of multiple alternatives.

Advertising management is a planned managerial process designed to oversee and control the various advertising activities involved in a program to communicate with a firm's target market and which is ultimately designed to influence the consumer's purchase decisions. Advertising is just one element in a company's promotional mix and as such, must be integrated with the overall marketing communications program. Advertising is, however, the most expensive of all the promotional elements and therefore must be managed with care and accountability. Advertising management process also helps in defining the outline of the media campaign and in deciding which type of advertising would be used before the launch of a product.

Brand extension or brand stretching is a marketing strategy in which a firm marketing a product with a well-developed image uses the same brand name in a different product category. The new product is called a spin-off.

Brand awareness is the extent to which customers are able to recall or recognize a brand under different conditions. Brand awareness is one of two dimensions from brand knowledge, an associative network memory model. Brand awareness is a key consideration in consumer behavior, advertising management, and brand management. The consumer's ability to recognize or recall a brand is central to purchasing decision-making. Purchasing cannot proceed unless a consumer is first aware of a product category and a brand within that category. Awareness does not necessarily mean that the consumer must be able to recall a specific brand name, but they must be able to recall enough distinguishing features for purchasing to proceed. Creating brand awareness is the main step in advertising a new product or bringing back the older brand in light.

Choice modelling attempts to model the decision process of an individual or segment via revealed preferences or stated preferences made in a particular context or contexts. Typically, it attempts to use discrete choices in order to infer positions of the items on some relevant latent scale. Indeed many alternative models exist in econometrics, marketing, sociometrics and other fields, including utility maximization, optimization applied to consumer theory, and a plethora of other identification strategies which may be more or less accurate depending on the data, sample, hypothesis and the particular decision being modelled. In addition, choice modelling is regarded as the most suitable method for estimating consumers' willingness to pay for quality improvements in multiple dimensions.

A choice set is a finite collection of available options selected from a larger theoretical decision space. For example, a consumer has thousands of conceivable alternatives when purchasing a car, far more than they could reasonably be expected to evaluate. As such they will often narrow their search to only vehicles of a certain make, or within a specific price range. By reducing the choice set to a manageable number of alternatives, people are able to make complex decisions between theoretically infinite alternatives in a practical time frame. Choice sets are often used in psychological and market research to make data collection and evaluation more manageable, or to make direct comparisons between a specific set of choices.

Choice architecture is the design of different ways in which choices can be presented to decision makers, and the impact of that presentation on decision-making. For example, each of the following:

Heuristics is the process by which humans use mental short cuts to arrive at decisions. Heuristics are simple strategies that humans, animals, organizations, and even machines use to quickly form judgments, make decisions, and find solutions to complex problems. Often this involves focusing on the most relevant aspects of a problem or situation to formulate a solution. While heuristic processes are used to find the answers and solutions that are most likely to work or be correct, they are not always right or the most accurate. Judgments and decisions based on heuristics are simply good enough to satisfy a pressing need in situations of uncertainty, where information is incomplete. In that sense they can differ from answers given by logic and probability.

In psychology, economics and philosophy, preference is a technical term usually used in relation to choosing between alternatives. For example, someone prefers A over B if they would rather choose A than B. Preferences are central to decision theory because of this relation to behavior. Some methods such as Ordinal Priority Approach use preference relation for decision-making. As connative states, they are closely related to desires. The difference between the two is that desires are directed at one object while preferences concern a comparison between two alternatives, of which one is preferred to the other.

Sustainable consumer behavior is the sub-discipline of consumer behavior that studies why and how consumers do or do not incorporate sustainability priorities into their consumption behavior. It studies the products that consumers select, how those products are used, and how they are disposed of in pursuit of consumers' sustainability goals.

The memory system plays a key role in the decision-making process because individuals constantly choose among alternative options. Due to the volume of decisions made, much of the decision-making process is unconscious and automatic. Information about how a decision is made is remembered and used for future decisions. Memory is susceptible to biases, but it is integral to the formation of preferences and to differentiation between choices.

References

↑ "Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening". Stanford Graduate School of Business.
↑ "Awareness Set". Monash Business School.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181–197. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40216215
1 2 "Evoked, Inert and Inept sets". Noble Marketeers. June 18, 2016.
1 2 Aurier, Philippe; Jean, Sylvie; Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (April 22, 2000). "Consideration Set Size and Familiarity With Usage Context". ACR North American Advances. NA-27.
↑ Hauser, John R. (2014). "Consideration-set heuristics". Journal of Business Research. Elsevier BV. 67 (8): 1688–1699. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.015. hdl: 1721.1/111102 . ISSN 0148-2963.
↑ Vogrincic-Haselbacher, Claudia; Krueger, Joachim I.; Lurger, Brigitta; Dinslaken, Isabelle; Anslinger, Julian; Caks, Florian; Florack, Arnd; Brohmer, Hilmar; Athenstaedt, Ursula (April 22, 2021). "Not Too Much and Not Too Little: Information Processing for a Good Purchase Decision". Frontiers in Psychology. 12: 642641. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642641 . PMC 8115021 . PMID 33995196.
1 2 3 Horowitz, Joel L; Louviere, Jordan J (May 1, 1995). "What is the role of consideration sets in choice modeling?". International Journal of Research in Marketing. 12 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(95)00004-L – via ScienceDirect.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lleras, Juan Sebastián; Masatlioglu, Yusufcan; Nakajima, Daisuke; Ozbay, Erkut Y. (2017). "When more is less: Limited consideration" (PDF). Journal of Economic Theory. Elsevier BV. 170: 70–85. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2017.04.004. ISSN 0022-0531.
↑ Manzini, Paola; Mariotti, Marco (2007). "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice". The American Economic Review. 97 (5): 1824–1839. doi:10.1257/aer.97.5.1824. JSTOR 30034586 – via JSTOR.
↑ Parkinson, Thomas L. (April 22, 1979). "An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation". ACR North American Advances. NA-06.
1 2 3 4 5 Laroche, Michel; Kim, Chankon; Matsui, Takayoshi (January 1, 2003). "Which decision heuristics are used in consideration set formation?". Journal of Consumer Marketing. 20 (3): 192–209. doi:10.1108/07363760310472236.
↑ Hauser, John R.; Toubia, Olivier; Evgeniou, Theodoros; Befurt, Rene; Dzyabura, Daria (June 22, 2010). "Disjunctions of Conjunctions, Cognitive Simplicity, and Consideration Sets". Journal of Marketing Research. 47 (3): 485–496. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.3.485. S2CID 1011989.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] "Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening". Stanford Graduate School of Business.

[2] "Awareness Set". Monash Business School.

[influences-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181–197. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40216215

[inert_inept-4] 1 2 "Evoked, Inert and Inept sets". Noble Marketeers. June 18, 2016.

[acr-5] 1 2 Aurier, Philippe; Jean, Sylvie; Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (April 22, 2000). "Consideration Set Size and Familiarity With Usage Context". ACR North American Advances. NA-27.

[6] Hauser, John R. (2014). "Consideration-set heuristics". Journal of Business Research. Elsevier BV. 67 (8): 1688–1699. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.015. hdl: 1721.1/111102 . ISSN 0148-2963.

[7] Vogrincic-Haselbacher, Claudia; Krueger, Joachim I.; Lurger, Brigitta; Dinslaken, Isabelle; Anslinger, Julian; Caks, Florian; Florack, Arnd; Brohmer, Hilmar; Athenstaedt, Ursula (April 22, 2021). "Not Too Much and Not Too Little: Information Processing for a Good Purchase Decision". Frontiers in Psychology. 12: 642641. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642641 . PMC 8115021 . PMID 33995196.

[role_of_consideration_sets-8] 1 2 3 Horowitz, Joel L; Louviere, Jordan J (May 1, 1995). "What is the role of consideration sets in choice modeling?". International Journal of Research in Marketing. 12 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(95)00004-L – via ScienceDirect.

[when_more_is_less-9] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lleras, Juan Sebastián; Masatlioglu, Yusufcan; Nakajima, Daisuke; Ozbay, Erkut Y. (2017). "When more is less: Limited consideration" (PDF). Journal of Economic Theory. Elsevier BV. 170: 70–85. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2017.04.004. ISSN 0022-0531.

[10] Manzini, Paola; Mariotti, Marco (2007). "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice". The American Economic Review. 97 (5): 1824–1839. doi:10.1257/aer.97.5.1824. JSTOR 30034586 – via JSTOR.

[11] Parkinson, Thomas L. (April 22, 1979). "An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation". ACR North American Advances. NA-06.

[decision_heuristic_formation-12] 1 2 3 4 5 Laroche, Michel; Kim, Chankon; Matsui, Takayoshi (January 1, 2003). "Which decision heuristics are used in consideration set formation?". Journal of Consumer Marketing. 20 (3): 192–209. doi:10.1108/07363760310472236.

[conjunctive-13] Hauser, John R.; Toubia, Olivier; Evgeniou, Theodoros; Befurt, Rene; Dzyabura, Daria (June 22, 2010). "Disjunctions of Conjunctions, Cognitive Simplicity, and Consideration Sets". Journal of Marketing Research. 47 (3): 485–496. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.3.485. S2CID 1011989.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]