FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1512900541> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1512900541 abstract "Past research has supported the existence of choice set formation (CSF) processes as a means to ease the cognitive burden arising from individual decision making (Hauser, 2014; Roberts & Lattin, 1997; Swait, 1984). The motivations for decision makers to use screening/CSF processes are varied and restrictions that motivate the filtering criteria are diverse (Botti et al., 2008). More generally, constraints to choice range from characteristics of the individuals, to contextual factors and to attributes of alternatives, among others (e.g., Swait, 1984). In this paper we propose that goals can exert an influential, even primary, role in the filtering of alternatives, in addition to their role in final choice deliberation itself (Li, 2013). Our statement that goals play a significant role in CSF is not merely speculation, but based on past research demonstrating that products are perceived as means for the attainment of desired end-states (e.g., van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2012). In this sense, the subjective value of a product is derived from its compatibility with the active goals that lead to these end-states (Markman & Brendl, 2000). Consider the following situations which highlight the importance of understanding goal-based CSF. A traveller interested in history and religion may refrain from considering visiting Jerusalem so as “to avoid feeling unsafe”; or yet other individuals may prefer to travel by bus rather than airplane “to avoid the fear of flying”. Participants in an auction may do so “to gain social status”, not “to acquire rare goods” or “experience the thrill of pursuing a difficult objective”. A consumer may choose a decadently delicious ice cream because he wants “to indulge himself through eating”, rather than fruit pieces when his goal is “to stick to healthy diet”, or yet may compromise with some gelato or frozen yoghurt in an attempt to reconcile both goals. Strawberry gelatine, not perceived as contributing towards either active goal, might not be considered for this choice situation. To test whether goals act as CSF screeners, we conducted two studies in each of two categories (tourism destinations and dessert selection). The main objective of the first study for a category was the identification of relevant consumption goals to be used in the second study. Additionally, we also intended to explore the influence of multiple simultaneous goals for each category, investigate their relative occurrence among cited goals, identify their association with desired outcomes (see: Carver, 1996; van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2012), as well as gain insight into popular tourism destinations and dessert options for the sample. The main questions collected open-ended responses supported in real time by a text mining algorithm. This approach allowed the instrument of the first study to more closely align with qualitative laddering techniques, conventionally used to understand the “why’s” underlying decision-making, by probing respondents with their own answers. In each category, we designed the second study on the basis of goals and alternatives observed in study one. The main task for each category consisted of discrete choice experiments with manipulated goal conditions. For both tasks, the dependent variable referred to respondents indicating whether they perceived the presented set of alternatives worthy of consideration for the given goal condition. Our between-subjects design randomly allocated respondents to one of three experimental goal conditions for each category. We selected one approach (A) and one avoidance goal (B) (Carver, 1996) from the list of goals previously elicited, to account for any potential differential effects (Florack, Scarabis, & Gosejohann, 2005), as well as a third combined-goals (both A and B) condition. We used a Balanced Incomplete Block Design, with 13 alternatives being presented in groups of four, in 13 different scenarios. A total of 367 valid responses were collected across both categories. Our results strongly support differences in choice set evaluation for both of the categories as a function of the activated goal conditions: i.e., the perceived quality of a set of alternatives varied according to the goals respondents were given. These findings suggest that alternatives were considered on the basis of their perceived attainability of the activated goal(s). Managerially, this suggests that changes in product bundling impacts the perceived usefulness of the members of that bundle. Understanding how this phenomenon can be incorporated into existing models of decision-making, in particular how goal-based cut-offs are implemented by decision-makers, is a promising outcome for research that is currently being undertaken to develop extended goal-sensitive models of choice behaviour. References Botti, S., Broniarczyk, S., Haubl, G., Hill, R., Huang, Y., Kahn, B., . . . Wansink, B. (2008). Choice under restrictions. Marketing Letters, 19(3-4), 183-199.  Carver, C. S. (1996). Some ways in which goals differ and some implications of those differences. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Pyschology of action: linking cognition and motivation to behaviour. New York: Guilford Press. Florack, A., Scarabis, M., & Gosejohann, S. (2005). Regulatory focus and consumer information processing. In F. R. Kardes, P. M. Herr & J. Nantel (Eds.), Applying social cognition to consumer-focused strategy (pp. 235-263). Hauser, J. R. (2014). Consideration-set heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1688-1699.  Li, L. (2013). The role of antecedent volition on consumer evaluative processes and choice behavior. (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Markman, A. B., & Brendl, C. M. (2000). The influence of goals on value and choice. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 39, 97-128.  Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1997). Consideration: Review of research and prospects for future insights. Journal of Marketing Research, 406-410.  Swait, J. (1984). Probabilistic choice set generation in transportation demand models. (PhD), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts. van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2012). A Goal-Based Model of Product Evaluation and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 260-292." @default.
• W1512900541 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1512900541 creator A5032214495 @default.
• W1512900541 creator A5056402097 @default.
• W1512900541 creator A5079006965 @default.
• W1512900541 date "2015-05-11" @default.
• W1512900541 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1512900541 title "Goals constrain choices: the role of goals in choice set formation" @default.
• W1512900541 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1512900541 type Work @default.
• W1512900541 sameAs 1512900541 @default.
• W1512900541 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1512900541 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1512900541 hasAuthorship W1512900541A5032214495 @default.
• W1512900541 hasAuthorship W1512900541A5056402097 @default.
• W1512900541 hasAuthorship W1512900541A5079006965 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C122980154 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C2776946740 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C47941915 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C90673727 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C122980154 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C139719470 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C144133560 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C15744967 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C162324750 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C162853370 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C169760540 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C169900460 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C177264268 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C17744445 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C199360897 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C199539241 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C2524010 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C2776946740 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C33923547 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C41008148 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C47941915 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C77805123 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C90673727 @default.
• W1512900541 hasConceptScore W1512900541C94625758 @default.
• W1512900541 hasLocation W15129005411 @default.
• W1512900541 hasOpenAccess W1512900541 @default.
• W1512900541 hasPrimaryLocation W15129005411 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W1496592029 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W1546025498 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W1579358673 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W1642391691 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W1983984783 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2012227281 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2013424709 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2031159455 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2099037842 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2115028787 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2124764091 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2163780515 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2416004623 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2607526803 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W2968854679 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W3035280082 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W3123700309 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W3146904855 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W3162736433 @default.
• W1512900541 hasRelatedWork W21395315 @default.
• W1512900541 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1512900541 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1512900541 magId "1512900541" @default.
• W1512900541 workType "article" @default.