consideration set (marketing)

7/27/2019 Consideration Set (marketing)

1/18

Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, andSuggestionsAuthor(s): Allan D. Shocker, Moshe Ben-Akiva, Bruno Boccara and Prakash NedungadiReviewed work(s):Source: Marketing Letters, Vol. 2, No. 3, Consumer Decision Making and Choice Behavior(Aug., 1991), pp. 181-197Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40216215 .

Accessed: 17/12/2012 03:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMarketing Letters.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:34:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40216215?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40216215?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/18

Marketingetters :3, 1991):181-197 1991KluwerAcademic ublishers, anufacturedntheNetherlands.

Considerationet nfluencesnConsumerecision-MakingndChoice:Issues,Models, ndSuggestionsALLAND. SHOCKERCarlson choolofManagement,niversityfMinnesota,7119thAvenue o., Minneapolis,MN 55455MOSHE BEN-AKIVACenterorTransportationtudies,Massachusettsnstitutef TechnologyBRUNOBOCCARADepartmentfEconomics,Massachusettsnstitutef TechnologyPRAKASH NEDUNGADI*Faculty fManagement,niversityfToronto,oronto,ntario ANADAW5S1V4Keywords: ecision-making,onsiderationet,Consumer hoiceAbstractThispaper ffords stylized iewof ndividualonsumer hoicedecision-makingppropriateothe tudy fmanymarketingecisions.t summarizesssuesrelatingo considerationet effectson consumerudgmentnd choice. t discusseswhetheronsiderationetsreally xist nd, f o,the actorshat ffectheiromposition,tructure,nd role ndecision-making.texamines omenewdevelopmentsn themeasurementndmodelingf onsiderationeteffectsndecision-mak-ing.Thepaper oncludeswithuggestionsorneeded esearch.Most contemporaryccountsofhumandecision-making ivea prominentole tosimplification.his extends notonlyto the "process" presumedly sed by thedecision-makernreaching decision,where implificationcknowledges hede-cision-maker'sffortso make his/heraskeasierandmorefunctional, utalso tothe modelsofthatprocessproposedbythose whostudydecision-makingWright1975).Simplemodelsare tobe preferredecause they re tractable, fact hat sparticularlymportantwhenthe analyst'stask is to make predictions or argenumbers f consumers.On the otherhand,manybehavioral cientists aveques-tioned headequacy of suchmodelsas explanation incethey ften ind process*The uthorswish oacknowledgehenumerousdeas andperspectivesontributedytheothermembersf heBanffymposiumorkshop: ukesh hargavaUniversityfAlberta), illBlack(LouisianaStateUniversity),aryGaethUniversityf owa), HotakaKatahiraUniversityfTokyo, apan), illes aurentCentre EC-ISA,France),rwin evinUniversityf owa),DavidMidgleyAustralian raduate choolofManagement),homasNovakSouthernMethodist ni-versity),ndJamesWileyUniversityfAlberta). hispaperhas benefitedreatlyromheir on-tributions.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

182 A. D. SHOCKER, M. BEN-AKIVA,B. BOCCARA,AND P. NEDUNGADI

that s toocomplexto be modeledsimply.Humandecision-makings stillnotwellenoughunderstoodas indicatedbya large mount fongoing esearch) oclarifythedistinction etween theprocess ofdecision-makingnd models used to rep-resent hatprocess. The distinction emains mbiguous o thateven whatsomeresearchers all "process" may onlybe theirmoresophisticatedmodel ratherthan ome revelation f "truth."All one can often aywith ssurance s that nemodelappearsmore"realistic"than nother.Explanation nd predictionre bothcriticallymportantomarketing,ecauseof the inherent esire of marketers o take actions whichwill be differentiallyaccepted by potential ustomers.Wefocus on the ndividual ecision-makernddevelop a stylized"process" by which this individual rrivesat a choice. Thedecisions we emphasizeare separableand discrete nd willbe assumed to havewell-defined oundaries, .e., theyhave weakfuturemplications.We avoid sit-uationswhich iedecisionstogetheruch as "I'll scratchyourback ifyouscratchmine"behavior,whereone decisioncreatesconcurrentrfuturebligationswithrespectto another).We concentrate argelyupon decisions made by choosingfrom lternativeswhichare activelyprocessedor considered t or near thetimeofdecision. This permits s to ignoremost nformationearchin real time;butthepast searchused to establish n informationase is recognized.What resultsis a viewof ndividual onsumer hoicedecision-makingppropriate othestudyofmanymarketingecisionsand consistentwithmuch iterature.1. A modelofbrandconsiderationOurcharacterization fdecision-makings based uponhierarchical r nested etsofalternativeswhich, ave for hefirst,reprocessedbythedecision-makerriorto choice. (See Nedungadi 1987)for more detaileddiscussionof sucha modelof sequentialchoice.) The universal et refers o thetotality f all alternatives(usuallybrandedproductsor services) that could be obtained or purchasedbyanyconsumerunder nycircumstance.Alternativesn the universal etmaybeirrelevant o or unobtainableby a givenconsumer.This set merelyprovidesastarting oint i.e., the set of all goods and services)fromwhichsets ofgreaterinterestmay be constructed y the decision-maker,ither ccidentallyor pur-posefully.As its name implies, heawareness or knowledge et consistsofthesubsetofitems n the universalset of which,forwhateverreason, a givenconsumer s"aware" (whether hey"come to mind" on a givenoccasion or not) and whichare believedappropriate ortheconsumer'sgoal(s) or objectives.Knowledgeofthe items n thisset is presumed o reside in individual ong-termmemory; nyitemcould potentially e selectedforprocessing. Ifdecision-makings noten-tirely ased on informationnactivememory,heawareness setmayalso includethose items thattheindividualmayperceiveor encountern the external)deci-sion-makingontext e.g., brandson supermarkethelves)at thetime fdecision.



4/18

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKINGAND CHOICE 183

This set ofexternal lternatives an provide n additional ource ofitemsto thedecision-maker hen nformationbout them s processedand can also servetocue informationnmemory.]It is from heawareness set that thefocusof our concern,the considerationset, evolves. A consideration et is purposefullyonstructed nd can be viewedas consisting f thosegoal-satisfyinglternatives alientor accessible on a partic-ularoccasion. Whilean individualmayhave knowledge fa largenumber fal-ternatives,t s likely hatonlya few ofthesewill"come to mind" for relevantuse or purpose. [Narayana and Markin 1975) offer classification f awarebrands not considered nto two additionalsets, termed nert i.e., brands thatcustomermaybe awareofbutnot haveprocessedorgiven eriousconsideration)and inept i.e., alternativeshecustomermaybe awareof butwouldnot considerbuying ecause ofpreviousunfavorable xperienceor informationr high atis-factionwith xisting hoices). It should be notedthat, s thesesets are notpartofthe"process" bywhich heconsumer rrives t choice on a specific ccasion,they renot ncluded nourmodel.]The decision-maker eednot, nd typically oes not,possess thesame levelofknowledge bout each alternative nany set. More information aybe acquiredonce it s realized a decision s to be made,butoften decision will reflect nlytheavailable informationboutalternatives. urther,inceconsideration ets areformed or purpose,they houldalso be affected yfactors fcontext uch asintendedusage (Ratneshwar nd Shocker 1991) and prompting y existingre-trieval ues (Nedungadi1990a).Since they regoal-driven,healternativesn theconsideration et need notevenbe members fthesame nominalproduct lass;theymerelyhave to possess characteristics uitablefortheintendedpurpose(s)(Barsalou 1985,Park and Smith1989,Ratneshwar nd Shocker 1991). [A goalsuchas gift-givingay ncludediverse tems uchas cameras,watches,pens,etc.as alternatives. hese options atisfy riteria uchas "therecipientwould be ex-pectedto enjoythem" and theyfall within desiredprice range.]As depictedhere, heconsideration et s dynamic othwithin ndacrossusageoccasions. The consumerprocesses his/herptions nworkingmemory,ddingordeletings necessary.Additional lementsmaybe recalledor encountered ur-ingthedecisionprocess itself.For instance, storeat which theconsumer n-counteredparticularlyude servicemay "come to mind,"but can be removedfrom onsiderationwith ittledeliberation.Further, ome accessible itemsmayhardly e worthy f serious furthervaluation.Thus, theconsideration et mayevolveuntil heconsumerdecides tomake a final hoice. Itmaybe created newon each decisionoccasion or possiblyeven be largely rrelevantfno activepro-cessingoccursprior o choice (e.g., underroutinized esponsebehavior).

Because of tsdynamicnature,t s sometimes seful o define nother, loselyrelated et inmorestatic terms. n this nterpretation,hechoice set, is definedas the final onsideration et, i.e., theset ofalternatives onsidered mmediatelyprior o choice. If,as hypothesized, ntry o theconsideration et reflects ffort(i.e., cost)-benefit rade-offsHauser and Wernerfelt990),then thechoice set



5/18

184 A. D. SHOCKER, M. BEN-AKIVA,B. BOCCARA,ANDP. NEDUNGADI

should onsist ffewer,more ighlyifferentiatedlternatives,elected romhe(total ecall) onsiderationet.Figure llustrateshenestingf he etsdefinedbove.Thisfigureollowsheconventionfdepictingatent onstructsnovalsand tems irectlybservableormeasurablenrectangularoxes.Theprocessofnestingrom biggero asmalleretdoes notnecessarilymply equencing,ince ertainetformationsmay ccur imultaneously.inally, ealso allowfor eedbackdottedines) inceexperienceanteach ndthus ffecthose lternativesonsideredswell s thosechosen tlater imes.1 urunderstandingf consumerhoice s aidedbysuchsimplificationramework.hehierarchicalr nested aturef thismodel fde-cision-makingelpsfocus ttentionn those actors hich ontrol assagefromonestage oanother. ifferentrocessesmaybeinvolvednmovingromware-nesstoconsiderationndfromonsiderationochoice Nedungadi 990a).Re-

Figure . Amodel f ndividualhoice.

Universalet

I |^ Awarenesset >*lI ContextT ^y^ [Externallternatives]

Q Considerationet \ir I- ------ J

^ChdceSet^

I Choice



6/18

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKINGANDCHOICE 185

searchers, or xample,have postulatednon-compensatory odels fordetermin-ing the compositionof a choice set and compensatorymodels forevaluatingoptions n theset inorderto makea choice (Wrightnd Barbour1977;Bettman1979;Gensch 1987).This implies hat ertainproduct haracteristics r levelsarenecessary or hat tem obe considered t all (non-compensatory)nd that rade-offs re madeonlywithin hisrangeofacceptableattributeevels and/orwith ndbetween ess critical ttributes.The sets and theirdefinitions ivenabove are not universal n the literature.Brown nd Wildt1987)comparefivedifferentperational efinitions fconceptssimilar otheconsideration et. Some authorsdo notdistinguishetweenconsid-eration ndchoice setsand use "consideration et" forbothconstructs.Howardand Sheth 1969) used the concept of the evoked set and defined t as "thosebrandsthebuyerconsiders when he (or she) contemplates urchasing unitoftheproduct lass (p. 416)." This definitions closest towhat we have termed hechoice set. Others e.g., Silk and Urban1978)have used a more nclusivedefini-tionfor voked setthatwould ncludewhatNarayanaand Markin 1975) refer oas the nert nd inept ets.Regardlessoftheir recisedefinition,ested setshavecommonly een used to characterize onsumerdecision-making.Most previousdefinitions,owever,have notexaminedthepreciserole of these sets in thedy-namicprocess bywhich the individual rrivesat a choice decision (Nedungadi1987).2. Evidence or onsiderationetsConsideration nd choice sets are notdirectly bservable. However, there aremany rgumentshat ould be used tosupport heexistenceofthenestedprocessdescribedabove. Hauser and Wernerfelt1990) and Robertsand Lattin (1990)provide ecent eviews f research elevant ounderstandingheroleandrationaleforconsideration ets. They note that the existenceof consideration ets is alogicaloutcomeof theories neconomics ndpsychologyndhas strong mpiricalsupport,much ofit reviewed n their wopapers. Research in theeconomicsofinformationearchsuggests hatconsumerswillcontinue o searchfor nforma-tion s long s the. xpectedmarginal eturns rom hat earchexceed themarginalcostoffurtherearching.n psychology, ifferentiationetween ong- nd short-termmemory s consistentwitha reduction rocess of thetypeassumed here,where temsrelevant o an immediatepurpose are retrieved rom torageandmadeaccessible. "Phased" decisionstrategies avebeen suggested s character-isticofhumandecision-makingn a number f contextswhere onsumershave tocope with omplexityWrightnd Barbour1977;Bettman1979).The consumeris conceptualized s first ilteringheavailable alternatives singrelatively implecriteria nd thenundertakingetailedanalysisof this reduced set. Different e-cision models (e.g., non-compensatorynd compensatory, espectively)havebeen used to characterize he twostages Gensch 1987).



7/18


Hauser andWernerfelt1990) summarize he evidenceregardingize of consid-eration set for each of a largenumber f productcategories assumingthatallentries onsidered omeonlyfromhesame nominal roduct ategory).Theycitea range n mean or median)from -8 withmostset sizes in therangeof 3 - 6(p. 394). Whileadmittedlyircumstantial,his videncesuggests hatmostpeopleconsiderfarfewer hanthetotal number f brandsavailable, providingvidencethatmostconsiderationchoice) setsare small.Moredirect videncefortheexistenceof considerationnd choice sets is pro-vided by the work of Nedungadi (1990a) and Ratneshwar nd Shocker (1991).Nedungadiwas able to demonstrate n effect nprobabilityf choiceby changingtheprobabilities f brandconsideration,without ltering randevaluations,bydifferentialromptingfbrands nproduct ategorieswithknown tructures. at-neshwar nd Shockerexaminedthenature fcategorization fproducts n mem-ory.Their Study3 providedevidence that thepresentation fdifferentpecificusages cued differenttypical" products.Theyreasonedthatusage was a proxyfor onsumergoals orpurposesand thatdifferentoalswould cause differentetsofproductswithin hebroadcategory e.g., snackfoods)to be considered.Finally, esearchers sing he"substitution-in-use"pproachtoproduct-marketstructureSrivastava,Alpert, nd Shocker1984)havefound high evel ofagree-ment mongsubjects ntheproducts heywouldconsiderfordifferentspecified)uses, suggestinghatwhenusage and awareness are controlled ortheremaybesome similarityn thecontent, nd possiblythestructure,fconsideration ets.Takentogether,hesefindings uggest hatconsideration ets are (i) real, ii) dy-namic,changingwith ime nd occasion, and (iii) affected yconsumer ontextsand purposes.3. Alternativemodels fconsiderationetformationnd changeBoth Hauser andWernerfelt1990)andRoberts nd Lattin 1990)proposemodelsofeffort ersusgainwhich deal with hequestionofhow consideration ets areformed nd revised over time.Hauser and Wernerfeltxpresstheprobabilityfinclusionofa brand n a consideration et ats trade-off etweencosts and ben-efits.These includecosts of nformationearchandthinkingboutandevaluatingthebrand nd theevaluationofthebenefits rutility romncludinghe brand ntheconsideration et for a particular onsumption ccasion. Their model is dy-namicacross (butnotwithin) ccasions because thecontent ftheconsiderationset can evolve as costs and benefits hangeover time,possibly eadingto itemsbeingremovedfrom he set. Their modeldoes notpurport o be "the process"consumersuse to form onsideration ets,butmerely "reasonable representa-tionof theresults f ndividual-specificnd situation-specificudgments p. 398)."Theypostulatetwo stagesto consideration etformation: riorto detailedeval-uation onsumersuse informal, euristicmeans togathernformation.his infor-mation s used to screenalternatives rior o themoredetailed,systematic val-



8/18

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING ANDCHOICE 187

uation f their osts versus benefits.Hauser andWernerfeltesttheirmodel n anaggregatemanner ypredictinghedistributionfconsideration et size in differ-entproduct lasses.Roberts nd Lattin,proposea similarmodel and find upport or t at the ndi-vidual evel. In theirmodelsomeprocessings necessarytomake thepreliminaryeffort ersus gain calculations which screen candidates forentry;such effortbeing wasted" if heentrys rejected.Also their rameworkmplies hat ll mem-bersof a product lass are screened forpossible inclusion, contention hat sprobablynotsupportable mpirically. inally, heir nalyses,as well as those ofHauser andWernerfelt,reorganized round nominalproduct lasses anddo notprovidefortheheterogeneous onsideration ets that can be impliedby usage-driven oals.Swait (1984) and Ratneshwar nd Shocker (1991) viewed consideration ndchoicesetsas arising ut of theconstraintsmposedby ndividual oals and otherpersonal ircumstancesnteracting ith vailable alternativesnd other nviron-mentalfactors e.g., social considerations).Swait proposeda typology f con-straints o individual rban ravel hat ncompassesa) household,b) societal,andc) personal onstraints. here are twomajorcategoriesofhouseholdconstraints:physical onstraints re exemplified y such factors s residential ocationandresource vailabilitye.g., household ncome,automobile wnership) nd the n-dividual's statusor rolewithin he household relatedto lifestyle r stagein thelife ycle)whichmay ead to differentialccess toalternativese.g., childrenvenofdriving ge maynothave primary ccess to a car). Societal constraints rethose mposedbyavailability falternativeswhichpresumeconsumers re notable to createtheir wnoptions).Personalconstraints elateto individual astesandpreferencesndtotherolethat he ndividual ermits thers ohave on theirdecisions. Personalconstraints lso includeobjectiverestrictionsuchas posses-sion ofa driver's icense.Laurent nd Lapersonne 1990) identify hatthey erm "comparison et." Itsuggests hepossibility hatotherproducts n theawareness set mayaffect heconsumer'sdecisioneven though hey re notconsideredforchoice. For exam-ple, price-qualityrade-offsr featuresmay serve to facilitate hoice amongal-ternatives hat,say,are moreaffordablee.g. a retailer laces a nationalbrandnext othestore'sprivate abel to communicate reater alue; a realtor cquaintsa clientwith moreexpensivehome to positiontheless expensiveones he/sheexpectsto eventually ell). An individualmayconsideralternatives hatotherswish him/hero consider, ven though he individualwould not otherwisehaveselectedthem or nclusion.Thispresumably ccurs n ndustrial uying rfamilybuying ircumstanceswhere thedecision-maker s acting s an agentforothersor otherwiseneeds to ustify isdecision to others Simonson 1989).Black (1990) has reviewed muchof the literature ealingwithchoice set for-mationnthecontext f consumers'retail torechoicebehaviors. n this ontext,researchhas linkedchoice set characteristics o characteristics f the decision-maker r ofthe outlets.Socioeconomic characteristicse.g., household ncome,



9/18


educationalevel,percent ingle-familyousing) hichffectange ftravelndlevel fdemandnd/orutlet haracteristicse.g.,travel istancesf utlets romcustomers,utlet's evelofpromotion)re used ndescriptive odels. uchap-proachesssume easonablytable onsiderationets, ince hepresumedausalfactorsrethemselvestable.4. Role ofconsiderationets nmodels f consumer ecision-makingnd choiceMost ndividual-levelodels f brand hoicehave gnoredffectsfthe onsid-eration et andfocused nstead n theroleof brand valuationsndeterminingchoicefromwithin given, esearcher-specifiedetofalternatives.rbitraryspecificationf uch lternativesspossiblyne of he actors hich ives ise o"violations f theso-called ndependencerom rrelevant lternativesHA)"phenomenonnwhich new lternativedded oa setdraws alesdisproportion-ately romlternatives ore imilaroit,rather han roportionatelytochoiceprobability)romll alternativesnthe et Wiley 990).Prior eterminationftheconsiderationet,which esultsnrestrictingchoicemodel oconsideredalternativesnly,houldmprovehepredictabilityf hoicemodelsHauser ndGaskin 984; ilk ndUrban1978). orexample, auser 1978)usesa goodness-of-fittatisticoargue hat he onsiderationet ccounts or 8% ofthe xplain-ableuncertaintynchoicedatawhile logitmodel asedupon onsumerrefer-enceaccounts or nly 2%.Formarketingodels, hen, practicalenefitrom he ncorporationf con-siderationets smore ccurate redictionrom hoicemodels hat ecognizehetwo tagesnvolvedSilk ndUrban 978;Hauser ndGaskin 984;Gensch 987;Fotheringham988). Perceptual appingmodels lsoappear obenefitromn-corporationfconsiderationets Katahira 990).Further,he oncept fa con-siderationet s also useful o marketerss it can aid indefiningmarketndinvestigatingts structureUrban,Johnson,ndHauser1984;RatneshwarndShocker 991).]nparticular,ne of hemore sefulmodelingormatss discrete-choice nalysis.tspurposes tomodel choicefrom mutuallyxclusive,ol-lectivelyxhaustiveetof lternativese.g.,McFadden 984;Ben-AkivandLer-man1985), .e. whatwe havetermed choice set.Mostof thediscretehoicemethodsndapplicationsreat he hoice etas given rpredictableeterminist-ically i.e., either nalternatives available rnot).While hismaybea reason-ableassumptionncertainnstances,t s not ngeneral.Neithers therelatedassumption,ftenmade, hat ll individuals ave the ame choice et.An indi-vidual's hoice etdepends pon hatndividual'specificnvironmentwhichreflectsotonly bjective onstraintse.g., his/herocio-economicharacteris-tics ndthe ttributesfthe lternatives),ut lsosubjectivenesrelated o his/her ttitudesndperceptions.hoice etsthemselvesre atentn the ensethatthey annot e imputed ith ertaintyn thebasisofobservationalata. Suchaconclusionmplieshat more ealistic odel f ndividualhoice ehavior ouldtreathoice etgenerations probabilistic.



10/18

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING AND CHOICE 189

Manski 1977) suggested hat he entire hoice problembe expressed probabil-istically s:Pn(i) =2 Pn(i|C)Pn(C|G) (DCeG(i)

WherePn(i) s theprobabilityf ndividualn choosing lternative;Pn(i|C) is theprobability f individualn choosingalternative giventhatthechoice set is C (e.g., a randomutilitymodel);Pn(C|G) s theprobabilityf C beingthe choice setof ndividualn;G is the setofall possiblechoice sets; andG(i) is thesetofall elements f G that ontain lternative.

Expression 1) reflects two-stage hoice paradigm:(i) probabilistichoicefrom givenchoice set,Pn(i|C);and(ii) a probabilistichoice setgenerationmodel,Pn(C|G)

A high degreeof complexity s implied by (1) since the numberof possiblechoicesets s very arge.Swait and Ben-Akiva 1987)describea priori estrictionsused by researchers o reduce the dimensionalityf the choice set generationproblem.Theyalso suggest behavioral heory frandom onstraints o explaintheprobabilistic ature f choice setsand provide n approachtoparameterizingchoiceset models. Their dea of"random onstraints" s based uponthe factthatdifferentndividuals re expectedto have varying erceptions f thedegreetowhich n operative onstraintimits heir ccess to certain lternativese.g., themaximum cceptablewalkingdistanceto a subwaystop is likely o varyacrossindividuals).The Ben-Akiva ndBoccara (1990)model s inthistradition. heyformulateda probabilisticatent hoicesetmodel,which hey est n an empirical tudy. heirchoice set model includesexplicitrepresentationf choice set constraintsi.e.,criteria hoice sets must atisfy orfeasibility). nalysis s carried utat the evelofthe individual nd explicitly onsiders his/her eterogeneous ituational on-straints nd preferences. he choice models are specifiedto explain observedbehavior s a function fboth atent actors ndobservablecharacteristics. heirconstraint-basedpproach o choice setformationostulates hat tthefirst tageofthechoiceprocessthe ndividual xcludesfrom urtheronsideration vailablealternatives otmeeting ertain riteria.This stage s non-compensatory.hus achange n an attribute f an alternative an have two separateeffects: n avail-ability ffectis it nthechoice set?)and a substitutionffectif t s inthechoiceset,will tbe chosen?). Implementationftheir rameworknvolvesboth observ-ables (socio-economiccharacteristics, roduct ttributes, ttitudes nd percep-tionsofavailability, nowledge f actualchoices) and latentvariables essentiallytheunobservableconstraints hat determine vailability f alternatives).Their



11/18


main hesis s that atent ariablesan be nferredrom bservedndicators.heirresearch emonstrateshe fficiencyains interms f ncreasedrecisionfpa-rameterstimates)rom sing,ointlywith referenceata, ndicatorsfchoicesetformation.ubstantialifficultynestimatinghesemodelsmayhinderheirfuturese,however.5. Marketingssues and researchmplicationsrom heconsiderationetconceptOurobservationsfconsumerecision-making,rganizeds theyre aroundherelationsmong istinctets ndprocesses, ocus ttentionnthe mportantoleplayed yfactors uch s consumeroalsorusage ntentions.ovak 1990) ndRatneshwarndShocker1991)recognizedhepotentialmportancefusageorpurposenaffectingheformationnd contentfconsiderationnd choice ets(Study inRatneshwarndShocker1991)provides mpiricalupport). ovakas well s Bhargava1990)haveraised s questions or esearch hetherr notfactors f ntendedsage ffecthoice etformationnthe amemanners theyaffectonsiderationetformation?oregenerally,re thefactors hich ffectmovementromwareness o considerationifferentrom hosewhich ffectmovementromonsiderationothe hoice et?Suchresearchouldhold mpor-tanceformarketing anagersnterestedn improvinghe ikelihoodhat heirproductsetconsidered. hecueing fspecific roductlternativesycontactswith riendsndacquaintancesr with romotionalndothermarketingctivity(e.g., salespersonnel)may lso affectetrievalrommemoryndthus hefor-mationfchoice ets.Nedungadi1990a)has dentifiedccessibilityease of re-trieval)ndpreferences twopotentiallymportantactorsnthisprocess.Expostknowledgefthecompositionf eachsetmaypermitnferencesbout hecriteria sedtodeterminehich roducts illbe includedntheconsiderationsetand,possiblylso,the riteriaor inal hoice.

Bhargava1990)has also raised ssuesregardingheabilityfan alternativethathas oncebeenrejectedore-enterhe hoice et at a later ime. or recon-sideration,oentryr exit riteria avetochange rdoperceptionsfthe lter-native?Additionally,esearchmightontrasthe tructuref considerationetsof"experts"with hose fnovices. xpertsmay e "opinioneaders" or ertaintypes fdecisionsndtheirnfluence ightxtend o criteria or ntrynd exitas well s to the pecificontentndstructureffollowers' onsiderationets.Thedistinctionetween onsiderationetsof eaders ndfollowersould shedlight ponthefeasibilityfusing uchsets,or theirmodeofconstruction,smeansfor egmentingustomersorforpossiblydentifyingpinioneaders rexperts).Somewhat ifferentpecificmicro) sage ituationsavebeen hown oelicitsimilarrandsndproductsor onsiderationcross ndividuals,mplyinghat tmaybefeasibleo create taxonomyfusagetypesmacro-usages)asedupontheirmportantttributesr characteristicsSrivastava, eone, and Shocker



12/18


1981).The factthatmany pecificusages can elicit similar onsideration ets in-creasestherelevance ftheusageconstruct o marketers.tmaynotbe necessaryto considermorethan a smallfraction f themany diosyncratic sages to makeuse oftheconstruct. romotionalueingof a specific ituation, s representativeof itstype,may automatically uggest thermicro-situationsnd/or llow differ-entconsumers o relate.While thesegeneralizations re consistentwiththe Sri-vastava, Leone, and Shockerresearch,more specificstudiesare necessarytoinvestigatehe xtent f suchgeneralizability.nd,finally,lthough onsiderationsets were defined t the individual evel, aggregate ets (e.g., formed rom heunionofindividual etsand based upona defensible ationale or ggregatingn-dividuals, such as commonusage relevance)may prove useful n determiningcompetitive roduct-marketsRatneshwar nd Shocker1991).The linkage f con-sideration ets to product-markettructuremay suggesta fruitfulpproach tounderstanding hythestructure fspecificmarkets s as it s and helpmanagersdecide howeasy or difficulttwillbe to changethat tructure.Novak (1990) has hypothesized hatusages themselveshave structure. ometypes re more mportantr dominant r occurmorefrequentlyhanothers.Hehas asked what are the moreappropriate ormse.g., tree,spatial,network) orrepresentinghis structure f usages? At what level (i.e., productsor brands)?Once defined t the ndividualevel,how can suchstructures est be aggregated?To investigateuch effects,we need also to investigate hevalidity f aggregatemeasures ofusage importance.Additional ssues involving herelation fusagesituationsndconsideration etspose topicsforpossibleresearch.Do the numberof specific micro)usage situations ncountered yan individual ffect helongterm tability fconsiderationets and thestructuremongbrandswithin hem?Does the number f brands ppropriate or usage situation ffect hestability ftheconsideration r choice sets?Anobvious research uestion s to examinetherole thatmarketingctionsplay(or can play) inboththeformation fconsumerpurpose(s) in specific ituationsand in theassociation of specificproductsor brandswiththosepurposes. To aconsiderable extentconsumersself-selectmanyof the situations heywill en-counterwhentheymake fundamentalhoices of such things s career and life-style Snyder1981). But theprocess is farfrom redeterminednd seems ame-nable to influenceby marketing ctions. Moreover, associations of specificproductswithparticular urposes are learnedresponses and thus amenable toinfluence y marketingctions e.g., productdesign,selection of productposi-tioningnd imagery,election fprice evels,and distributionntensity). romo-tion an educateas wellas remind. roduct/serviceeatures, aluefor hemoney,andqualityhelpdistinguishn alternativend make tmore or less) probablethatthebrandwillenter he wareness ndconsiderationets ofthoseconsumerswhofind hefeatures ttractive or heir urposes.Consideration nd choice setsmaybe expandedthroughmarketingtrategiessuch as "productbundling,"wherenormally eparateproducts re sold togetherfora singleprice. The primary roductmaybe one alreadyin an individual's



13/18

192 A. D. SHOCKER, M. BEN-AKIVA,B. BOCCARA,AND P.NEDUNGADI

considerationet,but he tie-in" roductsftenre not.Recent heoreticalndempirical evelopmentsend upporto the nfluencen considerationndchoicesets of sucha marketingtrategy.haler1985)describedorms f"mentalc-counting"ywhich ainswill have theirmaximumffect hen ccounted orseparately,utperceivedossesmaybe minimizedy lumpinghem ogether.Thesepredictionsollow irectlyrom he ssumptionf valuefunctionhatsconcaventhedomainfgains nd onvexn he omain f osses.Thus productbundle, onsistingfseparately ackaged eaturesgains), ogether ith totalcost loss) lumpednto single um,maybe evaluated avorablyyconsumers.This was confirmedn a study yGaeth,Levin,Chakraborty,ndLevin 1991)inwhich onsumersnspectedealproductundleselectronicypewritercal-culator airs rVCR- videocassetteapepairs) ndevaluatedhemna numberofdimensions. otonlywerebundles erceivedo beworthmore han he umoftheir arts, utproductundleswere valuatedmore avorablyhan heuse ofcomparableashrebates.Muchresearch ealingwith onsiderationets has focused pondescriptiveaspectsnotablyize)and gnoredheirpecificontentnd tructure.edungadi(1990a)has been anexception, sing tructureopredicthe ffectsf"prompt-ing"on theformationf thechoice set. RatneshwarndShocker1991)havedemonstratedifferentontent ndstructurefconsiderationetsas a functionof ntendedsage.Thestructuref uch ets s a functionforder f ntryf healternativesn the ethas beendemonstratedt anaggregateevelbyHauser ndWernerfelt1990).Theseconnectionsnturnuggesthat pportunitiesay xistfor xamininguch opics s the orrespondenceetween he imilarityfbrandswithin ominal roduct ategoriesnd theirointappearancen considerationsets;the ggregationfconsiderationets s thebasis for evelopingproduct-marketefinitionndstructure;nd therole f"order f earning"i.e.,order fentryt the ndividualevel)onthestructuref considerationets.Srivastava,Leone,andShocker1981)andRatneshwarnd Shocker1991)havealso pro-vided videncehat onsiderationets ould nclude roducts ith ifferenthys-icalcharacteristicsbutwhich eliver he unctionalenefitsequiredy partic-ularusage).Thissuggests ewresearchmaybeneeded o examine onsiderationsetsize, ratherhanbasing vidence pon questions resumingingle roductcategoriess was donein thefindingsummarizedyHauserand Wernerfelt(1990).

6. Research ssues/needsnmodeling onsiderationetsand consumerhoiceItseems learthat ifferentecision ontexts ouldnecessitateifferentodelsofdecision-making.hoicemayprecede onsiderationetformationn caseswherecquisitionfexperiencer earningbout lternativess mportant.omedecision-makersaynot e satisfied ith he lternativeshey ave ndmay eek



14/18


additional nes or mayneed to search to assure themselves f theadequacy ofthealternatives lready dentified.We have emphasizedchoices based upon in-formationn memory, et manydecisions combinememory actorswith nfor-mation cquired in real time.Decision-makingmayproceed differentlyhen achoice set consists of both e.g., mixed choice tasks,Lynch,Marmorstein,ndWeigold,1989).How does differingepthofknowledgeregardinghechoice al-ternatives ffect hoice? Whatfactorsaffect he depthof knowledge acquiredregarding lternatives i.e., when individualssearch for informationegardingchoice alternatives, o they cquire thesame informationbouteach or do theymake inferencesbout missing nformation)?hould, as Johnson 1984) has ar-gued,decision-makinge modelleddifferentlyhentheconsiderationetconsistsof tems rom ifferentominalproduct lasses i.e., so-called "non-comparable"alternatives? n investigationftheexistingiteraturen consumerudgment ndchoicemight e able toproduce taxonomy fdecision contexts rovidingnsightintothedecision modelsappropriate o each category.The modeling ffortswe notedabove, withthe exceptionof Swait and Ben-Akiva 1987)andBen-Akiva ndBoccara (1990),dependuponvalid dentificationofchoice sets. What are thebest measureablecriteria o use shortofasking n-dividuals to self-report?s thereevidence thatchoice sets can be reliablypre-dictedfromdemographic r other data about the decision-maker?Nedungadi(1990b)has questionedwhether onstructs uchas choice setsand considerationsetsare evenmeaningfulorespondents.fthey renot,how valid willquestionsbe whichask forself-reports? e has asked whether onsideration ets exist inlong-termmemorynd are retrieved s neededor are simply onstructed n thespot? f welldefined onsideration r choice setsdo notexist,can themulti-stagedecisionmodelstillserveas a usefulparadigm?Consider,for xample,a modelwherenon-compensatoryules are used to narrowdown theset of alternativesand a compensatory ecision ruleis employed o arrive t the finalchoice. Theboundariesbetween hestagesof thismodel are notwell-defined; et,an empir-ical versionof such a model with atentconsiderationor choice) sets could beuniquely stimated. s such a modelmore"realistic" than a singlestagemodel?Do such generalizations rovideuseful nsights nd betterpredictions? inally,howshoulda model ofconsideration-and choice-)setformation e specified?Whathappens nprediction fconsumerchoice whenchoice sets are moder-atelymisspecified?Forexample, ncalibratingonjointmodels,an individual stypically sked forpreferencesr choices from monga set ofresearcher-speci-fied lternatives,.e., the lternativesreusuallynotthosethe ubjectwouldhaveconsideredhim/herself.]re models calibratedon thebasis of "choices" frommusspecifiedets stillvalid? [To minimizemisspecifications, ofcourse,a majorreason forbeinginterestedn the construction f choice sets at the individualdecision-makerevel.] The limitations fchoice modelestimationwhich gnoredtheproblem f individual hoice set specificatione.g., by assumingeveryonechose from hesame set or that hechoice setwas thecompleteset ofavailablealternatives)was recognized arly.For instance, nthetransportationhoice lit-



15/18


erature topher 1980) and Williams nd Ortuzar 1982) offer mpiricalverifica-tion of the inconsistencyn parameter stimatesthatcan arise whenindividualchoices setsaremisspecified. wait 1984)provides theoretical acking otheseempirical indings ypresenting specification rror nalysisfor binary hoicesituation n which heanalyst gnores hefactthat omeindividuals recaptivetoone alternative. wait is able to conclude thatmisspecificationeads to biasedparameters.A review of the literature n modeling hoice set formationn thecontextofdiscrete-choicemodels whichconsiders gnoringhe ssue, determin-isticchoice sets,probabilistichoice setswith ndwithout rior estrictionsuchas captivity,nd use ofrandom onstraints)s found nBoccara (1989).It seems also clear thattherelation f consideration ets to choice itself s in-fluencedby thenatureof thechoice task. Laurent and Lapersonne 1990) havesuggested hat ircumstances rise wherea choice or consideration etmaycon-sist ofonlya singleproduct/servicelternative. his can happenwhenproductsare infrequentlyurchased,costlyor risky experience goods" (whereone maynot be able to judge theirqualityor suitability riorto purchaseand use), orcomplex goods comprisingmanyelementsor auxiliary ervices (whichmaybeanother xampleof an experiencegood). These circumstancesre more ikely nindustrialmarketing ecisionsthan n thepackaged goods domain,where muchof thedecision researchhas beenconducted.Onlyone suppliermaybe availableand therefore he choices mayinvolvetheterms nd conditions fthe relation-ship,onlyincidentallyncludingwhether o have a relationshipt all. Theyalsosuggestcircumstanceswhere a majordecision objectivemaybe learning boutalternatives o aid future ecision-makinge.g., acquiring xperiencewith pro-spectivevendor to assess the qualityof his service or consistencyof productperformance) r to guide search activitywhichclearlyalso involvesdecision-making). n these cases theproduct hoice mayprecedethe formationfa con-sideration et. Or thechoice mayno longerbe amongproducts,butamongven-dors e.g., thedecision-makermayhave decidedtopurchase particularmake ofautomobile nd thechoice is now fromwhom topurchase t).Laurentand Lapersonne's ideas serve to illustrate ome ofthecomplexityhatawaitsthosewho seek todevelopmodels of consideration et formationnd con-sumerdecision-making.tpoints ut once againthat heprocessmaybe differentfordifferentindsofdecisions. Research whichcreatesa taxonomy fdecision-making ontextsmaybe necessarybefore ne can meaningfullyecidewhatkindofmodelor framework o use to explainor describedecisionsofthat ype.Theexamplesused serveto provide ome evidence that n certain ontextsdecisionsmaybe interrelated itheach otherand, therefore,n empiricalworkattentionneeds be paid to definingheboundariesofthedecision. Some decisionsmaybeconstrainedby the inherent atureofthechoice alternativese.g., "experiencegoods" requirepriorconsumptionn order to providethe personalexperiencenecessaryto enter heconsideration ets of futurehoiceoccasions). Orthe con-sequences ofearlierdecisionsmayconstrain aterchoices, say, by affectingx-periencewithor ownership f certain ptionsorcreating desireto confirmhe



16/18

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKINGAND CHOICE 195

correctnessfthe arlier hoice.Finallyhe nticipationffutureecisionsmayaffecturrenthoices e.g.,when ne traces hroughhe onsequences fa de-cision r works romndsbacktomeans).7. ConclusionThispaper asundoubtedlyeenmore uccessfultraisingssues hanuggestinganswers,ut his stestimonyothe omplexityfdecision-makingndthe imitsto ourpresentnderstanding.he arenaof considerationndchoice eteffectsonconsumerecisions emains fruitfulne for esearchndthis aperhastriedtoprovideomedirection. iscussion f these ssuesrevealedmuch ollectivewisdomndexperience,utwas also imitedy ndividualerspectives. uch four hinkings basedupon henuances fparticularecision renas,which ol-ored he ssumptions aderegardinghatwasandwas not mportant.omeofthatnconsistencyay emainn thepresentiscussion,espitessiduous fforttocontrolt.Theneedfor taxonomyfdecision ontexts emainspriorityreafor esearch.uch taxonomyould nable more recise nderstandingftheconstraintshich ffect onsiderationet formationndchange nd thechoicedecisionshat ollow.Note1 One difficultssue sthe ncorporationf uchfeedback ithin tractablemodelingramework.For nstance,awareness"tselfsa matterfdegree ndthe ompletenessfone'sknowledgeregardingroductlternativesan differ oth crossalternativesnd time nd be affectedylearningndexperience. nderstandinghedifferentialoles hat nternale.g., education e-garding oreppropriateriteria)ndexternale.g.,changednvironmentalircumstance)ri-

teria lay n such possibilityffordsnly beginning.

ReferencesBarsalou, awrenceW. 1985)."Ideals,Central endency,ndFrequencyf nstantiations De-terminantsfGraded tructure,"ournalfExperimentalsychology Learning,Memory,ndCognition1,629-657.Ben-Akiva,Mosheand Boccara,Bruno. 1990). "DiscreteChoice ModelswithLatentChoiceSets,"Workingaper.Cambridge, A:DepartmentfCivilEngineering,IT (May).Ben-Akiva, oshe ndStevenR.Lerman.1985).Discrete hoiceAnalysis. ambridge, A: MITPress.Bettman, ames.1979).An nformationrocessing heory fConsumer hoice.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.Bhargava,Mukesh.1990)."Choice Set FormationndUpdating,"Workingaper.Edmonton,AB: FacultyfBusiness,UniversityfAlberta.May).



17/18

196 A. D. SHOCKER, M. BEN-AKIVA,B. BOCCARA,ANDP.NEDUNGADI

Black,William.1990)."ExploringheBehavioral ases of ChoiceSet Formationnd Modifica-tion/'Workingaper.BatonRouge,LA: CollegeofBusinessAdministration,ouisiana tateUniversity,April).Boccara,Bruno. 1989).Modelling hoiceSetFormationnDiscrete hoiceModels.Cambridge,MA:DepartmentfCivilEngineering,IT (Unpublishedh.D.dissertation).Brown, uanita,ndAlbertR. Wildt.1987)."Factors nfluencingvokedSet," Workingaper034-87. olumbia,MO: Collegeof Business ndPublicAdministration,niversityf Missouri.Fothenngham,. Stewart.1988)."ConsumertoreChoice nd ChoiceSetDefinition," arket-ingScience7 299-310.Gaeth,GaryJ., rwinP. Levin,GoutamChakraborty,ndAronM. Levin. 1991)."ConsumerEvaluationfMulti-Productundles:An nformationntegrationnalysis,"Marketingetters2, 1:47-57.Gensch, ennis.1987)."A Two-Stage isaggregatettributehoiceModel,"Marketingcience6,223-231.Hauser,JohnR. (1978). "Testing heAccuracy,Usefulness,nd Significancef ProbabilisticChoiceModels:An nformationheoretic pproach," perations esearch 6,406-421.Hauser,JohnR. andStevenGaskin. 1984)."Applicationf the defender' ConsumerModel,"Marketingcience3,327-351.Hauser,JohnR. andBirgerWernerfelt.1990). "An Evaluation ostModel of EvokedSets,"JournalfConsumer esearch16,393-408.Howard,JohnA. andJagdish . Sheth. 1969).TheTheoryf Buyer ehavior.New York:JohnWiley.Johnson, ichael. 1984)."Consumer hoiceStrategiesorComparingoncomparablelterna-tives,"JournalfConsumer esearch 1 741-753.Katahira,Hotaka. 1990)."PerceptualMappingUsingOrdered ogitAnalysis,"Marketingci-ence9,1-17.Laurent, illes ndEricLapersonne.1990)."Considerationets of Size One?" Workingaper.Jouy-en-Josas,rance:EcoleDes HautesEtudesCommerciales,entreHEC-ISA. (May).Lynch,JohnG. Jr.,HowardMarmorstein,nd MichaelF. Weigold.1989)."Choicesfrom etsIncluding ememberedrands:Use ofRecalledAttributesndPriorOverallEvaluations,"JournalfConsumer esearch15,169-184.Manski, harles.1977)."TheStructurefRandomUtility odels,"TheoryndDecision8,229-254.McFadden,Daniel L. (1984). "Econometric nalysis fQualitative esponseModels,"In ZviGriliches nd M. D. Intriligatoreds.) Handbook fEconometrics,ol II. Amsterdam:orthHolland,1395-1457.Narayana, hemL. andRomJ.Markin.1975)."Consumer ehaviorndProduct erformance:AnAlternativeonceptualization,"ournal fMarketing9,1-6.Nedungadi,rakash.1987).FormationndUse of Considerationet: mplicationsorMarket-ingandResearch n Consumer hoice.Gainesville, L: Universityf FloridaUnpublishedPh.D. Dissertation).Nedungadi,rakash.1990a). RecallandConsumeronsiderationets: nfluencinghoiceWith-outAlteringrand valuations," ournalfConsumer esearch 7,245-253.Nedungadi, rakash.1990b)."Considerationets: A BriefReview f ssues," Workingaper.Toronto, N: Faculty fManagement, niversityfToronto.May).Novak,Thomas . 1990)."A Frameworkor onsiderationetFormation,"Workingaper.NewYork:Grad.SchoolofBusiness, olumbiaUniversityApril).Park,C. Whan ndDanielC. Smith.1989)."Product-Level-Choice:Top-Down rBottom-UpProcess?"JournalfConsumer esearch 6,289-299.Ratneshwar,. andAllanD. Shocker.1991)."TheRoleofUsageContextnProduct ategoryStructures,"ournalfMarketingesearch 8,3.



18/18

CONSUMER DECISION-MAKINGANDCHOICE 197

Roberts, ohnH. and JamesM. Lattin.1990)."DevelopmentndTestingf Modelof Consid-eration etFormation,"Workingaper90-014.Kensington,SW,Australia: ustralian rad-uateSchoolofManagement.April).Silk,AlvinJ.andGlenL. Urban. 1978)."Pre-TestMarket valuation fNewPackagedGoods:AModel ndMeasurementethodology,"ournalfMarketingesearch15,171-191.Simonson,tamar.1989)."Choice Based on Reasons:TheCase ofAttractionndCompromiseEffects," ournalfConsumer esearch 6,158-174.Snyder,Mark. 1981)."On the nfluencef Individuals n Situations,"n N. Cantor ndJ.F.Kihlstromeds.) Personality,ognition,nd Social Interaction. illsdale,NJ: Lawrence rl-baum, 09-329.Srivastava, ajendra,Mark . Alpert,nd AllanD. Shocker.1984)."A Customer-Orientedp-proach orDeterminingarkettructures,"ournalfMarketing8,32-45.Srivastava, ajendra, obert eone,and AllanD. Shocker.1981)."Market tructurenalysis:HierarchicallusteringfProducts asedUponSubstitutionnUse," JournalfMarketing5,38-48.Stopher,eterR. (1980). CaptivityndChoice nTravel ehaviorModels,"Transportationour-nalofA.S.C.E. 106,427-435.Swait,Joffre.1984).Probabilistichoice etFormationnTransportationemandModels.Cam-bridge,MA:Departmentf CivilEngineering,.I.T. (Unpublishedh.D. Dissertation).Swait,Joffrend MosheBen-Akiva.1987). "IncorporatingandomConstraintsn DiscreteModels fChoiceSetGeneration," ransportationesearch 21,92-102.Thaler, ichard.1985). UsingMentalAccountingn Theory fConsumerhoices,"MarketingScience , 199-214.Urban,GlenL., PhilipL. Johnson,ndJohnR. Hauser. 1984)."Testing ompetitive arketStructures," arketingcience3,83-112.Wiley, ames . (1990)."PortfoliondVarietyeeking:Definitions, odels, ssues,andQues-tions,"Workingaper.Edmonton,B: SchoolofBusiness,Universityf Alberta.Williams, . and J. Ortuzar.1982)."Behavioral heories fDispersionndMisspecificationfTravel emandModels,"Transportationesearch 16B,167-219.Wright,eter.1975). Consumer hoice trategies:implifyings.Optimizing,"ournalfMar-keting esearch 2,60-67.Wright,eter nd Frederick arbour.1977). "PhasedDecisionStrategies: equels to InitialScreening,"nMartin tarr nd MilanZelenyeds.),Multiple riteria ecisionMaking.NorthHolland IMS StudiesnManagementcience.Amsterdam: orthHolland, 1-109.

consideration set (marketing)

Documents