The Future of Buyer Behavior Theory | Jagdish Sheth
By Jagdish ShethJanuary 1, 1972February 5th, 2019Consumer Behavior
The motivational force behind writing this paper can only be the need for venturesomeness. This need was aroused partly by the speculative nature of the topic itself, which is to predict the future of buyer behavior theory, and partly by the deft encouragement of the session chairman, Jerry Zaltman. I am quite certain that some of my colleagues will disagree with things I foresee in buyer behavior theory, while others are likely to approve my assertions about the future of buyer behavior theory. Like a good forecaster let me simply say that “I may be mistaken but I am never wrong.”
Future predictions typically entail the utilization of the Bayes theorem in some way because essentially prognosis implies revising the prior probability based on the assessment of some symptoms currently manifested in the phenomenon to be forecasted. Future predictions are also typically hazardous to one’s welfare in any discipline because often the prior probabilities are no better than random probabilities due to relatively short histories of the disciplines, and because the assessment of contemporary symptoms is very difficult due to the rapid and complex changes the discipline may be undergoing. Buyer behavior theory may very well present these problems.
The Empirical – Inductive Phase
The decades of the thirties and forties seemed to be dominated by strictly empirical research mostly conducted by or for the industry’s marketing decisions and their impact in the market place. Furthermore, the major emphasis tended toward gauging the effects of distribution, advertising and promotion decisions.
Among the several distinct characteristics of this phase, we may list (l) dominance of economic theory of the firm and especially the concepts of monopolistic competition, marginal utility analysis, and welfare economics; (2) macro market analysis at the aggregate level or at best at some predefined segmented level; and (3) emphasis on market’s behavior responses as opposed to psychological responses.
The third distinct element was the initial introduction to formal model building of buyer responses to marketing stimuli based on the optimization theory of operations research and econometrics (see Bass, et.al., 1961 for examples). Simultaneously , the utility theorists in economics were also formalizing Samuelson’s revealed preference theory of consumption. The combined effect was the introduction of deductive formal model building based on normative axioms and assumptions. This was further facilitated by the feasibility of building complex simulation models with the use of the computer. Given the infant stage of buyer behavior theory development, it is quite surprising to observe that management science was adopted in buyer behavior so early in the game. It is therefore, not at all surprising that most efforts at normative-deductive model building met with failures and premature rejection. As we shall see later, this fact has had tremendous implications for the future of buyer behavior theory.
The first half of the sixties can best be described as the identification stage. Buyer behavior began to be understood for its own sake rather than from the point of view of the marketer or the government or some other entity with vested interests. In my opinion, this can be directly attributed to the intensive borrowing of theories and concepts from those branches of behavioral sciences which had emerged as “pure” disciplines themselves. This included experimental psychology with emphasis on learning and perception, social psychology with emphasis on cognitive consistency, and rural sociology with emphasis on adoption processes of innovative products, practices and services. For further discussion I must refer you to the excellent review provided by Burk (1967).
The intensive borrowing from the behavioral sciences by numerous researchers, each one interested in some aspect of buyer behavior and predisposed or trained in some branch of behavioral sciences, resulted in the development of well-identified middle-range theories of buyer behavior. Any examples must include Howard’s learning theory, Bauer’s perceived risk theory, and several researchers developing theories based on Festinger’s cognitive dissonance, Lewin’s field theory, opinion leadership, and innovativeness and even on several personality theories. As I pointed out elsewhere (Sheth, 1967), the outstanding characteristic of this borrowing phase was the partial explanations each theory provided to the otherwise complex phenomenon of buyer behavior especially the one related to the problem-solving and habitual buying decisions. Not very surprisingly, other types of buyer behaviors were neglected in these middle range theories including unplanned impulsive behavior, novelty-seeking and situationally-anchored behaviors because very little theorizing was offered by the behavioral sciences in these areas.
Based on the historical review, it is fair to state that we have so far concentrated on habitual, purposeful and problem-solving buyer behavior. Furthermore, we have developed several fairly comprehensive theories to explain it. However, the nonpurposeful behavior has received relatively little attention in the past, and it is, therefore, likely to emerge as the major substantive area of empirical research and theory building. By nonpurposeful behavior, I am primarily referring to curiosity, novelty seeking and exploratory behavior as well as cue-triggered impulsive buyer behavior. Some theorizing on this aspect of buyer behavior based on Berlyne’s theory is recently developed by several researchers (Howard and Sheth 1969, Hansen 1972, Venkatesan 1972). However, considerable work still remains to be done especially in terms of gathering empirical data before a good systematic theory of nonpurposeful behavior can be developed.
I think research on cross-cultural buyer behavior is likely to go through the same stages as what buyer behavior theory itself has gone through. First, there will be clusterings of studies mostly localized to some industries and some countries. Given the pattern of multinational business expansion, it is logical to presume that cross-cultural studies will be concentrated in European markets and with respect to nondurable consumer goods. Second, we should expect the development of several middle-range theories of cross-cultural buyer behavior based on the research in the first stage. Furthermore, the middle-range theories will be generated by the marketing practitioners and not by the academicians due to substantial costs involved in cross-cultural research. Of course, the academic scholars are likely to be instrumental in guiding the marketing practice’s efforts to build middle-range theories. Finally, I foresee the eventual emergence of several comprehensive theories of buyer behavior. These will mostly constitute efforts to integrate both diverse middle-range theories and existing empirical research in cross-cultural buyer behavior. Furthermore, I also think that there will be virtually no differences between cross-cultural theories and domestic theories of buyer behavior in their structure.
The bulk of research in buyer behavior for public policy is likely to be problem-oriented, and most of the problems are likely to emerge from the negative side effects of mass marketing and mass consumption, for example, mass media effects on the citizen’s values.
Despite the bright predictions for the future of buyer behavior theory, I think there are some identifiable ailments in today’s theories of buyer behavior which may impede the achievement of these predictions. First, most theories look upon buyer behavior as the consequence of some form of the decision-making process, and thus implicitly concede that buyer behavior consists of only goad-directed behavior. This may very well restrict the horizons to which buyer behavior theory can be broadened. Second, a large number of theories of buyer behavior often examine the buyer decision process from the point of view of marketing. While marketing management has made the greatest use of findings and concepts of buyer behavior, there is no reason why others from different viewpoints cannot utilize the same concepts and findings. Not only has this tendency made buyer behavior theory somewhat myopic, it has produced a terminology and vocabulary for buyer behavior which impedes its extension to nontraditional areas. Third, it seems that most theories of buyer behavior tend to overemphasize the process leading up to behavior and underemphasize the buying behavior or the antecedent and subsequent events which surround the behavior. Unless we consciously strive to remove these ailments, buyer behavior theory may take longer time to gain respectability across disciplines.
Previous PostA Conceptual Model of Long-Range Multinational Marketing Planning
Next PostDemographic Segmentation of Long Distance Behavior-Data Analysis & Inductive Model Building
The Future of Buyer Behavior Theory | Jagdish Sheth
By Jagdish ShethJanuary 1, 1972February 5th, 2019Consumer Behavior
The motivational force behind writing this paper can only be the need for venturesomeness. This need was aroused partly by the speculative nature of the topic itself, which is to predict the future of buyer behavior theory, and partly by the deft encouragement of the session chairman, Jerry Zaltman. I am quite certain that some of my colleagues will disagree with things I foresee in buyer behavior theory, while others are likely to approve my assertions about the future of buyer behavior theory. Like a good forecaster let me simply say that “I may be mistaken but I am never wrong.”
Future predictions typically entail the utilization of the Bayes theorem in some way because essentially prognosis implies revising the prior probability based on the assessment of some symptoms currently manifested in the phenomenon to be forecasted. Future predictions are also typically hazardous to one’s welfare in any discipline because often the prior probabilities are no better than random probabilities due to relatively short histories of the disciplines, and because the assessment of contemporary symptoms is very difficult due to the rapid and complex changes the discipline may be undergoing. Buyer behavior theory may very well present these problems.
The Empirical – Inductive Phase
The decades of the thirties and forties seemed to be dominated by strictly empirical research mostly conducted by or for the industry’s marketing decisions and their impact in the market place. Furthermore, the major emphasis tended toward gauging the effects of distribution, advertising and promotion decisions.
Among the several distinct characteristics of this phase, we may list (l) dominance of economic theory of the firm and especially the concepts of monopolistic competition, marginal utility analysis, and welfare economics; (2) macro market analysis at the aggregate level or at best at some predefined segmented level; and (3) emphasis on market’s behavior responses as opposed to psychological responses.
The third distinct element was the initial introduction to formal model building of buyer responses to marketing stimuli based on the optimization theory of operations research and econometrics (see Bass, et.al., 1961 for examples). Simultaneously , the utility theorists in economics were also formalizing Samuelson’s revealed preference theory of consumption. The combined effect was the introduction of deductive formal model building based on normative axioms and assumptions. This was further facilitated by the feasibility of building complex simulation models with the use of the computer. Given the infant stage of buyer behavior theory development, it is quite surprising to observe that management science was adopted in buyer behavior so early in the game. It is therefore, not at all surprising that most efforts at normative-deductive model building met with failures and premature rejection. As we shall see later, this fact has had tremendous implications for the future of buyer behavior theory.
The first half of the sixties can best be described as the identification stage. Buyer behavior began to be understood for its own sake rather than from the point of view of the marketer or the government or some other entity with vested interests. In my opinion, this can be directly attributed to the intensive borrowing of theories and concepts from those branches of behavioral sciences which had emerged as “pure” disciplines themselves. This included experimental psychology with emphasis on learning and perception, social psychology with emphasis on cognitive consistency, and rural sociology with emphasis on adoption processes of innovative products, practices and services. For further discussion I must refer you to the excellent review provided by Burk (1967).
The intensive borrowing from the behavioral sciences by numerous researchers, each one interested in some aspect of buyer behavior and predisposed or trained in some branch of behavioral sciences, resulted in the development of well-identified middle-range theories of buyer behavior. Any examples must include Howard’s learning theory, Bauer’s perceived risk theory, and several researchers developing theories based on Festinger’s cognitive dissonance, Lewin’s field theory, opinion leadership, and innovativeness and even on several personality theories. As I pointed out elsewhere (Sheth, 1967), the outstanding characteristic of this bo
rrowing phase was the partial explanations each theory provided to the otherwise complex phenomenon of buyer behavior especially the one related to the problem-solving and habitual buying decisions. Not very surprisingly, other types of buyer behaviors were neglected in these middle range theories including unplanned impulsive behavior, novelty-seeking and situationally-anchored behaviors because very little theorizing was offered by the behavioral sciences in these areas.
Based on the historical review, it is fair to state that we have so far concentrated on habitual, purposeful and problem-solving buyer behavior. Furthermore, we have developed several fairly comprehensive theories to explain it. However, the nonpurposeful behavior has received relatively little attention in the past, and it is, therefore, likely to emerge as the major substantive area of empirical research and theory building. By nonpurposeful behavior, I am primarily referring to curiosity, novelty seeking and exploratory behavior as well as cue-triggered impulsive buyer behavior. Some theorizing on this aspect of buyer behavior based on Berlyne’s theory is recently developed by several researchers (Howard and Sheth 1969, Hansen 1972, Venkatesan 1972). However, considerable work still remains to be done especially in terms of gathering empirical data before a good systematic theory of nonpurposeful behavior can be developed.
I think research on cross-cultural buyer behavior is likely to go through the same stages as what buyer behavior theory itself has gone through. First, there will be clusterings of studies mostly localized to some industries and some countries. Given the pattern of multinational business expansion, it is logical to presume that cross-cultural studies will be concentrated in European markets and with respect to nondurable consumer goods. Second, we should expect the development of several middle-range theories of cross-cultural buyer behavior based on the research in the first stage. Furthermore, the middle-range theories will be generated by the marketing practitioners and not by the academicians due to substantial costs involved in cross-cultural research. Of course, the academic scholars are likely to be instrumental in guiding the marketing practice’s efforts to build middle-range theories. Finally, I foresee the eventual emergence of several comprehensive theories of buyer behavior. These will mostly constitute efforts to integrate both diverse middle-range theories and existing empirical research in cross-cultural buyer behavior. Furthermore, I also think that there will be virtually no differences between cross-cultural theories and domestic theories of buyer behavior in their structure.
The bulk of research in buyer behavior for public policy is likely to be problem-oriented, and most of the problems are likely to emerge from the negative side effects of mass marketing and mass consumption, for example, mass media effects on the citizen’s values.
Despite the bright predictions for the future of buyer behavior theory, I think there are some identifiable ailments in today’s theories of buyer behavior which may impede the achievement of these predictions. First, most theories look upon buyer behavior as the consequence of some form of the decision-making process, and thus implicitly concede that buyer behavior consists of only goad-directed behavior. This may very well restrict the horizons to which buyer behavior theory can be broadened. Second, a large number of theories of buyer behavior often examine the buyer decision process from the point of view of marketing. While marketing management has made the greatest use of findings and concepts of buyer behavior, there is no reason why others from different viewpoints cannot utilize the same concepts and findings. Not only has this tendency made buyer behavior theory somewhat myopic, it has produced a terminology and vocabulary for buyer behavior which impedes its extension to nontraditional areas. Third, it seems that most theories of buyer behavior tend to overemphasize the process leading up to behavior and underemphasize the buying behavior or the antecedent and subsequent events which surround the behavior. Unless we consciously strive to remove these ailments, buyer behavior theory may take longer time to gain respectability across disciplines.
Previous PostA Conceptual Model of Long-Range Multinational Marketing Planning
Next PostDemographic Segmentation of Long Distance Behavior-Data Analysis & Inductive Model Building