COMPROMISE EFFECT ON CONSUMERS’ BEHAVIOR
https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.23181 Markus Surkamta Eric Santosa(1*)
(1)
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
The way consumers think about the products they will buy determines their buying behavior. The decision to buy a particular product is obviously in accordance with the buyer’s attitude. The buyers will also feel more comfortable if their behavior meets with the approval and expectations of the people close to them. While the development of a certain attitude has no effect on subjective judgment, the effect of compromise is likely to make a contribution to its development. Since it is still unclear, this study’s main purposed is to clarify this. In addition, while an attitude is theorized as being a predictor of behavior, through behavioral intention, the study’s secondary purpose is to boost the earlier findings. Likewise, in accordance with the theory of planned behavior, the study will also examine the other predictors of behavioral intention, in relation to the behavioral intention itself. A sample consisting of a 100 respondents was compiled by using the convenience and judgment technique. The data were analyzed using Amos 16.0 and SPSS 16.0. As expected, the compromise effect had a significant influence on whether the customers’ attitude or the subjective norm was the main determinant. Likewise, the customers’ attitude, the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control were confirmed as good predictors of customers’ behavioral intentions.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ajzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of Planned Behavior”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50. pp 179-211.
Armitage, Christopher J. and Julie Christian. (2003). “From Attitudes to Behavior: Basic and Applied Research on the Theory of Planned Behavior”. Current Psychology: Developmental, Personality, Social. Vol 22. No 3. Fall. pp. 187-195.
Bettman, James R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bhatia, Sudeep and Timothy L. Mullett. (2016). “The dynamics of deferred decision.” Cognitive Psychology 86, 112-151.
Cooper, D.R. and Pamela S. Schindler. (2008). Business Reserch Methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Corey, SM. (1937). “Professed Attitudes and Actual Behavior”. Journal of Educa-tionalPsychology. 28. pp 271-280.
Dhar, Ravi. and Itamar Simonson. (2003). “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research: May, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 146-160.
Dodds, William B, Kent B Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal. (1991). “Effect of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyer’s Product Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Re-search. 5 (September). pp. 138-142.
Ferdinand, Augusty. (2002). Structural Equation Modeling Dalam Penelitian Manajemen. Semarang: BP Undip.
Fishbein, M and I Azjen. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Adisson-Wesley.
Ghozali, Imam. (2004). Model Persamaan Struktural: Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan Program Amos Ver 5.0. Semarang: BP Undip.
---------. (2008). Model Persamaan Struktural: Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan Program Amos 16.0. Semarang: BP Undip.
Godinho, Sandra. Marília Prada and Margarida Vaz Garrido. (2016). “Under Pressure: An Integrative Perspective of Time Pressure Impact on Consumer Decision-Making.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 28 (4), 251-273.
Hair, et al. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Herne, Kaisa. (1997). “Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects.” European Journal of Political Economy. volume 13, issue 3, September. pp 575-589.
Huber, Joel and Christopher Puto. (1983). “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitu¬tion Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research. 10. June. pp. 31-44.
Huber, Joel. John W. Payne and Christopher Puto. (1982). “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and Similarity Hypothesis.” Journal of Consumer Research. 9. June. pp. 90-98.
Jyh-Shen Chiou, (1998). “The Effect of Attitude, Subjective Norm, and Perceived Behavioral Control on Consumers’ Purchasing Intentions: The Moderating Effects of Product Knowledge and Attention to Social Comparison Information”. ProcNatl. Sci. Counc. ROC (C). 9.2. pp 298-308.
Kouthouris, CH. dan A. Spontis. ( 2005). “Outdoor Recreation Participation: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior”. The Sport Journal, Vol. 8, Number 3, United States Sport Academy.
Lehmann, Donald R. and Yigang Pan. (1994). “Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets.” Journal of Marketing Research. XXXI. August. pp. 364-374.
Lichters, Marcel. Holger Muller. Marko Starstedt. Bodo Vogt. (2016). “How Durable are Compromise Effects.” Journal of Business Research. March.
Marrone, Stephen Richard. (2005). “Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Beha-vioral Control: Critical Care Nurses' Intentions to Provide Culturally Congruent Care to Arab Muslims". Research Report. Columbia University Teachers College (unpublished).
Martin, Jeffrey J. and Pamela Hodges Kulinna. (2004). “Self-Efficacy Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior: Teaching Physically Active Physical Education Classes”. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 75 No. 3, 288 – 297.
Monroe, Kent B and Susan M Petroshius. (1981). “Buyer’s Perception of Price: An Update of the Evidence.” In Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. Ed Harold H Kassarjian and Thomas S Robertson, Glenview. IL: Scott, Foresman. pp. 43-55.
Newell, Allen and Herbert A. Simon. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Okun, Morris A. and Erin S Sloane. (2002). “Application of Planned Behavior Theory to Predicting Volunteer Enrollment by College Students in A Campus-Based Program”. Social Behavior and Personality. Tempe: Arizona State University.
Pan, Yigang and Donald R. Lehmann. (1993). “The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgments.” Journal of Consumer Research. 20. June. pp 76-86.
Pechtl, Hans. (2009).”Value Structures in a Decoy and Compromise Effect Experi-ment.” Psychology and Marketing. 26.(8). August. Pp. 736 – 759.
Peter, J.Paul. and Jerry C. Olson. (2002). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Pinger, Pia. Isabel Ruhmer-Krell and Heiner Schumacher. (2016). “The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant's menu.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 128, 14-34.
Ryan, MJ. (1982). “Behavioral Intention Formation: The Interdependency of Attitudinal and Social Influence Variables.” Journal of Consumer Research. 9. pp 263-278.
Santosa, MS. Eric. (2005a). “The Effect of Relatively dominating Positions (When Number of New Alternatives Come around) on Consumer Choice.” Jurnal Bisnis dan Ekonomi. Vol 13. No 2. Sep 2005.
---------. (2005b). “Effects of Compromise and Assimilated among New Alternatives on Consumer Choice.” Kajian Bisnis. No. 33 Jan-April 2005.
---------. (2006). “Contex Effect: A Number of New Alternatives on Consideration Set.” Optimal. Volume 3, No 2, 2006.
---------. (2013). “Understanding Customers’ Behavior to Choicing ‘Lembah Ngosit’ Restaurant Using The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Equilibrium. Vol V. Edisi 1. Agustus.pp. 40-55.
---------. (2015). “Attraction Effect on Con-sumer’s Decision Making.” International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research.” Vol 13. Number 4. pp. 1759-1780.
Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie Lazar Kanuk. (2000). Consumer Behavior. 7th ed. London: Prentice-Hall International Ltd.
Sheppard, BH. Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, PR. (1988). “The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendation for Modifications and Future Research”. Journal of Consumer Research. 15. pp 325-343.
Shideler, Geoffrey S. and Brett Pierce. (2016). “Recreational divers’ willingness to pay for goliath grouper encounters during the months of their spawning aggregation off eastern Florida, USA.” Ocean and Coastal Management 129, pp. 36-43.
Simonson, Itamar. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research”. 7. September. pp. 158-174.
Simonson, I and Tversky, A. (1992). “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion.” Journal of Marketing Research. 29. August. 281-295.
Solomon, Michael R. (2002). Consumer Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P. (1995). “Decomposition and Crossover Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Study of Consumer Adoption Intentions”. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 12. pp 137-156.
Wicker, AW. (1969). “Attitudes Versus Action: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects”. Journal of Social Issues. 25. Pp 41-78.
Wiethoff, Carolyn. (2004) “Motivation to Learn and Diversity Training: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.23181
Article Metrics
Abstract views : 5918
| 
views : 3703
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
| Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business |
| The Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business (print ISSN 2085-8272; online ISSN 2338-5847) is published by the Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. The content of this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License |
| © 2019 Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business | Visitor Statistics |