Consumer Decision

Abstract The present report utilized secondary research and positivist research philosophy to critically evaluate two Consumer Decision-making Process (CDP) models – the Consumer Decision Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior –, with the aim to bring into the limelight the dark spots of the models when applied to the hospitality industry.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Consumer Decision-Making Models in Hospitality Contexts: An Evaluation Critique specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Current literature, though anecdotal in scope and context, has illuminated the fact that many CDP models are vague, inconsistent, and assume an all-encompassing orientation, which constricts their effectiveness and efficacy in explaining post-modernism consumer behavior. Many of these models have been accused of being largely descriptive in nature and ascribing to a ‘phases-based’ school of thought that i s not in sync with today’s consumers and their behavior orientations. Upon analysis and critique of the sampled models, it has been demonstrated that these models may no longer be tenable in explaining behavior as they view consumers in a rather mechanistic approach and constrict behavior to rationalistic approaches, devoid of any interpretation relating to the consumer as a unique individual who desires to sample unique experiences in the hospitality industry. The models are vague in their explanation of why consumers must follow the noted phases, and fail to account for external factors that influence consumer behavior in the hospitality industry, such as globalization, hyperreality, and hedonistic consumption patterns. It is recommended that new paradigms must have the capacity to delineate how consumers find fulfillment through consumption, and how they develop creativity and express their individual capabilities through the consumption of services. Introduction The prese nt paper is an attempt to account for perceived vagueness, inconsistencies and all-encompassing orientations of consumer decision-making models by evaluating and critiquing two such models, namely the Consumer Decision Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). These models will be evaluated and analyzed within the services context, with particular reference to the hospitality industry.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Despite the broad attention focused on the concept of consumer behavior (Dellaert et al 2012), and in spite of the obvious advantage generated by consumer decision-making models in providing conceptual frames of reference that make it easy to understand different consumer decision processes and marketing paradigms (Erasmus et al 2001), a large portion of these models continue to attract criticism from various quarters due to their perceived vagueness, bro ad generalizations, and an all-encompassing orientation (Lye et al 2005). Consequently, the ability for marketers to predict and understand consumer behavior and decision-making is still at a less than desirable level due to the inconsistencies and variances noted in these models. Consumer Behavior in Hospitality Industry Belch (1998) cited in Schiffman (2000) defines consumer behavior â€Å"†¦as the behavior that consumers display in searching for, purchasing, using, evaluating and disposing of products and services that they expect will satisfy their needs† (p. 2). Modern research on consumer behavior no longer derives interest in viewing the consumer as a rational economic being; rather, marketing studies have introduced a range of factors and variables that act either independently or dependently to influence the consumer consumption patterns beyond the mere self-interested act of purchasing as proposed by rational economic theories (Lovelock Wirtz 2010; Bray n.d.). To this effect, the hospitality industry must focus on the ‘process nature’ of the service production process (Lovelock Wirtz 2010), the unique characteristics of services on offer (Tsiotsou Wirtz 2012), and the impact of these contextual variables on customer behavior (Pachauri 2002). Extant services literature (e.g., Williams 2006; Miljkovic Effertz 2010; Oh 1999) demonstrates that marketers in the hospitality industry are still faced with the problem of adopting or developing new paradigms for evaluating customer behavior and decision making, primarily because most of the players in this sector have an imperfect picture of their customer, while only a few have put in place the capacity and capability to monitor patterns of consumer behavior at a degree of detail essential to maintain a competitive edge. As noted by Bowie Buttle (2004), many hospitality organizations believe that there are adequately close to their clients due to the co-creation of the service ex perience.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Consumer Decision-Making Models in Hospitality Contexts: An Evaluation Critique specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Consequently, it becomes increasingly important for hospitality organizations to understand the major facets of consumer behavior and decision-making because consumption of services is basically typified as â€Å"process consumption†, where the production process is considered to form a fundamental component of service consumption and is not merely perceived as the outcome of a production process, as is the case in the traditional paradigms associated with the marketing of physical goods (Miljkovic Effertz 2010; Tsiotsou Wirtz 2012 ). Postmodern Consumerism within the Hospitality Industry Today, more than ever, the hospitality industry is increasingly encountering an era that is not guided by any dominant ideological orientation in consumption patte rns, but by pluralism of styles (Williams 2002). This is postmodern consumerism – a trend that is increasingly being reflected in a multiplicity of variables that drive consumer behavior, including advertising and promotions, product and service development, as well as branding (Firal et al 1995). Available literature demonstrates that postmodern consumerism in the hospitality industry is predominantly initiated by shifts in the social-cultural, psychological and technological domains, which generate new options for experiences and self-expression in consumption (Williams 2002). This section purposes to briefly describe some the factors that are associated with the new means of consumption, hence new approaches to consumer behavior Hedonism The increasing awareness of hedonic consumption among contemporary consumers has not only enhanced pleasure seeking behavior as the only intrinsic good but also luxury consumption to fulfill the variant needs of individuals (Williams 2002) . In the hospitality context, the postmodern consumer is embracing the richness of choice, traditions, and styles to sample products and services that will enable them to achieve the intrinsic good.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More As a direct consequence, however, it is increasingly becoming difficult for industry players to predict behavior since consumers are guided by the unconventional urge to experiment on new products and experiences (Firal et al 1995; Thomas 1997). Fragmentation of Markets Experiences The absence of a central ideology to guide postmodern consumption patterns gives rise to a multiplicity of norms, values, beliefs and lifestyles that are adhered to by individuals in the quest for unique products and services. To satisfy this rising demand for unique experiences, hospitality organizations are increasingly segmenting or fragmenting their product and service offerings (Firal et al 1995), making it increasingly difficult to objectively evaluate consumer behavior and decision making process. More importantly, the post-modernity orientation is on record for enhancing the production of smaller niche markets in fragmented dispositions, not only making it difficult to successfully evaluate behav ior using the current models but also eating into the profitability of hospitality organizations (Van Raaij 1993). Hyperreality of Products and Services The hospitality industry is abuzz with hyperreal experiences; that is, experiences that passed as real and authentic but they are, in context and scope, light and empty (Van Raaij 1993). Hyperrealism is largely driven by the insatiable appetite of consumers to enjoy disjointed experiences and moments of excitement, leading industry players to simulate some of the experiences and pass them as authentic and value-added events. For example, consumers visiting hospitality organizations such as the Disney World and popular theme hotels are made to believe in the physical surroundings, which are mere simulations in the image of hypes (Firal et al 1995). Globalization Globalization and convergence of technology have assisted to break down geographical barriers that fueled economic nationalism and chauvinism. Consumers are no longer consumi ng products and services based on their ethnic and cultural backgrounds (Van Raaij 1993), though some scholars still maintain consumption patterns are still predetermined by the consumer’s culture, and that globalization has no capacity to standardize consumer behavior (Firal et al 1995; Williams 2002). More importantly, the intangible nature of services within the hospitality industry necessitates comprehensive individualized marketing and customized services for the customer to experience the unique and superior value. In this context, it can be argued that the idea of global hospitality organizations to increasingly standardize and customize their products and service offerings is paradoxical in essence based on the fact that these organizations must deal with cultural variations that to a large extent influence consumer’s mind-sets and buying behaviors (Williams 2002). Brief Overview of Consumer Decision-Making Process Lye et al (2005) posit that consumer decision- making models are extensively employed in consumer behavior studies not only to structure theory and research but also to comprehend the contextual influences that come into play to influence consumer decision making. In a comparative assessment of the consumer decision-making process, Engel et al (1995) cited in Erasmus et al (2001) argue that â€Å"†¦a model is nothing more than a replica of the phenomena it is designed to present†¦It specifies the building blocks (variables) and the ways in which they are interrelated† (p. 83). Drawing upon this description, these authors argue that models should therefore have the capacity to provide conceptual frames of reference that assist individuals to grasp visually what transpires as variables and circumstances interrelate and shift. A number of academics, however, punch holes into the existing models of consumer decision-making process due to a multiplicity of weaknesses (Lovelock Wirtz 2012), which will be illuminated in subsequent sections of this paper, particularly in respect of their incongruent dynamics and operational deficiencies in the hospitality context. A strand of existing literature (e.g., Schiffman 2000; Lovelock Wirtz 2010) demonstrates that most paradigms of consumer decision-making presuppose that the consumer’s consumption decision process consists of precise phases through which the customer passes as they interact with the service. Indeed, a meta-analytic review of marketing literature (e.g., Bowie Buttle 2004; Lovelock Wirtz 2010; Pachauri 2002; Miljkovic Effertz 2010) confirms the most dominant phases a consumer passes through while making purchasing/consumption decisions to include: need identification; information search; appraisal of available alternatives; purchase/consumption decisions, and; post purchase decisions. Other researchers, however, argue that â€Å"†¦the process of consumer decision-making can be viewed as three distinct but interlocking sta ges: the input stage, the process stage and the output stage† (Schiffman 2000, p. 14). But, as acknowledged by Abdallat El-Emam (n.d.), the overreliance of phases in attempting to explain consumer decision making leads to generalizations of consumer behavior as not every consumer may wish to pass through all these stages when making purchasing/consumption decisions. Aim Objectives of the Study Aim To critically analyze and critique the two chosen models of Consumer Decision-making Process, namely the Consumer Decision Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior, with the view to determine the extent of their vagueness, inconsistency, and all-encompassing orientation when applied within the hospitality industry. Objectives The present paper is guided by the following objectives: To critically review extant literature on consumer behavior and decision-making process, particularly with reference to hospitality organizations; To identify, justify and critically analyze the two mod els of Consumer Decision-making Process selected for this study; To determine the extent or level of vagueness, inconsistency, and all-encompassing orientation of the two models as they relate to the hospitality industry; and To provide some alternatives and recommendations that could be used by industry players to better influence consumer behavior and decision making. Methodology Research Philosophy This report heavily relied on the positivist research philosophy and the deductive approach to critically analyze the selected models of Consumer Decision-making Process for vagueness, inconsistencies and typical all-encompassing orientations, with reference to contemporary hospitality industry. Positivism entails â€Å"†¦manipulation of reality with variations in only a single independent variable so as to identify regularities in, and to form relationships between, some of the constituent elements of the social world† (Research Methodology n.d., p. 3-1). Consequently, th e researcher evaluated facts from the more general to more specific using the deductive approach with the aim of drawing logical conclusions about the weaknesses of the discussed models from available literature (Burney 2008). Data Collection Relevant data and information for this study was collected through secondary research; that is, the researcher engaged in collecting information from third-party sources or information that had been previously collected for some other reason. Secondary research fits the demands and expectations of this study as it is not only easier and less costly to undertake, but it guides the researcher to effectively answer the research aim and objectives through the use of already existing materials (Thomas 1997). The research primarily utilized book resources, websites and peer-reviewed articles from a number of subscription databases, including Ebscohost and Emerald, to develop and analyze the relevant themes aimed at providing accurate responses to the research aim and objectives. Research Limitations The researcher was constrained by time and budgetary resources to undertake a comprehensive study that could have brought new insights into the important topic of consumer behavior and decision making process. It is widely believed that a broader engagement with secondary sources and, perhaps, undertaking primary research with hospitality stakeholders, could have resulted in a more comprehensive analysis of the models and more generalizable findings. However, this was not possible due to strict time-lines and budgetary constraints. Additionally the word limit for the study, which was capped at 4000 words, limited the researchers capacity to expansively detail some of the relevant concepts of consumer behavior and decision making, and compare the sampled models of consumer decision making process with other contemporary models to effectively assess the variations in vague conceptualizations and inconsistent content. Analysis Critiqu e Consumer Decision Model The Consumer Decision Model, also referred to as the Engel-Blackwell-Miniard Model, was initially developed in 1968 Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell, in their attempt to propose and explain the variables that come into play in informing consumer behavior and facilitating decision making (Erasmus et al 2001). As noted by Bray (n.d.), â€Å"†¦ the model is structured around a seven point decision process: need recognition followed by a search of information both internally and externally, the evaluation of alternatives, purchase, post purchase reflection and finally, divestment† (p. 15). This model further suggests that consumer decisions are influenced by two foremost aspects: â€Å"†¦firstly stimuli is received and processed by the consumer in conjunction with memories of previous experiences, and secondly, external variable in the form of either environmental influences or individual differences† (Bray n.d., p. 15-16). It is important t o note that the environmental factors acknowledged in the model include cultural orientation, social rank, personal influence, family, and situational context, while individual factors include consumer resource/capability, incentive and participation, level of knowledge, values and attitudes, as well as individual traits and lifestyle. In illuminating the model, it can be argued that entry to the model is through need identification, whereby the consumer actively acknowledges an inconsistency between their present state and some other pleasing choices. The framers of the model assume that the need recognition process is primarily stimulated â€Å"†¦by an interaction between processed stimuli inputs and environmental and individual variables† (Bray n.d., p. 17). After a specific consumption need has been acknowledged the consumer initializes the search for information, both internally through their deeply-held reminiscences of earlier experiences in hospitality organizati ons, and externally (Bowie Buttle 2004). The model presupposes that the intensity of information search is intrinsically reliant on the scope of problem solving, with novel or intricate consumption problems being subjected to far-reaching external information explorations, while simpler challenges may rely entirely on an unsophisticated internal exploration of prior behavior (Baig Khan 2010). Bray (n.d.) notes that information passes through five phases â€Å"†¦of processing before storage and use, namely: exposure, attention, comprehension, acceptance and retention† (p. 17). The model further posit that the consumer actively evaluates alternative consumption choices using the established set of beliefs, attitudes and consumption intentions (Erasmus et al 2001), with the evaluative process being primarily influenced by both environmental influences and individual influences (Bray n.d). Consequently, the model depicts ‘intention’ as the only precursor to co nsumption. While the environmental and individual variables are largely perceived to act on purchase/consumption behavior, Van Tonder (2003) cited in Bray (n.d.) notes that the term ‘situation’ is premeditated as an environmental variable though the factor is also not clearly defined. However, according to this scholar, the term may imply â€Å"†¦such factors as time pressure or financial limitations which could serve to inhibit the consumer from realizing their purchase intentions† (p. 17). The other phases entail the actual consumption of the service, followed by post-consumption assessment which grants feedback functionality to the consumer, especially in terms of undertaking future external explorations and belief/value formation (Bray n.d.; Erasmus et al 2002). When this model is critiqued under the lens of the hospitality industry, it draws its major strength in its potential to evolve ever since the original model was published some four decades ago, to at least encompass some of the variables and challenges facing the contemporary consumer in the hospitality industry (Bowie Buttle 2004). For instance, the model has been able to move away from its mechanistic approach of explaining consumer behavior to encompass modern concepts that influence consumer consumption patterns. Individual variables such as motivation and involvement, as well as environmental variables such as social class, family and situation (Bray n.d.), are better placed to explain how consumers interact with a particular food establishments, and even how such variables may influence return behavior and satisfaction. However, it is clear that many of these variables remain vague due limited theoretical background (Erasmus et al 2001), with a section of scholars arguing that the model is even unable to specify the exact cause and effect that relate to consumer behavior (Lovelock Wirtz 2010), while others note that it is too restrictive to sufficiently accommodate the variety of consumer decision situations in a hospitality environment characterized by shifting consumption patterns and ever increasing competitive pressures (Tsiotsou Wirtz 2012; Oh 1999). Foxal (1990) cited in Bray (n.d.) argues that the Consumer Decision Model avails a clear illustration of the consumption process, making it easy for marketers to internalize its dynamics to influence purchase behavior. The present paper challenges this perspective as consecutive research studies (e.g. Cave 2002; Kotler et al 1999; Bowie Buttle 2004) demonstrate that consumers, particularly in the hospitality industry, often engage in non-conscious behaviors that may not be modeled through a rational decision making paradigm. For example, the consumer may purchase a plate of food in an up market hotel, not because they engaged in pre-purchase evaluation of available alternatives to the hotel but due the fact that the servicescape of the facility blurred their conscious decision-making proce sses. Upon testing the Consumer Decision Model, Rau Samiee (1981) were of the opinion that the model is extraordinary in scope and range, but its factual vigor in explaining and justifying consumer behavior â€Å"†¦has been significantly obscured by the fact that most research efforts so far have only been directed toward specific segments of the model rather than at the model as a whole† (p. 300). In light of these assertions, it can only be argued that this model is not only inherently weak to be of much assistance to the service marketing practitioner but it lacks specificity and thus is difficult, if not impossible, to study and operationalize in hospitality settings. According to Bray (n.d.), the environmental and individual influences of Consumer Decision Model continue to draw â€Å"†¦criticism due to the vagueness of their definition and role within the decision process† (p.). For example, while the model clearly identifies and delineates environment al influences such as social class and family, it fails to explain the role of such influences in affecting behavior, giving room to vague generalizations. In the hospitality industry, it becomes even difficult to follow the direction of the influences as the model suggests since some variables are not diametrically ordered as is the case in the goods industry. Although the model suggests that the consumer has the capacity to decipher some experience attributes before purchasing a product (Erasmus et al 2002), it is increasingly difficult to validate such an assertion in the hospitality industry because most of the experience attributes cannot be evaluated before the actual consumption of the service (Lovelock Wirtz 2010). What’s more, experience attributes and individual motives for consumption in the hospitality industry relates more to issues of emotions and the role of heuristics in determining behavior. However, these issues are not adequately covered in the Consumer De cision Model as it only limits the role of individual motives to the process of need recognition (Erasmus et al 2002; Bray n.d.). Lastly, a widespread concern of the ‘analytic’ approaches such as the Consumer Decision Model regards the unobservable nature and scope of the many variables under consideration (Baig Khan 2010). Consequently, it may still be difficult to ascertain whether this particular model provides a precise representation of consumer behavior during consumption (Bowie Buttle 2004), and whether it has any predictive value in hospitality settings (Williams 2006). Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) The Theory of Planned Behavior (illustrated in Appendix 2) is an offshoot of the Prescriptive Cognitive Models that were first developed in the 1960s by researchers such as Fishbein and Bertram, who sought to primarily focus on beliefs and attitudes as principal determinants of consumer behavior and decision-making (Bowie Buttle 2004). The famous Fishbein model , for example, proposed that the consumer’s â€Å"†¦overall attitude toward an object is derived from his beliefs and feelings about various attributes of the object† (Bray n.d., p. 20). The TPB simply extends this perspective as it seeks to address the perceived overreliance on intentions (from rationalistic models) to predict consumer behavior (Rau Samiee 1981). From the illustration in Appendix 2, it is important to note that â€Å"†¦the construct perceived behavior control is formed by combining the perceived presence of factors that may facilitate or impede the performance of a behavior and the perceived power of each of these factors† (Bray n.d., p. 22). Actual behavioral control, which in normal cases is far challenging to accurately appraise, refers to the degree to which the individual has the expertise, assets, know-how, and other fundamentals required to exhibit a given behavior (Cave 2002). Perceived behavioral control, which functions as a substitute measure of the influence, is assessed and quantified through uniquely designed data collection instruments. The TPB also asserts that consumer behavioral intention is controlled by a forceful range of variables, including the consumer’s attitude and values, their prejudiced norms and beliefs, as well as their perceived behavioral control influences (Thompson et al 2009). As such, it can be argued that actual consumer behavior as explained by the TPB is derived largely from behavioral intention, but is controlled and mediated to some extent by perceived behavioral control mechanisms (Bowie Buttle 2004). The TPB, which has over the years evolved to become the dominant expectancy-value theory (Bray n.d.), has its own strengths and weaknesses when applied within the context of the hospitality industry. For example, it is a well known fact that many consumers form a perception of a particular restaurant or bar based on their beliefs and attitudes rather than intentio n. Consequently, it can be argued that this framework has the capacity to capture a substantial proportion of variance in the consumer’s decision to consume a particular service rather than over relying on the ‘intention attributes’ popularized by rationalistic models. Additionally, the theory not only avails predictive validity for its application in a varied range of hospitality scenarios as a direct consequence of its ability to convey subjective variables that influence the consumer’s consumption patterns (Cave 2002; Reid Bojanic 1988), but it is effective in providing prudential justification of the informational and motivational influences on consumer behavior. Lastly, on strengths, it can be argued that the TPB forms one of the easiest theories to understand and operationalize in hospitality settings. The TPB has been accused of projecting a vague orientation as it relies on the researcher’s ability to precisely recognize and enumerate all p rominent attributes that are considered by the consumer in forming their belief and attitude (Rau Samiee 1981; Neely et al 2010). Such an accurate identification and measurement of prominent consumer attributes is clearly impossible in the hospitality industry as the consumer is influenced by a multiplicity of both conscious and sub-conscious variables in considering what choice of food to order (Kotler et al 1999), or what choice of holiday experience to consider. Consequently, it can be argued that employing such a theory to evaluate consumer decision-making process in the hospitality industry borders on the optimistic. The TPB also relies on the presupposition that the consumer commences comprehensive cognitive processing before making a purchase (Dallaert et al 2012; Macinnis Folkes 2010). This presupposition does not hold much water in the hospitality industry as experience demonstrates that most consumers make spontaneous and emotional decisions in deciding where to go for l unch, or in deciding which hotel facility offers the best services. Consequently, â€Å"†¦the reliance on cognition appears to neglect any influence that could result from emotion, spontaneity, habit or as a result of cravings† (Bray n.d., p.24). It is indeed true that most consumers visiting hotels and restaurants for food and drinks for the behavior not necessarily from attitude evaluation as proposed in the theory, but from an overall affective response that is especially related to the facility, food or drink of choice. Conclusion Recommendations From this evaluation and critique, it is indeed clear that marketing professionals in hospitality organizations can no longer continue to employ insufficient marketing paradigms, such as the Consumer Decision Model and the theory of Planned Behavior, in their attempt to understand consumer behavior and decision making. Rather, they need to refocus their energies on evolving these theories and models to portray consumers as emotional beings, focused on achieving pleasurable experiences, creating identities, and developing a sense of belonging through consumption (Williams 2006). The new paradigms, it is widely believed, must also have the capacity to delineate how consumers find fulfillment through consumption, and how they develop creativity and express their individual capabilities through the consumption of services. Reference List Abdallat, M.M.A El-Emam, H.E n.d., Consumer behavior models in tourism. Web. Baig, E Khan, S 2010. ‘Emotional satisfaction and brand loyalty in hospitality industry’, International Bulletin of Business Administration, vol. 11 no. 7, pp. 62-66. Bowie, D Buttle, F 2004, Hospitality marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Bray, J n.d., Consumer behavior theory: Approaches and models, http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/10107/1/Consumer_Behaviour_Theory_-_Approaches_%26_Models.pdf Burney, S.M.A 2008, Inductive deductive research approach, http://www.drburney.n et/INDUCTIVE%20%20DEDUCTIVE%20RESEARCH%20APPROACH%2006032008.pdf Cave, S 2002, Consumer behavior in a week, Hodder Stoughton, London. Dellaert, Benedict G.C Haubl, G 2012, ‘Searching in search mode: Consumer decision processes in product search with recommendations’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 49 no. 2, pp. 277-288. Erasmus, A.C, Boshof, E Roesseau, G.G 2001, ‘Consumer decision-making models within the discipline of consumer science: A critical approach’, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, vol. 29 no. 3, pp. 82-90. Firal, A.F, Dholakia, N Vankatesh, A 1995, ‘Marketing in a postmodern world’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 29 no. 1, pp. 40-56. Kotler, P, Bown, J Markens, J 1999, Marketing for hospitality and tourism, 2nd Ed, Prentice Hall, London. Lovelock, C Wirtz, J 2010, Services marketing, 7th Ed, Prentice Hall, London. Lye, A, Shao, W, Rundle-Thiele, S Fausnaugh, C 2005, ‘Decision waves: Consumer dec isions in today’s complex world’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 39 no. 1, pp. 216-230. Macinnis, D.J Folkes, V.S 2010, ‘The disciplinary status of consumer behavior: A sociology of science perspective on key controversies’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36 no. 6, pp. 899-914. Miljkovic, D Effertz, C 2010, ‘Consumer behavior in food consumption: Reference process approach’, British Food Journal, vol. 112 no. 1, pp. 32-43. Neely, C.R, Min, K.S Kennett-Hensel, P.A 2010, ‘Contingent consumer decision making in the wine industry: The role of hedonic orientation’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 27 no. 4, pp. 324-335. Oh, H 1999, ‘Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective’, Hospitality Management, vol. 18 no. 2, pp. 67-82. Pachauri, M 2002, ‘Consumer behavior: A literature review’, The Marketing Review, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 319-335. Rau, P Samiee, S 1981, ‘Models of consumer behavior: The state of the art’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9 no. 3, pp. 300-316. Reid, R.D Bojanic, D.C 1988, ‘Hospitality marketing management, John Wiley Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Research Methodology n.d., http://www.is.cityu.edu.hk/staff/isrobert/phd/ch3.pdf Schiffman, L.G 2000, Consumer behavior, Pearson Education Australia, Belmont, WA. Thomas, M.J 1997, ‘Consumer market research: Does it have validity/some postmodern thoughts’, Marketing Intelligence Planning, vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 54-59. Thompson, D.V, Hamilton, R.W Petrova, P.K 2009, ‘When mental simulation hinders behavior: The effects of process-oriented thinking on decision difficulty and performance’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36 no. 4, pp. 562-574. Tsiotsou, R.H Wirtz, J 2012, â€Å"Consumer behavior in service context†, In V. Wells G. Foxall (eds), Handbook of Developments in Consumer Behavior, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Northampton, MA, pp. 147-201. Van Raaij, W.F 1993, ‘Postmodern consumption’, Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 14 no. 3, pp. 541-563. Williams, A 2002, Understanding the hospitality consumer, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Williams, A 2006, ‘Tourism and hospitality marketing: Fantasy, feeling and fun’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 18 no. 6, pp. 482-495. Appendix Appendix 1: Consumer Decision Model Appendix 2: Theory of Planned Behavior This report on Consumer Decision-Making Models in Hospitality Contexts: An Evaluation Critique was written and submitted by user Wolver-dok to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. Consumer Decision Introduction Shopping is an important aspect to all people and the economy. While purchasing is a normal behavior, challenges emerge when people overindulge in it without paying attention to its consequences. On April 1900, Paris held a world trade fair, which brought people from different consumer markets together to celebrate past technological achievements with the view of gaining an insight on potential technological developments of the future.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Consumer Decision-Making Process on Buying Organic Foods specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The trade fair portrayed the potential of the then and future civilizations to deploy technology, creativity, and innovation to create more consumables to better the life of future generations. It set the foundation for availing more products and services in the marketplace. Products are availed in the markets for consumers to buy. The buying behav iors are influenced by various factors. In many situations, consumers do not understand their reasons for purchasing certain products. However, when making purchase, a buying decision is necessary, although it may vary depending on the product on offer. This paper restricts its discussion to consumer decision-making when buying organic foods. Organic Foods As time progresses, more organic foods will become commonplace in food stores. They are not just available in health stores. The increasing availability of organic foods in supermarkets’ shelves and other consumer product outlets raises a dilemma on products aisle, especially concerning when to buy or why it is necessary to acquire them, as opposed to relying on conventionally grown foods. For example, in one shelf, an apple grown in a conventional way is displayed. On the other, an organic apple is displayed. A thorough scrutiny of the two reveals they are both shinny, rich in fiber and vitamins, and void of cholesterol, s odium, and fats. The question that arises is, ‘what influences the consumer decisions while choosing a product?’ While making a buying decision, it is important to make product distinctions so that one purchases goods depending on the desired product utilities. Therefore, differentiation of organic and conventionally grown foods is necessary. The term organic foods imply the manner in which agricultural products, including meat, vegetables, some daily products, and fruits are grown and processed. Organic agricultural products reduce pollution while boosting water and soil conservation (Blair 81). Such products are not grown in conventional ways so that chemicals are not deployed in weed control and/or fertilized using inorganic manure. Rather, organic farming involves the use of natural fertilizers, techniques such as crop rotation, and employment of approaches such as mulching in controlling weeds. How can consumers identify foods that are grown organically and those g rown conventionally? They can recognize them by checking the product labels.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed a program for certifying organic products. Therefore, all producers using the term ‘organic’ in their product labels must comply with thorough and strict standards and regulations provided by the government. The certification program aims at regulating the manner in which farmers grow, handle, and process agricultural produce. A general requirement is that the USDA must certify all products that deploy the term ‘organic’. However, producers who sell less than $5,000 annually are exempted from the USDA certification (Krieger 572). Nevertheless, this provision does not comprise an exception from compliance with the USDA standards applicable to organic foods. Therefore, the term ‘organicâ €™ in a product label indicates that the packaged food complies precisely with standards established by the USDA for organic foods. Some products, such as breakfast cereals have more than one ingredient. They are not forbidden from using the USDA seal. However, they need to use it in combination with either ‘100 percent organic’ or ‘Organic’ phrases. The phrase ‘100 percent organic’ means that all ingredients in a product are organic or made from organic ingredients. The term organic is deployed where a product’s ingredients are not less than 95% organic. In case products have more than 70% organic ingredients, the terms ‘made with organic ingredients’ may be deployed on the products’ label. However, they cannot use the USDA seal. In case products are made from less than 70% organic ingredients, they are not permitted to use the term organic or use the USDA seal in the label (Blair 97). Nevertheless, the listing o f various organic ingredients on the product package is allowed. Irrespective of the percentage of organic ingredients in products, buyers make decisions on whether to purchase organic products or conventional products. Hence, the question on what influences these buying decisions is important for organic product marketers and promoters. The next section addresses this issue. Decision-making processes when buying organic foods Food markets are experiencing a myriad of changes in their operational environments, especially by noting the increasing emphasis on the need for changing eating behaviors to avoid the dangers of health risks that are associated with eating unhealthy foods. In fact, health specialists classify foods that contain high calories such as fast foods, which form the menus of many fast-food retailers as unhealthy. Campaigns incepted by health organizations against such products results in the emergence of demand for foods, which are fiber-rich. This situation has sha ped the perception of many buyers that organic foods are healthy and that they reduce the risks of illnesses, which are associated with fast foods (Dangour 203). Hence, through the creation of awareness on healthy eating habits, media may influence buyers’ decision to buy organic foods.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Consumer Decision-Making Process on Buying Organic Foods specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The increasing attention of consumers on healthy eating habits has led to creativity and innovation of new products that meet the emerging need of the customers. These needs are based on the perception of the value of the organic foods. The effort relates to the marketing concerns, which encompass â€Å"the process of developing and implementing a plan to identify, anticipate, and satisfy customer demand in such a way to make a profit† (Simon 124). Consequently, farmers’ markets and agric ultural product producers focus on various mechanisms for ensuring they provide organic foods to meet the needs of consumers when it comes to delivering healthy foods. Therefore, buyers’ purchasing decisions for organic foods are made based on their perceived levels of product capacity to meet their healthy eating habits. Consumerist cultures have significant effects on the buying decisions made by consumers. Such decisions may also apply in the purchasing of organic foods. In the article, State of the World: Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability, Assadourian sees the failure of people to save environmental collapse as an issue that relates to culture, as opposed to their stupidity, destructiveness, or ignorance (Assadourian 3). He compares culture to requesting people to stop breathing forever, not knowing they will only do it for seconds before inhaling again without necessarily requesting them to do so. To him, this analogy explains the difficulties enco untered in telling people to curb their consumerist cultures to save the environment (Assadourian 3). However, people are now becoming increasingly concerned about environmental sustainability (Dangour 209). Consequently, any product that enhances environmental sustainability is likely to appear in their (buyers) top list of must purchase. Organic products are designed and marketed as a way of promoting environmental sustainability. In the light of Assadourian’s argument on the innateness of consumerist culture in human beings, civilization defines societal norms and values, which are hard to smash when they are normalized. Owning big houses, several cars, air conditioners, and other equipment constitute the norm for the American culture, which is now rapidly becoming a global culture. Assadourian criticizes this emerging culture by claiming that although it appears natural to many people, the culture is unsustainable and an inaccurate manifestation of the nature of people (3 ). He maintains that the escalated consumption pattern does not increase the wellbeing of people (Assadourian 9). When a new culture emerges, the existing cultural values are eroded. Assadourian criticizes the consumerist culture by claiming that it has created the belief that possessing more wealth and material capability defines good life (10).Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Similarly, opposed to this criticism, many people regard the increased consumption of organic products as promoting better health and reducing risks of illnesses, especially those that are associated with fast foods and other processed foods. These perceptions have implications to the purchasing decisions for organic products. From the above arguments, it is evident that people may purchase organic products due to negative emotions towards inorganic or conventional foods, depending on the perceptions they have induced from the environment. Several factors may contribute to these emotional responses. Such factors constitute the thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions that affect people’s emotional responses to the specific stimulus. Physiological behavioralism links emotions demonstrated by individuals with responses to the biological and environmental stimuli. These emotions can be negative or positive toward different stimuli. For example, a positive pulse to a food stimulus or a negative emotion in response to the stimuli causes a dislike and an unwanted feeling. This claim suggests that microtonal responses can help in increasing the purchasing behavior of a given product. Once a buying behavior for organic foods has been developed, the subsequent purchasing decision may be influenced by compulsive purchasing behavior. Li, Unger, and Bi define compulsive buying behavior as a chronic tenancy for purchasing products and services in response to negative conditions and feelings (238). Literature documents no successful attempts to stimulate this behavior through any mechanism, including classical conditioning. The behaviors encompass an unconditioned response towards the desires of goods or services and feeling of depression due to anxiety. Hence, the desire to purchase specific types of services or goods leads to the development of compulsive behavior. The absence of these products or services induces stress or anxiety, which in turn induces the compulsive b uying behavior. White and Duram assert that organic foods have better tastes, have more nutrients than conventional foods, and that they are safe (180). This belief drives consumers’ demand for them. Although price constitutes an important factor that influences the purchasing decisions for any products, it is not significant for organic foods. Dangour confirms this assertion by claiming that the demand for organic foods remains high, despite the escalating prices for organic foods and the difficulties in confirming safety, nutritional value, and taste differences for organic and conventional foods (203). Dangour asserts that the research conducted in China in 2012 found that 41% of the Chinese population considers food safety an important concern that guides their purchasing decisions (205). This finding shows the increasing health safety concerns up from 12% in China in 2008. This rise has been accompanied by increased purchasing of organic foods (Dangour 206). Nutritional differences between organic and conventional products are not supported by significant scientific studies. The 2012 survey of various scientific studies identified few and inconsistent differences in vitamin components of conventional, and organic foods claiming that the results depended on particularities of each study (White and Duram 180). For example, the 2011 review of literature on organic foods conducted by Johansson revealed that organic food possesses higher levels of micronutrient compared to conventional products (3871). Hunter, Foster, and McArthur do not find any protein content differences between organic and conventional chicken (52). However, organic chickens contain more Omega-3 fatty acids when compared to conventional chickens (Hunter, Foster, and McArthur 52). This finding suggests that the understanding or proven nutritional value difference between them and conventional foods products does not influence buying decisions for organic foods. The growing perception that organic foods are safer compelled Johansson to conduct a literature review for scientific evidence on health and safety benefits for organic foods in 2014. The review found little scientifically-backed evidence on the harms or benefits of consuming conventionally produced agricultural products compared to organic products. Johansson concluded that only few humanistic researchers have studied â€Å"the effects of consumption of organic food on health, disease risks and health-promoting compounds, and the development of reliable biomarkers to be used in such studies are still in its infancy† (3873). Therefore, although consumers may arrive at purchasing decisions for organic foods based on perceptions of nutritional value and safety concerns, only limited scientific studies find limited evidence of such perceptions. Indeed, such evidence is also inconsistent and lacks consensus. Despite the scanty scientific evidence that supports the health, safety, taste, and nutritiona l value differences of conventional and organic foods, the demand for organic foods has been increasing on global platforms. Hence, more buyers are making purchasing decisions for organic foods. As from 2002, the global sales for various organic foods have increased by above 170% to account for excess of $63 billion by 2011 (Hunter, Foster, and McArthur 523). Opposed to the law of demand, which suggests that demand and price have an inverse relationship, the price for organic food prices lies between 10% and 40% or even several times higher than the price of conventional products (Johansson 3875). The supply of organic products is limited. Organic food production only accounts for only 1% to 2% of the total global food production. In the US market, organic foods now account for 5% to 10% of market share (Dangour 208). Due to the inadequacy of scientific evidence backing the nutritional, safety, and taste differences between conventional and organic foods products, the increasing dem and for the organic foods is influenced by consumers’ perception of value and health. Such perceptions may be contributed by the promotion and marketing of organic foods as having better health, safety, nutritional, and taste benefits compared to conventional foods. Conclusion Organic foods sales have been increasing on the global platforms. The paper has argued that the scanty scientific evidence has backed the growth of the product value in terms of nutritional, taste differences, safety, and health benefits. It proposes that consumer-purchasing decisions are influenced by the compulsive buying of the products or unsubstantiated perceived value of the products. Works Cited Assadourian, Erik. State of the World: Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability, W.W Norton: The World Watch Institute, 2010. Print. Blair, Robert. Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2012. Print. Dangour, Dickson. Nutritional Quality of Organic Foods: A Systematic Review.† The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 92.1(2009): 203–210. Print. Hunter, Duncan, Meika Foster, and Jennifer McArthur. â€Å"Evaluation of the Micronutrient Composition of Plant Foods Produced by Organic and Conventional Agricultural Methods.† Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 51.6 (2011):571–582. Print. Johansson, Erastus. â€Å"Contribution of Organically Grown Crops to Human Health.† International Journal Environ Research Public Health 11.4(2014): 3870-3893. Print. Krieger, Ri. â€Å"OP Pesticides, Organic Diets and Children Health.† Environ Health Perspectives 114.10(2006): 572-579. Print. Li, Stephen, Arthur Unger, and Charlse Bi. â€Å"Different Facets of Compulsive Buying Among Chinese Students.† Journal of Behavioral Addiction 3.4(2014): 238-245. Print. Simon, Herbert. â€Å"Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations.† American Economic Review 3. 4(2007): 123-129. Print. White, Kennedy, and Leslie Duram. America Goes Green: An Encyclopedia of Eco-friendly Culture in the United States, California: ABC-CLIO, 2013. Print. This report on Consumer Decision-Making Process on Buying Organic Foods was written and submitted by user Charley Parker to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here. Consumer Decision Consumer Decision