DEBBIE MACINNIS
VALERIE FOLKES*
1
Author Note
5039 (macinnis@usc.edu).
Valerie Folkes is the USC Associates Professor of Business Administration and Professor
(folkes@marshall.usc.edu)
2
ABSTRACT
Advancement of a field of study depends not just on the accumulation of knowledge but
also on a shared understanding of its defining properties and goals. Despite a proliferation
of knowledge about consumer behavior, critics within the field have debated fundamental
issues about these properties and goals. Specifically, the field has witnessed debate on
issues that include (1) what constitutes “consumer behavior”, (2) is consumer behavior an
independent, interdisciplinary field and (3) to whom should consumer behavior research
be relevant. Progress toward resolving the debate over these issues requires greater
conceptual clarity. To serve this goal, we articulate six major models that could
characterize the field. Each of these empirically derived models bears some semblance to
the current status of or aspirations for the field, yet each offers different implications for
transmission, and none is without its downsides. Although we do not advocate in favor of
particular model, we do argue that the field requires (1) debate as to the value of these
and other models of the field and (2) some degree of convergence on where we as a
3
The past 50 years have witnessed an explosion in academic research about
and more. As is often true, the birth and growth of new fields is inevitably accompanied
by growing pains that surface in the form of criticisms. Some criticisms of consumer
behavior are particularly discomfiting because they pertain to issues fundamental to the
field, specifically: (1) what constitutes “consumer behavior”, (2) is consumer behavior an
independent, interdisciplinary field and (3) to whom should consumer behavior research
be relevant.
We argue that criticisms at this fundamental level reflect dissatisfaction with the
status quo of academic research on consumer behavior and illuminate alternative models
of the field. Different models lead to different perspectives on what consumer behavior is,
articulate six major models that could characterize the field. Each takes a different stance
on the above-noted criticisms as each stakes out not just what “consumer behavior”
encompasses but also what it should encompass and what is and should be outside its
disciplinary boundaries. Each also offers different implications for the advancement of
the field. Our aim in depicting these models is to provide a framework for further
discussion about the field of consumer behavior and the goals we seek to attain.
The article is structured as follows. We first briefly review the three criticisms.
We then articulate six abstract models that could characterize the field of consumer
4
behavior and the implications of each. We conclude with a discussion regarding the value
consumer research scholars, have arisen over the past 50 years. In general, the criticisms
addresses, with the author lamenting the status quo, or comparing it with an ideal. The
fact that the issues have been raised repeatedly, often by senior scholars with perspective
on the field, suggests some misgivings about the field’s status, direction, and
contributions.
The first criticism considers the essence and boundaries of the field of consumer
behavior and hence the substantive issues that logically fall within its boundaries. Early
behavior as “buyer behavior” (Engel, Kollat and Blackwell 1968; Howard and Sheth
1969). This “purchase” focus was viewed as unnecessarily restrictive, however, and led
Zaltman 1974).
5
Since then, critics have suggested broadening the process duration of consumer
behavior (from buying to acquisition and disposition (Belk 1984; Jacoby 1976)) and
the forms of acquisition that constitute consumer behavior (from buying to borrowing,
inheriting, stealing and other forms of procurement, Jacoby 1976; Sheth 1982). Consumer
behavior is said to include not just end users, but businesses, government, hospitals,
choices that constitute consumer behavior have also been broadened to include fertility,
mobility, education (Frank 1974), the consumption of time (Feldman and Hornik 1981),
and experiences (Holbrook 1987; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Sheth 1982). Since
marketing efforts extend beyond the marketing of products and services, consumer
behavior has been deemed relevant to myriad marketing contexts, including social
marketing (Andreasen 1993), social services marketing (Frank 1974), and the marketing
of religion (O’Guinn and Belk 1989). Consumer behavior also extends to dark side issues,
On the other hand, some researchers argue that this expansion leaves the field
behavior from “human” behavior (Holbrook 1987; Simonson, Carmon, Dhar, Drolet and
Nowlis 2001). Indeed, Holbrook (1987) argues that the term consumer behavior “that by
now, it stands for everything, which in this case is tantamount to nothing” (pg. 128).
Folkes’ (2002) Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Presidential Address argued
that consumer behavior is different from general human behavior since it engenders
balance between buyers and sellers), involves unique contextual features (e.g., the
6
proliferation of mass media persuasive messages), and entails domain specific goals (e.g.,
materialism). Nevertheless, consensus on what does and does not constitute “consumer
behavior” is far from clear. Deighton (2007), like Folkes (2002) and Holbrook (1987)
before him, argues for the need to bound the scope of consumer behavior so as to
differentiate what consumer behavior is and what distinguishes it from other forms of
human behavior.
Discipline?
Although what is and what is not consumer behavior is a topic for debate, the
second criticism involves a conflict between an ideal of the field as independent and
that is taught or a field of study” (Webster), has “disciples” (i.e., faculty and students in a
typically involving research paradigms, theories and analytical tools (Chettiparamb 2007;
play a major role in defining it. We acknowledge that disciplinary boundaries can be
amorphous and fluid. Yet, researchers seem to associate themselves with a primary
discipline and appear to follow the theories, paradigms, methodologies, and substantive
issues of a specific discipline or small set of disciplines. Fields that blend disciplines are
“interdisciplinary” to the extent that they integrate research (and researchers) from two or
7
more discrete disciplines with the goal of yielding novel insights to a problem at hand
The late 1960s and early 1970’s witnessed a fundamental shift in aspirations for
independent discipline in its own right that was interdisciplinary in its approach to
institutions-- the Association for Consumer Research and the Journal of Consumer
editorial (Frank, June 1974). This interdisciplinary goal has been echoed by subsequent
JCR editors (Deighton, 2005; Kassarjian1984, 1986; Mick 2003; Monroe 1993, 1994)
and ACR presidents (Belk 1987; Bernhardt 1984; Gardner 1977; Jacoby 1976; Lutz
1989; Sheth 1982; and Wilkie 1981; see also Holbrook 1987).
Despite surveys of scholars in the field that support these aspirations (Lutz 1988;
Mick, 2003), they have not been realized. Indeed the challenge of creating an
the inception of ACR and JCR. Editor Pratt noted that the journal’s biggest problem was
getting manuscripts from scholars housed outside the marketing discipline (Pratt 1976).
At ACR, presidents Pratt (1974), Gardner (1977), and Bernhardt (1984) bemoaned the
opposed to academics from other disciplines. Moreover, JCR editors’ and ACR
Presidents’ pleas for interdisciplinary research went largely unheeded, leading Simonson
8
et al. (2001) to conclude that “with relatively few exceptions, JCR and ACR have not
become forums in which researchers from multiple fields exchange ideas about consumer
behavior” (pg. 263). Deighton’s (2005) JCR editorial similarly asserts that we are “not
yet a field in which many disciplines play, let alone play interactively” (pg. ii). Thus, the
field’s success at fulfilling its independent and interdisciplinary aspirations has been
questioned.
theory and application. Mick’s (2003) poll of 30 established researchers indicates that
issues of relevance are viewed as central to the development of the field. What is
controversial, however, concerns toward which audiences our research should have
precedence. At least six audiences could benefit from consumer research: (a) academics
within the marketing field, (b) academics outside of marketing, (c) marketing
practitioners and practitioners in training (e.g., students), (d) public policy makers, (e)
Critics have lamented the field’s lack of relevance to five of these six constituents.
In regard to academic audiences, Journal of Consumer Research articles have had their
linking disciplines with one another (Cote, Leong and Cote 1991).
Criticisms abound that our field lacks relevance to business practitioners and
public policy makers (Gardner 1977; Jacoby 1976; Sheth 1992). Although ACR’s
9
constitution envisions ACR as a forum for the exchange of ideas among academics,
practitioners and public policy makers, ACR has struggled to maintain a membership
base that includes these constituents (Bernhardt 1984; Gardner 1977). Published research
and public policy problems (Chakravarti 1992). Although some scholars defend a non-
business research focus (Belk 1984; Hirschman 1986; Holbrook 1985, 1987), an applied
managerial perspective has not been the focus of academic research efforts.
Concern about the impact of our work for other applied constituents has also been
raised. Mick (2006), like others before him (Bazerman 2001; Belk 1984, 1987; Cohen
and Chakravarti 1990; Hirschman 1991; Hutchinson 2004; Richins 2001), notes that our
research has not done enough to advance the needs of consumers and society. His call for
to study problems and issues that are often phenomenon driven (e.g., AIDS, obesity,
Culture, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing) that
publish research accentuating implications for specific target groups. Still, no resolution
has emerged regarding whether targets beyond marketing academia should be the focus
10
Collectively, these criticisms suggest that consumer behavior is an amorphously
interdisciplinary nor relevant to myriad academic and applied audiences. Whether one
agrees with all of these criticisms or only a subset, their existence clearly reflects some
dissatisfaction with the status quo. Where the field stands in response to these criticisms,
particular stance on each criticism has different implications for how consumer behavior
research should be valued, generated, inculcated, and disseminated. To date, the field has
lacked a systematic means of structuring these issues so that the issues and their
derived empirically (vs. theoretically); that is, the models emanate as alternatives to the
criticisms observed in the extant literature. They are not derived from epistemologically-
based perspectives on how disciplines should operate. They are specified as alternative
models of consumer behavior here since each suggests different views on (1) what
consumer behavior is, (2) whether consumer behavior is an independent field and
research should be relevant. Each also offers different implications for consumer
behavior knowledge; that is, (4) how consumer behavior knowledge should be evaluated,
(5) what factors best foster its development, (6) how knowledge should be acquired by
junior colleagues, and (7) how and to whom knowledge is best disseminated.
11
Paradoxically, each model bears some resemblance to the status quo, though the
status quo is not fully consistent with the implications of any one model. This disconnect
between a model’s implications and the status quo is itself a potential driver of the above-
noted criticisms. To the extent that one adheres to a given model but finds the status quo
inconsistent with the model’s implications, criticism of the field is likely. Moreover, the
fact that each model is partially consistent with the status quo suggests a further basis for
criticism of the field. That is, perhaps the field is characterized by multiple, competing
what could be models of the field, and to make explicit the implications of adopting any
one model. We hope that the articulation of these models begins a dialog so that members
of our field can further discuss them, identify others that seem viable, and comment on
future directions for the field. The reader should note that the fact that we cite or quote a
given scholar in describing a model does not mean that an individual personally
represents such a model or that they would agree with our characterization of a particular
model. In fact, consumer researchers might find themselves adopting various models at
different points in time or under different contexts (e.g., when talking with students or
managers versus academics in other fields). We do not claim that the above-noted
12
criticisms are unique to the field of consumer behavior. However, issues concerning
epistemology and the development of disciplines in general are outside the scope of this
article.
According to the Behavioral Consumer Marketing Model (see figure 1 and table
1), consumer behavior is one of 3 sub-domains of marketing; the others are marketing
models and marketing strategy. A more recent variant of this “slice of pie” model
marketing models.
under study has to do with a marketplace where individuals make acquisition, usage, and
disposition decisions. Most prototypically and most restrictively, the “marketplace” refers
Usage and disposition issues are also relevant to the extent that they provide
opportunities or insights for marketing activities and future economic exchanges. Thus,
this model assumes that the field of consumer behavior studies behaviors that are relevant
to an economic marketplace and those that have implications for marketing practice.
13
Moreover, given its behavioral orientation, study tends to focus on consumers as end-
field because it is a sub-domain of marketing (see table 1). Within the marketing
marketing field attempt to understand some aspect of consumers using insights from base
consumer behavior (i.e., behavior that occurs outside an economic exchange based arena),
the goal is to (a) gain novel insight into how behavior in a consumer context differs from
that in a non-consumer context and/or (b) understand how the results apply to marketing
decision making. One would not expect researchers in non-marketing fields to engage in
research on consumers.
designed to contribute to other academic audiences has still lower priority. This is to be
14
exchange) and the problems addressed (relevance to marketing) are different. Hence, we
should not expect that consumer researchers’ work should be useful for other disciplines.
Consumer behavior is typically the dependent variable in this model, often the result of
models described below, offers unique implications for consumer behavior knowledge;
that is, (1) how it should be evaluated, (2) what factors will best foster its development,
(3) how it should be acquired by junior colleagues, and (4) how and to whom knowledge
is best disseminated.
should be valued to the extent that it has impact on academic research in the marketing
field (e.g., publications in major marketing journals). Research should also be rewarded
for its impact on marketing practice in for-profit and non-profit arenas (Engel 1981),
cluster around others in the field of marketing. Indeed, researchers in marketing would
15
One would expect that most academic researchers who study consumer behavior are
hired by business schools and are members of marketing departments. One would also
expect that the field’s major gatekeepers (journal editors, association presidents, review
board members) are employed by business schools. Journals like JCR that focus on
consumer behavior would be expected to publish work by marketing academics who are
behavioral researchers in the marketing field. We would not expect that editorial review
boards of the field’s major journals include individuals who represent other areas of
marketing such as marketing strategy or marketing models. Since marketers and policy
makers are potential beneficiaries of academic research, they should also partner in
research on consumers (Wilkie 1981). To help academics gain deeper insight into issues
outstanding practitioners to write articles and solicit them for funding. Professional
Our most promising PhD students should have spent time as managers, in
behavior”, “marketing strategy” and “marketing models”. Marketing journals (as opposed
16
Resemblance to the Status Quo. Certain aspects of the field resemble this model.
The fact that major journals in marketing focus on: (1) managerial (Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Marketing Science), (2) consumer behavior (JCR, JCP), or (3) quantitative
(Marketing Science) aspects of marketing is consistent with its existence. Also supportive
is that the field’s largest academic conferences appeal to a certain “type” of marketing
forthcoming research is targeted to likeminded academics in the marketing field (e.g., the
Social Science Research Network’s three separate working paper series: Managerial
academics in other disciplines (e.g., Baumgartner and Pieters 2003). ACR has historically
journals (as opposed to journals in other disciplines) are often the primary focus of
The resemblance to the status quo to this model is only partial however. As the
criticisms above demonstrate, the extent to which the field has served a marketing
practitioner audience has been questioned (Chakravarti 1992; Jacoby 1976; Wilkie and
17
journals and at consumer behavior conferences is rare. Whereas research partnerships
with marketing practitioners do occur (e.g., through organizations such as MSI, through
public policy conferences), they are the exception rather than the rule for consumer
journal articles are more highly valued than are contributions to marketing practice (e.g.,
trade books, practitioner-focused journal articles). Within the marketing discipline, not all
faculty members who study consumer behavior have PhDs in marketing; marketing
departments have been open to hiring consumer researchers with PhDs in base behavioral
disciplines, particularly psychology. Finally, doctoral programs tend to recruit PhDs with
The Customer Marketing Model (see figure 2; table 1) bears many similarities to
the Behavioral Consumer Marketing model, particularly in its view of consumer behavior
distinguishes consumer behavior from quantitative models, in this model, research from
both behavioral and quantitative sciences are used to understand how customers in an
economic marketplace operate (see figure 2).Thus, the “matrix” model unites those who
study customers even though they may draw on different methodological, statistical, or
18
disciplinary bases. Other researchers in marketing study marketing managers or
since the study of customers includes not only end users, but business to business
customers. Research involves the study of disaggregate but also aggregate (marketplace)
effects and it studies customer behavior in both static and dynamic environments.
is not a unique field. Nevertheless, the disciplinary bases on which consumer behavior
knowledge draws are broad and include disciplines that are behaviorally and
Like the previous model, the objective is to use these disciplines to gain novel insight into
how behavior in a consumer context differs from that in a non-consumer context or how
the results can apply to marketing decision making. Interdisciplinary perspectives should
where insights into customer behaviors provide actionable implications for marketing
19
practitioners. Research is not interdisciplinary in the sense that we do not expect that
consumers.
also fits with the marketing field’s “customer orientation” in both B2B and B2C markets.
Lesser priority is attached to public policy issues and still less on the impact of consumer
Behavioral Consumer Marketing (Piece of Pie) model which we do not discuss here for
brevity sake. Additionally, it implies that advances in knowledge are most likely when
However, even if individual research studies examine customers from a single discipline
or use a single method, it is expected that marketing academics who study consumer
behavior appreciate, understand, and are open to research that uses multiple perspectives
and methods. Hence, progress in the field should be realized to the extent that behavioral
and modeling academics work together (or at least understand each other’s work) on a
20
research would require editorial review board members from the field of marketing who
are open to and capable of evaluating research on a substantive customer issue from
diverse perspectives. Review boards should be sufficiently broad to cover the substantive
structures are developed, one would expect that they revolve around marketing relevant
phenomena for which consumer insight is important (e.g., advertising effects, pricing
effects, services, etc.). Dissertations and other academic perspectives that blend
common language, PhD students should develop a program of study that stresses breadth
rather than base disciplinary depth (i.e., a well-rounded curriculum), and one that that
allows for research opportunities in both quantitative and behavioral (social) domains.
Resemblance to the Status Quo. This model resembles the status quo in ways
similar to the previously described model. Additionally, it resembles the status quo as
there are many researchers in the field of marketing who do study customer behavior
from a quantitative perspective. Moreover, PhD programs do often require that students
Again, however, resemblance to the status quo is only partial (MacInnis 2005;
Rossiter 1989; Sheth 1972, 1982; Sheth and Garrett 1986). Behavioral and quantitative
researchers’ reliance on different (a) paradigms, (b) theories, (c) levels of analyses, (d)
21
methodologies, and (e) statistical approaches hinders researchers’ communications about
and identification of solutions to problems for which a common interest may emerge.
Hence, collaboration between behavioral and quantitative scholars has been the exception
rather than the rule. One reason why may be that manuscripts that blend perspectives are
more difficult to publish since behavioral and quantitative reviewers may use different
criteria to evaluate manuscripts. Editorial review boards of journals like JCR are almost
researchers”, even when they study end users (versus intermediaries or business to
disciplines study consumers (see figure 3), including those in communications, media
health care, and literature. Constituents in some of these fields (e.g., health care) are not
necessarily interested in knowledge relevant to other fields (e.g., marketing). Hence while
many disciplines study consumer behavior, interaction among disciplines is limited. The
22
Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” Whereas the first two models restrict
behavior that includes forms of acquisition for which there is no economic exchange --
fertility (population ecology, demographics), and mobility (real estate, geography, urban
planning). Some disciplines consider the consumer in an economic context (e.g., health
care), however, the behavior of consumers (e.g., patients) rather than the economic
aspects of exchange may be the focus of efforts. This model can also accommodate an
even more expansive perspective which focuses on anything that deals with “consumers”,
regardless of whether it focuses on “behavior” per se. Thus, consumer safety laws,
consumer education programs, consumer credit practices, and consumer housing prices,
would all fall within the boundaries of this model. Accepting each discipline’s
perspective leads to amorphous boundaries for what falls within consumer behavior.
behavior is not its own distinct field; instead it is a subfield of many different disciplines.
23
Although numerous disciplines study consumer behavior, they vary in their focus on
unique constituents and problems relevant to that discipline. With each discipline having
its own audiences, topical focus, objectives, and meaning of “consumer behavior”,
depends on the discipline. Each discipline is independent and so has different academic
for its impact on marketing academics and practitioners. In other applied disciplines (e.g.,
health care), consumer research may be valued for identifying interventions that solve
social problems. In base disciplines (e.g., history) consumer research may be pertinent
disciplines that publish consumer research may be “inbred” and may have little overlap
with other disciplines. Editors of major consumer-focused journals in each field should
strive to construct review boards of the most talented and respected people within the
an author’s contribution to the home discipline and its relevant audiences (e.g., marketing
thought and practice) as opposed to other disciplines. Promotion and tenure cases should
24
be judged by academics in the home discipline, and citations within the home (vs. other)
discipline should be most fruitful (e.g., ACR’s conference attendees from the home
discipline of marketing). Because different disciplines have different goals and audiences
and may study different entities (buyers versus voters) using different time frames
be broadly read. Hence, consumer researchers who are interested in marketing can safely
assume that research relevant to the aspects of consumer behavior that they wish to study
resides within the marketing discipline. Collaborations across disciplines are likely to be
the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, one’s disciplinary orientation and the
applied audiences to whom research is relevant may orient researchers to search for
funding from different sources. Thus, consumer researchers in marketing are more likely
to seek funding from corporate sources and corporate-sponsored institutions (like the
health care may pursue funding from foundations and government grants, respectively.
PhD students should receive primary training in their home discipline, being
immersed in concepts, theories, and problems that are relevant to the academic and
applied constituents they serve. Although students may receive training in other
journals and scholarly books (vs. government reports, press releases, or trade books).
25
Resemblance to the Status Quo. Table 2 shows that indeed many disciplines
also indicates that many journals outside the marketing discipline publish research that
relates to consumers. Furthermore, the editorial boards of many scholarly journals that
publish consumer research are often “inbred” and include few interdisciplinary scholars.
Even though considerable research on consumers exists outside the marketing field,
economic marketplace per se. Hence, citations across disciplines are the exception rather
than the rule, making consumer behavior knowledge relatively insular. Research is often
evaluated for its contribution to the home discipline and is evaluated by individuals
within the home discipline. Notably though, while marketing academics may believe that
consumer research pertinent to marketing is most likely found in the marketing discipline,
the final column of table 3 shows that researchers in other fields often study concepts and
consumer preferences, product use). Hence, while silos may aptly characterize the
The intradisciplinary model does not completely describe the status quo however.
26
one other academic field (consumer psychology, consumer sociology, consumer
anthropology). Yet some might question whether the blending of two disciplines (e.g.,
marketing and psychology) that often results from such alignments truly reflects a full-
researchers from diverse disciplines (e.g., the Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP).
Furthermore, as the quest for research with societal significance has grown among
consumer researchers in marketing, so too has their interest in some applied fields that
focus on public and social welfare (e.g., health care, education, consumer finance), and in
independent discipline; one that synthesizes insights from multiple fields to understand
model, the topical domains that encompass consumer behavior are broad (e.g., symbolic
Researchers in diverse disciplines converge due to their common interest in the same,
27
1). For example, understanding consumers’ grooming rituals would require the synthesis
of anthropological insights about ritual behavior and their varying manifestations across
insights into consumer spending and grooming items, and historical insights about
grooming trends to place it within its proper context. Like the matrix model, research in
that model this model is open to topics that operate beyond the “customer” arena and its
marketing emphasis (e.g., obesity). Furthermore, unlike the matrix model, this model
emphasizes end users (consumers) and does not include B2B markets. Falling outside the
economic exchange (e.g., voting behavior, social marketing, literacy). So, too, would the
consumer housing pricing, consumer safety laws). Although these entities may impact or
be impacted by consumer behavior they are topical domains that fall within the
boundaries of other fields (e.g. economics, law). This more restricted focus thus
behavior is its own, interdisciplinary field; not a sub-field of marketing (as implied by the
slice of pie and matrix models) or a subfield of other disciplines (as implied by the
intradisciplinary model). In this model, truly “interdisciplinary” research does more than
28
join two disciplines (e.g., marketing and psychology). Rather, research that spans
multiple disciplines is critical. Only through such cross-disciplinary fertilization can one
realize the full and complete picture of a given consumption phenomenon (Zaltman 2000).
Although any single project need not be interdisciplinary, researchers should be open to
using research from multiple disciplines to gain deeper insight into the consumer
phenomenon they study. Like the matrix model, this interdisciplinary perspective sets a
premium on the use of multiple methods so as to establish the internal and external
validity of findings and determine the extent to which findings are replicated across
disciplines. Research priority goes to diverse academic audiences who study consumer
sociology, anthropology, history, etc. who share an interest in the same consumption
phenomenon. A stable cadre of scholars who focus on a specific consumption issue (e.g.,
obesity) could foster multi-pronged solutions to problems associated with it. In this way,
consumers and society, though these contributions may not be the primary goal. Whereas
such research may offer implications for marketers and public policy makers such
29
highly valued and hence rewarded. Of particular value, should be novel integrative
theories and review articles that synthesize extant research in ways that promote novel
big picture perspectives. Also valuable is identifying new and important problem areas
From the standpoint of knowledge generation, rather than aligning with “camps”
that can help shed light on the phenomenon of interest. Instead, researchers should defin
themselves in terms of the phenomenon they study (e.g., an obesity, gift giving, or
materialism researcher).
perspectives, but more than lip service encouragement of insights from relatively ignored
disciplines. For example, research on obesity might benefit not just from insights from
psychology and nutrition, but from an understanding of the history of obesity, its varied
meanings across cultures, social groups that are particularly vulnerable to obesity and
more. Hence, this perspective might argue for a “balance” in disciplinary inputs in
consumer research. Some imbalance in a field is likely because theories and methods
suggests the field needs to make special efforts to prevent being malformed.
30
reach out to researchers who study the same phenomenon, regardless of the department or
school at which they are housed. To the extent that interdisciplinary journals have area
editors, the areas might be defined by those who are experts in a specific phenomenon or
set of phenomena. Researchers may secure funding from multiple sources (government
significance.
broadminded PhD applicants with academic prowess in multiple social sciences (Wilkie
knowledge across disciplines and depth of knowledge about a consumer problem. PhD
training should focus not on a base discipline, but on multiple base disciplines relevant to
the phenomenon at hand. Students should learn to understand and appreciate various
journal article language accessibility to readers who share an interest in the phenomenon
but who may not have the background to manage esoteric, discipline-specific jargon.
Resemblance to the Status Quo. The fact that top journals and organizations that
interdisciplinary suggests that this model is consistent with the implied direction of the
field. JCR’s tagline is “an Interdisciplinary Quarterly” and the 12 organization Policy
Board that guides the journal. The model is also consistent with, JCR editors’ repeated
31
requests for interdisciplinary research (e.g., Frank June 1974; Kassarjian and Bettman,
1982, 1984; Lutz 1986, 1988; Mick 2003; Monroe 1990, 1993). Government grants
Interdisciplinary research teams are the exception, not the rule. Doctoral students are
discouraged from being too broadly focused and methodological and theoretical
approach is that universities are rarely organized in such a way that individuals studying
sometimes fail to know of others (even at their own university) who work on a similar
topic.
Behavior (see figure 5) holds that consumer behavior is different from behavior in other
contexts and that accumulated knowledge about consumer behavior is sufficiently rich to
constitute a distinct and separate field of “consumer behavior”. The field’s richness
32
reveals itself in the form of many disciplines studying consumer behavior; each from a
the “onion” that constitutes consumer behavior, from the most micro to the most micro
(e.g., biological, psychological, actions, interactions with small groups, social, cultural,
resembles the interdisciplinary perspective to the extent that the field encompasses
myriad disciplines and many approaches (Chakravarti 1992; Chettiparamb 2007; Mason
long-recognized academic discipline more closely associated with family life and family
economics and with issues involving the consumer interest or consumer rights.
behavior is an independent and unique discipline that benefits from insights from many
academic disciplines (see table 1). The independent status of consumer behavior is
warranted given the increasing role of consumption within the lives of individuals and
across cultures (Belk 2002). Consumer behavior also requires its own field since
33
individual, group, societal, etc.) permits a more complete picture of all that consumer
behavior entails. Research is “interdisciplinary” to the extent that the field includes
researchers who study consumer behavior from multiple perspectives, though the
model, the prevalence and complexity of consumer behavior suggests that advances are
therefore yield different but complementary views of consumer behavior (e.g., aggregate
spending behavior, downward sloping demand curves, individual preferences, and rituals
respectively (Holbrook 1987). Interactions among the various layers of the onion are
study general behavior (neurology, psychology, sociology, and economics) for theories,
isolation across disciplines than the intradisciplinary model without requiring the
synthesis implied by the interdisciplinary model. Researchers here align themselves with
34
perspective (e.g., “positivist” vs. “post positivist”). These labels contrast with those
implied by other models. Researchers endorsing the piece of pie or matrix model might
the interdisciplinary model would be more likely to describe themselves by their focus on
possible to find researchers within the same department who identify with different
disciplines (i.e., layers of the onion). Thus, in marketing, one would expect to find
researchers who share a common interest in “consumer behavior” but who align
consumer anthropology).
scholars, with knowledge being pursued for knowledge sake, regardless of any applied
implications. Academic audiences for consumer research include not just marketing
history, and health care—all of whom share an interest in the consumer. At a more macro
perspective, “consumer behavior” could be the independent variable, not just the
dependent variable, and researchers may be interested in studying the impact of consumer
behavior on society, though not necessarily with the idea of developing policy
recommendations.
35
Implications. From the standpoint of knowledge valuation, the Multidisciplinary
model suggests that “significant” research contributions are those that add to academic
knowledge relevant to a particular layer of the onion. External evaluators for promotion
and tenure cases may therefore include other consumer researchers who focus on the
same level, even though they may be housed in different disciplines (e.g., consumer
researchers who study consumer behavior from different levels of analysis may feel
incapable of judging the contribution of research from a different level- even though they
same phenomenon (e.g., grooming rituals) from one discipline (e.g., anthropological
understanding of cross cultural variation in grooming rituals) may value an aspect of the
versa. Specialization may also create paradigmatic tensions, with researchers that study
different layers of the onion failing to appreciate and appropriately value the
contributions of researchers who study a different layer. In contrast, tensions over the
contributes to the base discipline; perhaps qualifying what were previously thought to be
of analysis, contributions other than the standard journal article, such as books or
videography, would be recognized and valued. Since researchers who study consumer
36
behavior from different levels of analysis may require dissimilar time frames for
beyond the marketing field suggests that broad-based consumer research journals like
JCR might evolve to an area editor structure, with sections focusing on different
conferences specific to the “layer of the onion” that they study. Thus, conferences that
consumer behavior, while those who are interested in more macro consumer behavior
would attend other conferences. Incorporating research from multiple disciplines within
the same scholarly outlet (e.g., JCR) or venue (e.g., ACR conferences) exposes scholars
to different disciplines and cadres of scholars without the expectation that the cadres
necessarily collaborate.
would want to build intellectual networks that relate to consumers (e.g., ACR) and to a
applied), academic structures that foster linkages to colleagues in the base disciplines
should be encouraged. While linkages with businesses might be useful, they are not
examine consumer behavior from the same level of analysis or who use the same base
disciplinary theories, methods and philosophies of science are likely to be easiest and
37
contribute the most to the field due to their common focus, language, and shared
appeal to different sets of researchers who study consumer behavior from a given
perspective (e.g., JCP, Journal of Consumer Culture, etc.) and broad based consumer
behavior journals may be seen as less relevant as a source for encouraging new ideas.
While the field as a whole advances by the inclusion of multiple disciplines, the
individual researcher should gain solid grounding in a single base discipline. Hence PhD
immersed in the theories, methodologies and research philosophies that undergird the
base discipline most relevant to the level of analysis that they study, and they should be
encouraged to seek consumer behavior experts who share that focus as mentors. The
focus on the base discipline may be such that many consumer behavior researchers have
Finally, from the standpoint of knowledge dissemination, one would expect that
Resemblance to the Status Quo. Consistent with the model of consumer behavior
organizations and the scholarly output on consumers shown in tables 2 and 3. Several
leaders of the field have also suggested that this multidisciplinary (not interdisciplinary)
perspective aptly characterizes the field (Chakravarti 1992; Monroe 1993; Robertson and
38
Kassarjian 1991). Further, consumer behavior researchers do tend to self identify as
“micro” or “macro” researchers. This “micro” vs. “macro” focus is evident in the types
consumer research journals (e.g., Journal of Applied Psychology, JCP vs. the Journal of
Consumer Culture), and the structure of consumer behavior textbooks (which are
organized into “micro” and “macro” consumer behavior topics). PhD student training
does focus on a base discipline so that students can rely on theories and constructs from
the norm. Furthermore, reliance on different levels of analysis and paradigms have
created tensions, revealed by the debates aired in the 1980s and 1990s on the value of
positivist versus post-positivist research (Lutz 1989; Ozanne and Hudson 1989).
human behavior (see figure 6 and table 1). Rather than showing how a particular
show how the phenomenon operates similarly in (and hence applies to) other contexts.
39
Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” Although research about consumers falls
general human tendencies that should be replicated regardless of context (e.g., feelings of
anger are evoked similarly and have similar outcomes, regardless of whether the source is
a rude salesperson, one’s boss, a friend, a stranger, or one’s teenage child). Identifying
what falls within and outside the boundaries of consumer behavior is of little importance
subfield of the study of human behavior. The consumption context is not a defining
feature because one anticipates that findings in a consumption context generalize to other
researchers use theories and methodologies of those in the base disciplines to replicate
Relevance Priority. Research that helps scholars understand how humans behave
consumers, public policy and society, these applications do not drive the construct’s
study—though they may justify its importance. The goal of research is intellectual -- to
40
understand human behavior—in particular, the specific phenomenon at hand— what it is,
how it unfolds, how it is experienced, what predicts it, and under what situations.
Implications. Although applied domains may yield novel insights into the more
basic behavioral science domains, it is more likely that influence will flow in the opposite
direction, with the base discipline contributing more to the applied discipline than vice
versa. Underscoring human behavior generally would lead to heavy borrowing from the
rewarded when research contributes to the base discipline (e.g., by being cited there), as
well as when importing concepts studied in base disciplines of human behavior and
applied field on the base discipline field should be asymmetric (e.g., psychology should
contribute more to marketing than the reverse) because the general behavior model does
not presume that faculty in the base disciplines are interested in applied issues.
Faculty and PhD students should also collaborate with others in base disciplines
(e.g., with psychologists or sociologists), perhaps emulating them and seeking them as
mentors. The field would benefit by exposure to eminent researchers on human behavior
(e.g., inviting them to give talks at academic conferences and to write articles on human
behavior for our most prestigious marketing journals). Individual scholars will benefit by
forging alliances with faculty in base disciplines (e.g., through attendance at their
brownbag seminars, reading working papers, and attending their conferences). Broad-
based consumer behavior journals like JCR should have area editors and editorial review
41
board members that are experts in a particular aspect of human behavior (e.g., emotions,
substantial training in base behavioral disciplines where they learn about a specific aspect
of general human behavior (e.g., memory) and identify theories and methods that can be
applied to the study of consumer behavior. They should be avid readers of base discipline
journals and should search for innovative constructs in those areas that might also exist in
a consumption context. Finally, since the goal is to identify phenomena that apply to
to those in the base disciplines rather than using jargon unique to consumer behavior or to
marketing.
Resemblance to the Status Quo. Several aspects of the field are consistent with the
General Behavior model. First, academics in marketing who study consumer behavior
often rely on disciplines that study basic human behavior (particularly psychology) and
cite their work more than they contribute to that literature (e.g., Cote et al.1991; Leong
1989). Consumer research does borrow heavily from other social sciences as opposed to
developing novel concepts and theories (Jacoby 1976; Olson 1982). Academics in
marketing who study consumer behavior also employ standard constructs from base
disciplines rather than develop ones that are unique. Furthermore, in many studies
published in marketing journals, the consumption context relates only tangentially to the
study. For example, a researcher might use brand names to understand memory, however,
42
one might expect similar results if the researcher used names of places, people, or
nonsense syllables. Moreover, one could omit the word “consumer” from a number of
JCR or even marketing journal articles (particularly those with a psychological focus) and
CONCLUSIONS
behavior; (2) is/should consumer behavior be it’s own interdisciplinary field, and (3) to
whom should consumer behavior research be relevant. These criticisms suggest that the
field lacks clarity about (a) its boundaries, (b) whether it exists as a sub-discipline of
interdisciplinary and (c) to whom it should be relevant. The models depicted in Table 1
Importantly, none of the models described here offers a panacea; each has
downsides. Some clearly bound what is and is not consumer behavior; others do not.
Several models limit interaction across disciplines creating the potential for redundancies.
constituent (e.g., academics) while ignoring others. Some create the potential for cross-
disciplinary tensions; others less so. Some emphasize depth in one respect (e.g., depth of
43
Notably, the models also offer different views on the meaning of
“interdisciplinary” research. Some (e.g., the multidisciplinary model) suggest that the
reflected by combining two disciplines (e.g., marketing and psychology). Others suggest
that truly “interdisciplinary” research involves the blending of perspectives from many
disciplines.
The fact that each model bears some similarity to the status quo of consumer
research may reflect or have led to different mental models held by various leaders in the
field. Thus, some academics may adhere to the “piece of pie” model by trying to apply
their research to managers’ predicaments; others may adhere to the “mirror model” by
emulating basic social sciences; still others may believe that research should be
and spokes” model. Thus, different researchers may have internalized different mental
models of the discipline’s “true path”. To the extent that a given individual has a single
mental model, s/he might perpetuate his or her own mental models through their gate-
researchers” adopt one or more models or aspects of a given model at various points in
time or in various contexts (e.g., teaching versus reviewing versus recruiting). The
existence of multiple models may also reflect the discomfort or at least ambivalence on
the part of consumer researchers over the nature, targets, and implications of their
44
research. On the one hand, it may be reasonable to expect that researchers employed by
(consistent with the “”piece of pie” and “matrix” models). However, some researchers
may feel uncomfortable using science to help marketers achieve self-serving ends,
particularly when those ends seem to disadvantage consumers or provide little benefit to
society. Researchers may also feel reluctant to conduct research that addresses a practical
matter (regardless of the applied audience) because doing so might seem less “academic”.
Viewing ourselves as an “applied” field dilutes our “academic” self-concepts, making the
The fact that each model bears some resemblance to the status quo may also
reflect evolutionary aspects of the field. The tri-partite characterization of the field of
marketing (emblematic of the slice of pie model) did not characterize the marketing
more in terms of substantive areas (e.g., customer satisfaction, family decision making,
matrix model. Specialization within the fields of marketing and consumer behavior may
have stimulated the slice of pie model (in marketing) and the multidisciplinary model (in
consumer behavior). Recent writings (e.g., Deighton 2007) suggest a trend toward the
mirror model, with some consumer research being so similar to research in psychology
that reviewers and editors question articles’ contributions to the consumer behavior field.
Curiously, the interdisciplinary model, long touted as the model to which we aspire
45
The fact that each model bears some similarity to the state of or aspirations for
happenstance, the field may be characterized by multiple models. One might argue that a
multiple model perspective is fruitful. Indeed, multiple models might ultimately yield
deeper and richer insights into the field of consumer behavior. Furthermore, because each
model has its own downsides, adopting multiple models might serve complementary
goals. Moreover, it is possible that intellectual tensions resulting from multiple models
Whereas multiple models are not necessarily problematic for a field, a field that
encompasses significant cadres subscribing to many disparate models of the field creates
dissemination. Multiple models also create the potential for tensions within departments
as different models may yield different decisions about faculty hiring, PhD student
training and selection, and tenure votes. Clarity on models guiding the field also impacts
what researchers in the field study, and hence the nature of the intellectual contributions
that can be made. Thus, articulating and evaluating the field’s alternative models should
provide a framework for discussing the purpose consumer behavior knowledge should
serve and how the field must self-organize to attain these goals.
editors could create not only the above noted criticisms, but also a schizophrenic quality
to the nature of consumer behavior research. A scholar who has invested considerable
energy into a research project that has been cultivated by an editor with one mental model
may find his or her work rejected outright by a subsequent editor who holds a different
46
model. Although our field does not need orthodoxy, and we do not wish to over-manage
the direction of the field (Bagozzi 1992) it would probably be better off with fewer
models of the discipline and with a shared understanding of terms (e.g., multidisciplinary,
differently and if the implications of each model have not been thought through.
Discussion of the field’s criticisms and potential models that might drive it should
not be interpreted as an indictment of consumer research. The past 50 years has seen
enormous research productivity. Even though consumer research has thrived despite a
lack of clarity on models of the field, clarity can only enhance the impact of our
contributions. Increasing clarity has been the goal of this article. Interestingly, while
Mick (March 2003) wrote that “we are adolescent, still struggling to figure out who we
are and whether what we do will ever matter to anyone else” (pg. vii), Engel wrote over
20 years earlier that “we are destined to permanent adolescence unless we do some
serious stocktaking” (pg. 12). Perhaps now is the time for such stocktaking to occur.
47
REFERENCES
20, ed. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, Provo, UT: Association for
Bauerly, Ronald J. and Don T. Johnson (2005), “An Evaluation of Journals Used in
(3), 313-329.
Baumgartner, Hans and Rik Pieters (2003), “The Structural Influence of Marketing
Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and its Sub-areas over Time,”
Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo,
48
Belk, Russell W. (2002), “Changing Consumer: Changing Disciplinarity,” The Changing
Consumer: Markets and Meanings, ed. Steven Miles et al, London, Routledge,
145-161.
Research, Vol., ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 1-3.
than Meets the Eye,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 361-
366.
England.
Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, ed. Mark R. Rosenzweig and Lyman W. Porter,
Cote, Joseph A., Siew Meng Leong, and Jane Cote (1991), “Assessing the Influence of
(June), iii–vii.
Deighton, John (2007), “From the Editor: The Territory of Consumer Research: Walking
49
Engel, James (1981), "The Discipline of Consumer Research: Permanent Adolescence or
Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell (1968), Consumer Behavior,
Feldman, Laurence and Jacob Hornik (1981), “Use of Time: An Integrated Conceptual
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, ed. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent
4, ed. William D. Perrault, Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 1-3.
Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, ed., Richard J. Lutz, Provo,
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1991), "Presidential Address: Secular Mortality and the Dark
Consumer Research, Vol. 18, ed. Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon,
50
Holbrook, Morris B. (1985) “Why Business is Bad for Consumer Research: The Three
Research, 145-56.
Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New
York: Wiley.
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, ed. Barbara E. Kahn and Mary Frances
Jacoby, Jacob (1976), “Consumer Research: Telling it Like it is,” Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Kahn, Barbara (2007), “Presidential Address,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34,
ed. Gavan Fitzsimons and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
51
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1986), “Consumer Research: Some Recollections and a
Consumer Research, Vol. 23, ed. Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., Provo,
Leong, Siew Meng (1989), “A Citation Analysis of the Journal of Consumer Research,”
(December), iv-v.
Vol. 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1-
8.
MacInnis, Deborah J. (2005), “Them versus Us: Woes on the Bifurcation of the
Mason, Joseph Barry and Helen Goetz (1978), "The Problems, Pitfalls, and Opportunities
Research, Vol. 5, ed. Kent Hunt, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research,
Pages: 734-737.
52
Mick, David Glen (2003), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), iii- x.
Mick, David Glen (2006), "Presidential Address: Meaning and Mattering Through
ed. Cornelia Pechmann and Linda L. Price, Duluth, MN: Association for
O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Russell W. Belk (1989), “Heaven and Earth: Consumption at
Ozanne, Julie L. and Laurel Anderson Hudson (1989), “Exploring Diversity in Consumer
Pratt, Robert W. Jr. (1974), "ACR: A Perspective,” Advances in Consumer Research Vol.
1, ed. Scott Ward and Peter Wright, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 1-8.
53
Richins, Marsha L. (2001), "Presidential Address: Consumer Behavior as a Social
Science,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, ed. Mary C. Gilly and Joan
Consumer Research, Vol. 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, Vol. 9, ed. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Arbor: Association for
Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 1-7.
54
Simonson, Itamar, Ziv Carmon, Ravi Dhar, Aimee Drolet and Stephen Nowlis (2001),
249-275.
Sternthal, Brian and Gerald Zaltman (1974), “Broadening the Concept of Consumer
Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, ed. Scott Ward and Peter
Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer
Research, 1-5.
Exploring the Four Eras of Thought Development,” Journal of Public Policy and
55
TABLE 1
MODELS OF “CONSUMER BEHAVIOR”
Model Name and How Is Consumer Is Consumer Is Consumer Behavior To Whom Should
Metaphor Behavior Defined? Behavior a Interdisciplinary? Consumer Research be
Unique Relevant?
Discipline?
Behavioral Consumer Limited to end users No- it is a sub- To the extent that Marketing academics;
Marketing (slice of pie) in an economic domain of behavioral marketing Marketing practitioners;
Model; marketplace/ marketing academics use behavioral policy makers
See figure 1) consumption disciplines to understand
what makes consumer
behavior different from
general human behavior
Customer Marketing Same as above but No- it is a sub- Same as above Marketing academics;
(matrix) Model; includes end users, domain of Marketing practitioners;
See figure 2) B2B, government marketing policy makers
and NGOs
Interdisciplinary Model (the Limited to consumer- Yes Yes Academics from multiple disciplines
hub and spokes metaphor; focused who share an interest in the same
See figure 4) phenomenon uniquely consumer-focused phenomenon
Multidisciplinary Limited to consumer- Yes The field may be Academics from multiple disciplines
(onion) Model; focused interdisciplinary, but who share an interest in
See figure 5 phenomenon researchers are not; consumers from a particular
Emphasizes specialization level of analysis
General Behavior (mirror) Loosely, because Perhaps, but it is Yes to the extent that Academics interested in general
Model; See figure 6 consumer more relevant as research in applied human behaviors (emotions, memory,
behavior = human a context in disciplines replicate work choice, impression management)
behavior which human found in base disciplines on in which consumer behavior
behavior is the construct of interest could be a context)
revealed
56
TABLE 2
________________________________________________________________________________________
J. of Family & Cons. Sciences Am. Ass. of Family and Consumer Sciences 1909
Family & Cons. Sciences Research J. Nat. Ass. Of Teacher Educators for
Family and Cons. Sciences 1972
J. of Family & Cons. Sciences Education Family and consumer sciences education 1982
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
57
TABLE 3:
SAMPLE OF ARTICLES FOUND IN ELECTRONIC DATA BASES THE USE "CONSUMER" IN THE ARTICLE TITLE
OR ABSTRACT (BY DISCIPLINE)*
Number
Number
Percentage of
Discipline of Representative Journals Sample Topics
of Total journals
articles
Identified
58
consumer risk perceptions; consumer
Psychology and Marketing, The Journal of preferences; consumer emotions;
Psychology 1300 3.9% Psychology, Journal of Economic Psychology, 26 consumer choice; consumer conformity;
Journal of Applied Psychology consumer decision making; consumer
perceptions
59
symbolic consumption; brand
American Journal of Sociology, American communities; consumer culture; children
Sociology 249 0.8% Journal of Economics and Sociology, British 19 as consumers; ethnic consumption;
Journal of Sociology, Sociology consumer networks; social class and
consumption; consumer society
Table 2b is designed to illustrate the simple point that the study of consumers is not isolated to the marketing discipline. The data are based on an
electronic search of academic journal articles that contained the word “consumer” in the article’s title or abstract. We aggregated the number of
articles within a specific journal and classified the journals by discipline. This scheme allowed us to determine the number of journals and the
number of articles in journals that fit a given discipline. The absolute number of articles identified likely under-represents accumulated research on
consumers since in many cases online access did not completely cover the number of years of the journal’s existence. May also under-represent
contributions in fields where publications more commonly appear in books vs. academic journal articles (e.g., history, sociology, literature).
Caution should be used when interpreting the percentages of articles across disciplines since (a) electronic access is not consistent across the
disciplines, (b) our search focused on the term “consumer” as opposed to potential synonyms for consumers (e.g., “buyers”, “investors”,
“members”, “guests”, “voters”, “patients”, “clients”, “donors”, or “patrons”, (c) we do not claim to have done an exhaustive search for journals-
hence it is possible that relevant journals have been omitted given the databases from which we were able to search, (d) journals of relevance to
multiple disciplines (e.g., “Journal of Competition, Law and Economics”) were assigned to only one discipline, and (e) some journals (e.g., the
Journal of Marketing) have been in existence for a substantially longer period of time than others (e.g., JCR). This fact explains why Table 2b finds
more research on consumer behavior in the marketing discipline than in the field of consumer behavior.
60
FIGURE 1
Marketing
Models
Consumer
Behavior
Marketing
Strategy
61
FIGURE 2
Entity Studied
Customers Firms/Managers
Behavioral
Methodological
MARKETING
Approach
Quantitative
62
FIGURE 3
63
FIGURE 4
Anthropological Economic
Psychological
Consumer Behavior
Phenomenon
Communications (Consummation) Marketing
(e.g., Materialism;
Gift Giving, Price Sensitivity)
Literary Historical
Sociological
64
FIGURE 5
Historical
Anthropological
Sociological/Geographical
Economic
FIGURE 6
Psychological
THE HUMAN BEHAVIOR (MIRROR) MODEL
Neurological
65
FIGURE 6
66