DAVID T. KOLLAT, JAMES F. ENGEL, and ROGER D.

BLACKWELL*

This article supplements other critical evaluations of consumer research by discussing several issues and problems that impede the development of a consumer
behavior research tradition.

Current Problems in Consumer Behavior Research

Compared to the history of most disciplines, the study

of consumer behavior is in its infancy, dating back less
than 50 years. Moreover, a significant percentage of this
research has occurred during the last decade. It seems
likely that the next decade will witness an even greater
acceleration of research on consumer behavior, making
it one of the areas of marketing receiving the greatest
empirical emphasis.
Relative to many other areas of inquiry, there have
been few attempts to evaluate consumer research critically. Past efforts have concentrated primarly on summarizing and synthesizing findings into proposition inventories [42, 55, 84]. With notable exceptions [84],
these critical evaluations have been confined to particular aspects of consumer behavior such as cognitive dissonance [20], brand loyalty [18, 27], and the diffusion
of innovations [47, 48]. These summaries and evaluations have been useful, but many important issues have
not been explored.
This article is intended to supplement other critical
evaluations, not attempting to compare and synthesize
findings or develop propositional inventories, but to deal
with complementary and equally important issues involved in a research tradition or strategy of inquiry.
Discussion and resolution of these problems could contribute greatly to the development of a growing body of
knowledge.

Greater Utilization of Consumer Behavior Models

Several aspects of the "model problem" have been
discussed elsewhere [67, 84]. The issue is raised here
because some of its dimensions have not been explored
and because it generates other problems discussed below.
The majority of consumer research has used hypothetical constructs and what Nicosia has called "reducedform" models [67]. Examples include motivation [14],
perception [37, 71], learning [52, 53], personality [5,
25], attitudes and attitude change [2, 49], social class
[54, 62], reference groups [35], cognitive dissonance
[19], and risk taking [3, 13]. These constructs have been
used to explain and/or predict aspects of consumer behavior.
These constructs are of significance although each
plays a limited role because consumer behavior is infiuenced by a variety of factors interacting in complex
ways. Yet few comprehensive models specifying construct interrelationships [22, 43, 67] have been designed.
A comprehensive literature review [22] reveals that
a very small percentage of consumer research has used
a comprehensive, integrative model. While this is understandable, given the recency of model development, it
poses certain problems.
How many findings of past research are artifacts of
conceptualizations used? If research had been based on
comprehensive models rather than relatively insular
constructs, how many of the significant and nonsignificant findings would change because of variables not
included or controlled? This problem will continue to
plague future consumer research efforts, because without integrative models, how does the researcher know
what variables should be included and controlled?
The severity of what might be called the conceptualization artifact problem suggests the need for more development, testing, and revision of comprehensive models. Are those already developed [22, 43, 67] adequate.

IMPROVING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

RESEARCH
How can a genuine research tradition in consumer
behavior emerge? This is an extraordinarily complex
question, and there are a number of subissues which
must be resolved before progress can be made.
* David T. Kollat and Roger D. Blackwell are Associate
Professors of Marketing and James F. Engel is Professor of
Marketing. All are at The Ohio State University.
327

Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. VII (August 1970), 327-32

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1970

328

or are they too simplistic? Is it possible to have a model

of consumer behavior, or are several necessary? If
several are required, what are the relevant assumptions
and conditions under which each is appropriate? While
these issues may probably never be resolved completely,
progress toward solution would unquestionably increase
the overall efficiency and relevance of consumer research.
Establishing Research Priorities
The consumer research literature shows that a substantial percentage of research was the result of the
availability of data, the convenience of research and
mathematical techniques, and/or the appeal of certain
behavioral constructs. In other words, most research has
been data-technique-construct motivated and oriented
[16, 19, 21, 31, 38] and has typically been conducted
independently with Uttle apparent coordination. The infancy and complexity of consumer research make this
orientation understandable in the short run. But is it the
best long-run strategy? Is it time for some changes?
The fundamental issue here is whether it is desirable
to establish general research priorities. Some may feel
that it is not, and some plausible reasons can be cited
for support. For example, some feel that each researcher
should pursue his own research interests in an unstructured approach which will produce the best longrun results.
On the other hand, without guideline priorities, it is
difficult to decide what to do and in what order. Without priorities, progress is likely to be substantially slower
and to require a greater investment of resourcestime,
money, and people. Moreover, as those who use this
approach in corporate research and development would
contend, general goals and priorities do not eliminate
the individuality and freedom of the researcher, they
merely give it better focus and direction.
It is not the authors' intention to.advocate any point
of view, but to encourage dialogue on the need to formulate general research priorities.
If priorities are desirable, it is necessary to design a
conceptual approach to define them. One approach
would be to become more problem-oriented. This approach to establishing priorities could consider, for example:
1. Those behavorial constructs and relationships that,
if understood, would permit the understanding of
the greatest number of other constructs and relationships; and/or
2. Those that, if understood, would make the greatest
contribution to business firms' rate of return on
investment and appropriate measures of performance and efficiency for other organizations.
These illustrate some of the most difficult problems in
attempting to specify research priorities. First, why
should they be key" problem areas? What about other
types of problems? What are the criteria used in establishing priorities? Second, even if the above priorities

were acceptable it is clear that they are not operationally

defined. What specific constructs and relationships satisfy these two requirements? For example, if the second
approach is followed, should research efforts focus on
those problems with the greatest immediate payout or
on problems with fewer immediate applications but potentially greater numbers of longer-range uses?
To sum up: (1) Is it desirable to attempt to establish
priorities? (2) What areas of consumer behavior are of
the greatest importance? and (3) What phenomena need
to be investigated, in what order, so that these key areas
can be understood? Such research priority issues have
never been publicly raised or resolved. Discussion, debate, and resolution of these issues should accelerate
progress.
Greater Use of Longitudinal and Experimental Designs
Consumer behavior researchers typically use crosssectional surveys, longitudinal, and experimental or
quasi-experimental research designs. Cross-sectional
surveys are the most common because the effects of
several types of variables can be efficiently measured
[34].
In recent years, compelling reasons for studying consumer behavior as a dynamic ongoing process occurring
over time [22, 67j""have been recognized. Simultaneously there has been increased interest in isolating cause
and effect relationships.
Cross-sectional surveys are useful for many types of
inquiries but are the least appropriate method of studying newer views of consumer behavior because of serious biases from inaccurate memory, interaction, and
response style [34]. Moreover, cross-sectional designs
cannot rigorously isolate cause and effect relationships. A clear delineation of the effects of a variable
can be achieved only through true or quasi-experimental
designs [69].
In the last several years more use has been made of
designs that minimize these biases: longitudinal studies
[46, 73, 77, 79] and experimental designs [38, 58, 74].
Accelerated use of these designs should increase the
quality of future consumer research [69].

OVERCOMING VARIABLE AND CONSTRUCT

PROBLEMS
Future progress in consumer behavior research will
depend on overcoming several pi'oblems with commonly
used variables and constructs, including the need for
standardized definitions and categories and richer dependent variables.
Standardized

Definitions

The literature is replete with examples of widely varying definitions of what arc presumably the same variables and constructs. Brand loyalty, for example, has
been defined in terms of brand choice sequences [6],
proportion of purchases [12], repeat purchase probabilities [30, 53], and brand preference over time [36].

CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH

Definitions of impulse purchasing [10, 50] and opinion

leaders [68] vary from study to study. The importance
of information sources is sometimes defined in terms
of exposure, other times in terms of effectiveness [29].
There are at least 45 definitions of innovation and over
164 definitions of culture [22, p. 627]. Motive, a concept often borrowed from social psychology, is one of
the most ambiguous. Motive may include needs, drives,
and directive tendencies [51, 83], or, more precisely, a
disposition to strive toward a generic class of goal [66,
83]. This latter definition provides a basis for establishing measuring instruments, a real advantage in predicting or explaining aspects of human behavior [57].
Definitions, of course, are only means, rather than
ends. Even so, it is difficult to see why there are so many
different purposes. So many definitions make it difficult
and hazardous to compare, synthesize, and accumulate
findings. Definition and classification of terms and variables are essential in the scientific method [57]. It may
not be possible to develop a single definition of each
construct and variable in all situations, but, at the very
least, it would be useful to agree on points of departure.
Standardized Variable Categories
There is also considerable heterogeneity in categories
used to measure many variables and constructs. For
example, a thorough review of the family life cycle literature by Wells and Gubar showed wide variation in
life cycle category definitions in published research [85].
There are also variations in the categories measuring
infiuence of family members in purchasing decisions [1,
86], and nearly every social class researcher uses a different typology [8, 9]. Similarly, a plethora of variable
categories is used to measure learning [22, pp. 116-7].
Because of lack of standardized variable categories,
the researcher faces a dilemma in comparing and integrating research findings and in project design. Standard or recommended categories would contribute to
progress in and usefulness of future empirical efforts.
Ridker Dependent

Variables

In recent years multivariate techniques have been

used more by consumer researchers. These studies have
often demonstrated that single independent variables
are not statistically related to the dependent variable
investigated. On the other hand, combinations of independent variables often prove to be statistically significant and/or much more strongly related to the dependent variable [26, 78]. However, no matter how complex
a dependent variable is, researchers typically measure
it unidimensionally, even though in many cases, from a
conceptual and empirical point of view, it is clearly
multidimensional in nature.
Brand loyalty studies, for example, often indicate
that consumers purchase and are loyal to several brands
in a product category [6, 12]; however, this construct
is usually measured as the proportion of purchases or
the repeat purchase probability for a single brand. Simi-

329

larly, although there is evidence that information seeking is a cumulative process involving several sources
[45], most attempts to determine characteristics of information-seeking consumers and the determinants of
search utilize unidimensional scales [7, 44].
In attitude studies, also, more social psychologists
note three basic related dimensions of an attitude: (1)
cognitive information and beliefs about the object or
phenomenon in question; (2) affective feelings of likedislike, etc.; and (3) behavioral tendencies to act in a
certain way [51, 60]. Most studies, however, measure
only the valence of certain affective dimensions selected
by the researcher [2]. Attitudes are frequently poor predictors of behavior [28], perhaps because measuring instruments used typically isolate only one dimension.
In most consumer research studies, if the relationship
between dependent and independent variables is not
statistically significant, it is concluded that the independent variables are not important in understanding the dependent variable. In some instances the dimensionality
artifact may provide an alternative explanation, for if
dependent variables were measured multidimensionally,
significant and nonsignificant independent variables
might change. Extensions and modifications of the multidirriensional techniques suggested by Frank and Green
[32] should be useful in this effort.

DEVELOPING A REPLICATION

TRADITION

In many disciplines replication is rigorously practiced. In the physical and behavioral sciences, findings
must be replicated a number of times. The literature of
psychology has many examples of replication, where a
problem is intensively studied to be sure that methodological artifacts did not dictate findings. For example,
later studies generated by the 1948 discovery that highvalued stimuli are more quickly perceived than lowvalued ones revealed artifacts in that the low-valued
words were more infrequently used and thus unfamiliar
.[75]. After replication, substantial evidence indicates
that perceptual defense can be demonstrated when
proper experimental controls are used [70].
Replication is rarely practiced in consumer research.
Most findings and propositions are based upon single
studies by a single researcher, which unfortunately invites invalid conclusions due to unusual sample characteristics, distortion in experimental control, and other
methodological artifacts. All too frequently, findings are
used uncritically in the marketing literature, especially
general textbooks, and the dangers of misleading conclusions increase as the body of consumer behavior
findings grows. A replication tradition would allow researchers to determine the conditions under which an
effect may exist, establish hierarchies of effects, and
test validity of previously reported findings.
The Research Environment

and Design

To what extent are consumer behavior findings artifacts of the research design, subjects used, and variables

330

controlled? The question has long been of concern

to researchers. The study of attitude change provides
an example. Attitude change has been extensively
analyzed in laboratories and field experiments. In a
typical laboratory study, it is not difficult to generate
attitude change in response to persuasion, yet such a
result is less frequently demonstrated in field studies,
partly because of the artificiality of the laboratory experiment which seldom provides the opportunity for
selective exposure [41]. Also, most studies of consumer
decision making find variation among consumers in decision behavior, probably because of complex interactions of many independent variables. One researcher
has concluded that the validity of studies in which variables are not controlled is subject to question [33].
What is the optimum research environment that
achieves the control advantages of laboratory experiments without generating artificial biases? This difficult question deserves serious attention.
Generalizing Across Types of Decisions
To what extent are findings derived from analysis of
a specific type of consumer decision applicable to other
types of decisions? There is considerable evidence that
many consumer behavior findings are apphcable only
to the type of decision or choice being studied, and this
creates another dilemma.
For example, many studies reveal that family members' roles in purchase decisions vary widely across
products [1, 86]. Other studies indicate that attitude
change depends in part on the centrality and other conditions of attitude strength [23, 41]. The extent of information seeking and the importance of information
sources vary from one type of decision to another [7,
29, 45]. Unplanned purchasing [10] and the effectiveness of point-of-purchase displays [15, 17], end-aisle
displays [56, 61], number of shelf facings [11, 39], and
shelf height [81, 82] vary widely across products. Analysis of various studies of the diffusion of innovations suggests that the amount of decision making involved, the
sources of information used, and other important dimensions often vary from one type of innovation to
another [22, p. 546].
Certainly in many cases it is not proper to generalize
findings across products or decision situations. On the
other hand, generalizing as far as possible avoids researching consumer behavior in unnecessarily minute
detail. There is a growing need for classification systems for types of decisions and choices which, if properly designed, would permit a legitimate degree of
generalization. Research to date suggests that the traditional convenience, specialty, and shopping goods typology [40] has too wide intercategory variation in behavior. Future efforts using alternative conceptual
schemes [4] or empirically derived classifications [63]
should increase the progress of consumer research.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1970

Broadening the Horizons and Uses of Consumer Research

With relatively few, but notable exceptions, most consumer research has been oriented toward business interests. Relatively little research has been concerned
with consumer exploitation or protection, behavioral
problems of the disadvantaged, or behavioral contributions to legislation and decisions of regulatory agencies.
Few consumer researchers appear as expert witnesses
in judicial proceedings. Is there a social and professional
responsibihty to broaden the horizons and uses of consumer research into these other areas? There are, of
course, several problems in trying to represent both
business and consumer interests, but there are also many
risks in avoiding consumer interest issues. Perhaps the
most severe is to allow less qualified individuals to
raise these issues or formulate consumer legislation [64].
Developing Information Summary and Retrieval Systems
The amount of consumer research is increasing exponentially and today's research studies will represent
only a fraction of the literature of 1980. It will become
increasingly difficult for both researchers and practitioners to have an awareness and working knowledge of
published research relevant to their problems.
Two steps can be taken to accommodate the research
explosion. First there should be literature reviews to
evaluate and summarize evidence published or available
during the year. This technique is widely used in other
areas including, for example. The Annual Review of
Psychology.
A complementary approach would be to establish a
consumer behavior research retrieval system. Although
this type of system presents numerous complex problems, other disciplines such as law, medicine, and chemistry have used it. An example is the American Chemical Society, which through its subsidiary. Chemical
Abstracts, operates a service which makes possible
computer search across the full range of the world's current chemical literature. Machine-searchable tapes contain the title, authors' names, complete bibliographic
citation, and key descriptive indexing terms for each
journal article and patent abstracted in current issues of
Chemical Abstracts.
Furthermore, within consumer research itself, the
Diffusion Documents Center at Michigan State University has devised procedures for cataloging and summarizing over 1,000 different studies [80]. Although serious problems must be solved before such a system could
be made operational, it is important to begin work
immediately rather than waiting until the research explosion has become even more formidable.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the problems discussed are attributable to
the complexity and infancy of consumer research and

331

CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH

the fact that research to date has been conducted relatively independently by researchers in various universities, businesses, and governmental agencies. The issues raised here and others that have undoubtedly been
overlooked are of sufficient importance to deserve further discussion and debate. If they are resolved, or even
if some significant progress toward their resolution is
made, a significant stride will be taken toward the development of a consumer behavior research tradition.

21.
22.
23.

REFERENCES
1. "A Pilot Study of the Roles of Husbands and Wives in
Purchasing Decisions," New York: Conducted for Life
Magazine by L. Jafle Associates, Inc., 1965, Parts I-X.
2. Kenward Atkin, "Advertising and Store Patronage," Journal of Advertising Research, 2 (December 1962), 18-23.
3. Raymond A. Bauer, "Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking,"
Proceedings, National Conference, American Marketing
Association, 1960, 389-98.
4. Orville Brim, et al.. Personality and Decision Processes,
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962.
5. Robert P. Brody and Scott M. Cunningham, "Personality
Variables and the Consumer Decision Process," Journal of
Marketing Research, 5 (February 1968), 50-7.
6. George Brown, "Brand LoyaltyFact or Fiction?" Advertising Age, 23 (June 19, 1952), 53-5; (June 30, 1952),
45-7; (July 14, 1952), 54-6; (July 28, 1952), 46-8; (August
11, 1952), 56-8; (September 1, 1952), 80-2; (October 6,
1952), 82-6; (December 1, 1952), 76-9; (January 26, 1952),
75-6.
7. Louis P. Bucklin, "The Informative Role of Advertising,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 5 (September 1965), 1115.
8. James M. Carman, The Application of Social Class in
Market Segmentation, Berkeley: Graduate School of Business Administration, University of California, 1965.
9. Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949.
10. Consumer Buying Habits Studies, Wilmington, Delaware:
E. T. DuPont de Nemours and Company, 1949, 1954, 1959,
1965.
11. Keith Cox, "The Responsiveness of Food Sales to Shelf
Space Changes in Supermarkets," Journal of Marketing
Research, 1 (May 1964), 63-7.
12. Ross Cunningham, "Brand LoyaltyWhat, Where, How
Much," Harvard Business Review, 34 (January-February
1956), 116-28.
13. Scott M. Cunningham, "Perceived Risk as a Factor in the
Diffusion of New Product Information," Proceedings, National Conference, American Marketing Association, 1966,
698-721.
14. Ernest Dichter, The Strategy of Desire, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1960.
15. B. A. Dominick, Jr., Research in Retail Merchandising of
Farm Products, Washington, D. C : Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, 1960.
16. Jean E. Draper and Larry H. Nolin, "A Markov Chain
Analysis of Brand Preference," Journal of Advertising Research, 4 (September 1964), 33-9.
17. Drugstore Brand Switching and Impulse Buying, New
York: Point-of-Purchase Advertising Institute, 1963.
18. A. S. C. Ehrenberg, "An Appraisal of Markov Brand
Switching Models," Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (November 1965), 347-63.
19. James F. Engel, "Are Automobile Purchasers Dissonant
Consumers?" Journal of Marketing, 27 (April 1963), 55-8.
20.
, "The Dissonance Dilemma," Bulletin of Business

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.
33.
34.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.

Research, Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, The

Ohio State University, July 1968, 1.
, "The Psychological Consequences of a Major
Purchase Decision," Proceedings, Winter Conference,
American Marketing Association, 1962, 462-75.
, David T. KoUat, and Roger D. Blackwell, Consumer Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
Inc., 1968.
James F. Engel and M. Lawrence Light, "The Role of
Psychological Commitment in Consumer Behavior: An
Evaluation of the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," in
Frank M. Bass, Charles W. King and Edgar A. Pessemier,
eds.. Applications of the Sciences in Marketing Management, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968, 39-68.
C. W. Eriksen, "Perceptual Defense as a Function of Unacceptable Needs," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (October 1951), 557-64.
Franklin B. Evans, "Psychological and Objective Factors
in the Prediction of Brand Choice: Ford versus Chevrolet,"
Journal of Business, 32 (October 1959) 340-69.
John U. Farley, "Why Does Brand Loyalty Vary Over
Products?" Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (November
1964), 9-14.
and Alfred E. Kuehn, "Stochastic Models of Brand
Switching," in George Schwartz, ed.. Science in Marketing,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965, 446-64.
Leon Festinger, "Behavioral Support for Opinion Change,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 27 (Fall 1964), 404-17.
George Fisk, "Media Influence Reconsidered," Public
Opinion Quarterly, 23 (Winter 1959), 83-91.
Ronald E. Frank, "Brand Choice as a Probability Process,"
Journal of Business, 35 (January 1962), 43-56.
, Susan P. Douglas, and Rolando E. Polli, "Household Correlates of Package-Size Proneness for Grocery
Products," Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (November
1967), 381-4.
Ronald E. Frank and Paul E. Green, "Numerical Taxonomy
in Marketing Analysis: A Review Article," Journal of
Marketing Research, 5 (February 1968), 83-94.
Donald H. Granbois, "The Role of Communication in the
Family Decision-Making Process," Proceedings, Winter
Conference, American Marketing Association, 1963, 44-57.
and James F. Engel, "The Longitudinal Approach
to Studying Marketing Behavior," Proceedings, Fiftieth
Anniversary International Symposium on Marketing,
American Marketing Association, 1965, 205-21.
Group Influence in Marketing and Public Relations, Ann
Arbor: The Foundation for Research in Human Behavior,
1956.
Lester Guest, "Brand LoyaltyTwelve Years Later," Journal of Applied Psychology, 39 (December 1955), 405-8.
G. V. Haigh and D. W. Fiske, "Corroboration of Personal
Values as Selective Factors in Perception," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47 (July 1952), 394-8.
Robert Holloway, "An Experiment on Consumer Dissonance," Journal of Marketing, 31 (January 1967), 39-43.
Douglas H. Harris, "The Effect of Display Width in Merchandising Soap," Journal of Applied Psychology, 42
(June 1958), 283-4.
Richard H. Holton, "The Distinction Between Convenience
Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods," Journal of
Marketing, 22 (July 1958), 53-6.
Carl I. Hovland, "Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived
From Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude
Change," American Psychologist, 14 (January 1959), 8-17.
John A. Howard, Marketing: Executive and Buyer Behavior, New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
, Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning,
Homewood, III.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 31-113.

332
44. George Katona, The Mass Consumption Society, New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1964, 289-90.
45.
and Eva Mueller, "A Study of Purchase Decisions," in Lincoln H. Clark, ed.. The Dynamics of Consumer Reactions, New York: New York University Press,
1955, 30-87.
46. Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence,
Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955.
47. Elihu Katz, Martin L. Levin, and Herbert Hamilton,
"Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovations,"
American Sociological Review, 28 (April 1963), 237-52.
48. Charles W. King, "Adoption and Diffusion Research in
Marketing: An Overview," Proceedings, Fall Conference,
American Marketing Association, 1966, 665-84.
49. J. T. Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication, New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960.
50. David T. KoUat and Ronald P. Willett, "Customer Impulse Purchasing Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (February 1967), 21-31.
51. David Krech, Richard S. Crutchfield, and Egerton L.
Ballachey, Individual in Society, New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1962, 137-77.
52. Herbert E. Krugman, "The Learning of Consumer Preference," Journal of Marketing, 26 (April 1962), 31-3.
53. Alfred E. Kuehn, "Consumer Brand Choice as a Learning
Process," Journal of Advertising Research, 2 (December
1962), 10-7.
54. Sidney Levy, "Social Class and Consumer Behavior," in
Joseph W. Newman, ed.. On Knowing the Consumer, New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966, 146-60.
55. Frederick E. May, "Buying Behavior: Some Research
Findings," Journal of Business, 39 (October 1965), 379-96.
56. Bert C. McCammon and Donald H. Granbois, The Super
Drugstore Customer, New York: Point-of-Purchasing Advertising Institute, 1962.
57. David C. McClelland, The Achieving Society, Princeton:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1961.
58. J. Douglas McConnell, "The Price-Quality Relationship in
an Experimental Setting," Journal of Marketing Research,
5 (August 1968), 300-3.
59. E. McGinnies and J. Adornetto, "Perceptual Defense in
Normal and Schizophrenic Observers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47 (October 1952), 833-7.
60. W. J. McKeachie and Charlotte L. Doyle, Psychology,
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.,
1966, Chapter 16.
61. Mary L. McKenna, "The Influence of In-Store Advertising," in Joseph Newman, ed.. On Knowing the Consumer,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966, 114-5.
62. Pierre Martmeau, "Social Classes and Spending Behavior,"
Journal of Marketing, 23 (October 1958), 121-30.
63. John G. Myers and Francesco M. Nicosia, "On the Study
of Consumer Typologies," Journal of Marketing Research,
5 (May 1968), 182-93.
64. "Naderites Blast FTC Foot Dragging as Rule on Rigged
Games Is Issued," Advertising Age, 40 (January 6, 1969), 1.
65. "Networking Notes," Educom, 3 (December 1968), 6.
66. Theodore M. Newcomb, Ralph H. Turner, and Philip E.
Converse, Social Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc., 1965, 22.
67. Francesco Nicosia, Consumer Decision Processes, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1970

68.

69.

70.
71.
72.
73.
74.

75.

76.
77.

78.

79.
80.

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.

-, "Opinion Leadership and the Flow of Communication: Some Problems and Prospects," Proceedings, Winter
Conference, American Marketing Association, 1964, 34058.
, Robert Pratt, Jr., Alan Andreasen, Donald H.
Granbois, and James F. Engel, Understanding Marketing
Behavior: An Introduction to the Longitudinal Approach,
New York: The Free Press, (in press).
F. H. Nothman, "The Influence of Response Conditions on
Recognition Thresholds for Taboo Words," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65 (June 1962), 154-61.
N. Pastore, "Need as a Determinant of Perception," Journal
of Psychology, 28 (July 1949), 457-75.
Karl Pearson, The Grammar of Science, Third Edition,
London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911, Chapter 1.
Allen L. Pennington, "Customer-Salesmen Bargaining Behavior in Retail Transactions," Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (August 1968), 255-62.
Edgar A. Pessemier and Richard D. Teach, "Pricing Experiments, Scaling Consumer Preferences, and Predicting
Purchase Behavior," Proceedings, Fall Conference, American Marketing Association, 1966, 541-60.
L. Postman, W. C. Bronson, and G. L. Gropper, "Is
There a Mechanism of Perceptual Defense?" Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48 (April 1953), 21524.
L. Postman, J. S. Bruner, and E. McGinnies, "Personal
Values as Selective Factors in Perception," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43 (April 1948), 142-54.
Robert W. Pratt, Jr., "Understanding the Decision Process
for Consumer Durable Goods: An Example of the Application of Longitudinal Analysis," Proceedings, Fiftieth
Anniversary International Symposium on Marketing, American Marketing Association, 1965, 244-60.
Thomas S. Robertson and James N. Kennedy, "Prediction
of Consumer Innovators: Application of Multiple Discriminant Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 5
(February 1968), 64-9.
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Glencoe, III.:
The Free Press, 1955.
and J. David Stanfield, "Adoption and Diffusion of
New Products: Emerging Generalizations and Hypotheses,"
in Frank M. Bass, Charles W. King, and Edgar Pessemier,
eds.. Applications of the Sciences in Marketing Mhnagement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968.
"Shelf Attitudes Affect Buying Attitudes," Progressive
Grocer, 43 (March 1964), C-126.
"Shelf Merchandising Strategy: A Key to Increased Sales,"
Progressive Grocer, 43 (March 1964), C-121-5.
Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Outline of
Social Psychology, Revised Edition, New York: Harper
and Row, 1956, 367.
Jagdish N. Sheth, "A Review of Buyer Behavior," Management Science, 13 (August 1967), B718-55.
William D. Wells and George Gubar, "Life Cycle Concept in Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (November 1966), 355-63.
Elizabeth H. Wolgast, "Do Husbands or Wives Make
Purchasing Decisions?" Journal of Marketing, 23 (October
1958), 151-8.
E. Zigler and L. Yospe, "Perceptual Defense and the
Problem of Response Suppression," Journal of Personality, 28 (June 1960), 220-39.