Knowledge that Transforms

Journal Article Volume 29 Author Index Get access Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 29, Issue 4, March 2003, Pages 601–609, https://doi.org/10.1086/515842 Published: 01 March 2003

Scientific knowledge in consumer behavior is defined as consisting of consumer behavior structural frameworks or models (microtheories) and well-supported empirical generalizations in various areas of consumer behavior (microfindings). This re-inquiry first examines a pioneering attempt to develop a test of scientific knowledge in consumer behavior, the Armstrong Test. The problems with that test are instructive in revealing threats to validity in test construction and analysis. Second, detailed steps are proposed for constructing a comprehensive, valid test of scientific knowledge in consumer behavior. Such a test should be useful for assessing the consumer behavior knowledge held by business educators, consultants, managers, market researchers, and business students. Copyright 2003 by the University of Chicago.

Four experiments test predictions on endowment and mental accounting effects of a theoretical perspective that stresses the symbolic-relational significance for consumer transactions and that posits the placement of qualitative boundaries on fungibility. Although people accepted proposals to buy objects acquired in market-pricing relationships as routine, the same proposals in communal-sharing, authority-ranking, and equality-matching relationships triggered distress and erratically high dollar valuations. Symbolic ownership history also moderated valuations in a purely market setting, and the effects of symbolic-relational source of income extended even to spending decisions. Examination of the model's ordinal predictions revealed stronger effects for equality-matching than for authority-ranking relationships.

We seek to reinforce the importance of the notion of within-alternative conflict for consumer research. We replicate our own earlier findings that conflict associated with integrating an alternative's pros and cons influences responses to a judgment task. In the earlier work, we focused on test-retest reliability in judgment; here we extend the work by developing a measure of explicit preference uncertainty using subjective confidence intervals placed around evaluative judgments in consumer purchase contexts. We also extend the prior work by demonstrating an effect of within-alternative conflict on preferences expressed through evaluative ratings.