The Influence of Consumers’ Logical and Affective Brand Evaluation Inclinations on Consideration Set Composition

Fumiaki Kikuchi


This paper explores how consumers’ brand evaluation inclinations influence the degree of brand convergence in their consideration sets. We treated consumers’ brand evaluation inclinations two-dimensionally (logical and affective) and divided consumers into the following four groups: (I) strong logical and affective brand evaluation inclination, (II) weak logical and strong affective brand evaluation inclination, (III) weak logical and affective brand evaluation inclination, and (IV) strong logical and weak affective brand evaluation inclination. We hypothesized that the degree of convergence would differ among the four groups and assumed, more concretely, that it would be highest in Group IV, moderate in Group I and Group III, and lowest in Group II. A series of experiments based on data gathered via questionnaires showed differences in the degrees of brand convergence among the four groups, which supports this study’s primary hypothesis. However, the observed magnitude of the relationships differed from this study’s supposition. The empirical results showed that the degrees of convergence for consumers in Group II and Group III were higher than those for consumers in Group I and Group IV.

Full Text:



Andrews, R. L., & Srinivasan, T. C. (1995). Studying consideration effects in empirical choice models using scanner panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 30–41.

Brisoux, J. E., & Chéron, E. J. (1990). Brand categorization and product involvement. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (pp. 101–109). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 702–714.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

Hauser, J. R. (2014). Consideration-set heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1688–1699.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.

Kardes, F. R., Kalyanaram, G., Chandrashekaran, M., & Dornoff, R. J. (1993). Brand retrieval, consideration set composition, consumer choice, and the pioneering advantage. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 62–75.

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-control for the righteous: Toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199–217.

Lapersonne, E., Laurent, G., & Le Goff, J.-J. (1995). Consideration sets of size one: An empirical investigation of automobile purchases. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1), 55–66.

Mittal, B. (1988). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499–524.

Miura, T., & Ito, N. (2000). Think and feel attributes/products and global marketing strategy. In G. T. Gundlach & P. E. Murphy (Eds.), 2000 AMA Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 11 (pp. 220–227). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.

Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503–518.

Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 24–38.

Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1997). Consideration: Review of research and prospects for future insights. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 406–410.

Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181–197.

Solomon, M. R. (2011). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 27–33.

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.

Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 123–131.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.