Criticism of comprehensive models

Over the years comprehensive models have received extensive criticism. Jacoby (1978) focused on limitations concerning validity, measurability and lack of empirical testing of the models.

Erasmus et al. (2001) categorized criticism into four areas: the assumption of a rational decision maker; the positivistic approach in developing the models; the generalization of the decision making process; and the detail included in the models.

Figure 3.5: Posts in a social networking site during the stages of the decision process

Source: Author

From a theoretical and philosophical perspective, Firat (1985) suggests that consumer behaviour models (a) assume certain variables as given; (b) are dominated by a managerial-technological orientation; (c) evidence a “buyer” rather than a “consumer” focus; and (d) demonstrate a lack of interest in macro processes.

Critics support that comprehensive models assume a rational, problem-solver decision maker.

Erasmus et al. (2001) suggest that the assumption of rationality consists of several dimensions such as: The assumption on a linear sequence of activities, or stages that consumers pass through a decision, where in fact consumers may devote little time in a stage, or even not engage at all in a particular stage of the process, thus suggesting a non-conscious behaviour during decision-making. On the same issue, Olshavsky and Granbois (1979) suggest that a significant number of purchases occur without a decision process, but as a result of necessity, culture driven lifestyles, inter-related purchases, conformity to group norms, imitation, based exclusively on recommendations combined or not with limited search and evaluation, or even on a random basis, therefore consumer behaviour models provide explanation in certain types of consumer purchasing behaviour. Olshavsky and Granbois (1979) support that even when there is a choice process, a typical consumer cannot involve in extensive data collection and evaluation (e.g. similar to those performed by Consumer Reports, the U.S. product review magazine) due to absence of time, effort, resources and expertise. The issue in this argument however is whether the route to the information is of importance: Is it necessary for the consumer to perform on his own data collection and (technical) evaluation of data, or is it adequate to locate the source of information and access the information already available? As Firat (1985) suggests, models are relevant to the context and time they were developed. But criticism to the models must also adhere to the same rule: It should be time specific. As this study demonstrated in chapter 2, the Web 2.0 and the social media in particular, enable consumers not only to have access (with relative ease) to product review related information and evaluations, but also enable consumers to generate and exchange such information with friends, members of their reference groups, or even with strangers.

A second dimension of the assumption of rationality is that the rigid structure of the models does not allow enough flexibility to cater for functional, highly adaptive, opportunistic, or even haphazard and disordered decision making (Hayes-Roth 1982 cited Erasmus et al. 2001). As a result, comprehensive models do not recognize the existence of a repertoire of consumer decision making strategies or the use of heuristics in decision making (Mishra and Olshavsky 2005). Finally, rationality implies also that consumers have the capacity to correctly rank alternatives and therefore are able to identify the best alternative. Critics suggest that consumers

have limited knowledge and skills, or access to information is limited (Schiffman and Kanuk 2000).

In an attempt to counter argue the issue of rationality Mishra and Olshavsky (2005) support that the Internet, the Web, and the associated new technologies provide to consumers powerful tools that enable them overcome the traditional constrains of decision making. They propose that technology enabled the creation of an alliance, namely the “consumer-computer system”

defined as “an alliance between man and machine in which the two interact to make decisions”

(2005, p.368) that can “relax” a number of the constrains imposed by rationality. They also argue that consumer-computer systems discredit “for some consumers in some choices” (Mishra and Olshavsky 2005, p.370) the three assumptions that led Simon (1955, 1956) develop the theory of bounded rationality (namely limited knowledge of individuals; costly to collect and store information; and trial and error search process required for economic behaviour): Without adding to consumers’ cognitive efforts, search engines enhance the consumers’ level of knowledge; computers enable consumers’ to store information, and due to the Web information is not costly to collect; recommendations about brands found on the Web help reduce the trial and search process.

Firat (1985) suggests that the models assume a generalized process throughout various contexts.

He argues that the application of consumer behaviour models to contexts other than those originally developed for, is likely to cause imbalances; therefore models are context, time and social formation dependent. However, for the purposes of this study this criticism can be overwhelmed: Travel related models are being reviewed in the section to follow, and the study has a clear focus on holiday travel, therefore a generalized process is not assumed.

Firat (1985) also suggests that the models assume perception of some needs or consumptions patterns as “given” (e.g. the generic need for a television or for a transportation mode) in specific socio-cultural settings. Although socio-cultural references are treated in the models, he believes that there is a limiting role if those influences are considered only through reference groups, information search, attributes choices and evaluation of alternatives. Thus, attempting to predict consumer behaviour within a given social formation produces a scientific weakness of the models since the attempt is explaining only brand choice. He therefore suggests that phenomena should be studied in their entirety from a variety of contexts to account for differences in a variety of contexts such as historical, political, economic, social structures and processes.

As per the managerial-technological orientation of the models, Firat (1985, p.4) considers consumer behaviour as a functional business discipline that attempts to predict buyer behaviour so to assist “businesses best exploit and gain from tendencies in these behaviours”. Due to this orientation, the predictive role of models gains over their role to provide understanding and explanation, a major indication of a technological-managerial orientation that leads to a

“management science” syndrome: Emphasis is given on influencing and controlling, therefore managing phenomena within specific contexts, rather than understanding them.

At the same time Firat (1985) emphasizes that consumer behaviour theory and models, but also marketing as a whole, investigate buyer behaviour rather than consumption behaviour, thus not allowing investigation of cases where a need is satisfied by means other than buying, or even in cases where a need is not satisfied at all, an outcome that Firat considers a form of consumption behaviour.

Finally, Firat (1985) supports that consumer behaviour theory and models reveal a behavioural science rather than a social science perspective since they focus in developing micro theories instead of a macro theory. To support this argument Firat emphasizes that consumer behaviour models focus on individual buyers, or households (micro analysis), instead of investigating effects of societal structures and processes on consumer actions, and vice versa effects of consumer actions on societal institutions (macro perspective). In a similar vein, Bowen and Clarke (2009, p.61) suggest that “much decision making occurs in a group” a dimension that is not reflected in comprehensive models.