The means-end theory

Means-end theory is based on expectancy-value theory (Gutman, 1997; Gutman, 1982) and aims to address the relationship between product attributes and purchase motives. It is a framework for understanding the associations that groups of consumers make between a product’s attributes and more personally relevant and abstract consequences and values (Leppard et al, 2004; Fotopoulos, 2003; Nielsen et al, 1998). The MEC theory treats all the abstraction levels in the motivational chain up to needs as motives. These motives are then divided into attributes, consequences and values. This MEC is similar to that of Howard and Sheth (1969), but their three levels of motives are more ambiguous. They referred to them as ‘very general motives’, ‘general motives’ and ‘less general motives’.

In an attempt to refine the structure of Gutman’s model, the attributes, consequences and values were each further divided in two levels of abstraction. As Figure 3.5 shows, attributes can be classified as concrete or abstract attributes. Concrete attributes reflect the physical features of the object. Conversely, abstract attributes are more subjective representations of the object characteristics that represent several concrete attributes and

communicate more hedonic motives than concrete attributes (Snelders and Shoormans, 2004). Consequences are abstract meanings that reflect the perceived benefits (or costs) associated with specific attributes and can be classified as functional or psychological.

Whereas functional consequences include direct, tangible outcomes derived from the purchase/use of the object, psychosocial consequences include intangible, personal less direct outcomes. Finally, personal values are highly abstract meanings that refer to centrally enduring beliefs (instrumental values) or end-states of existence that customers seek to achieve through their behaviour (terminal values). Attributes and functional consequences compose the object knowledge and form the means. Psychosocial consequences and values are part of the self knowledge and are the ends sought by the behaviour.

Figure 3. 5: Means-end chain model Source: Thomson and Chen, 1998

MEC research is based upon several assumptions about how consumer behaviour is structured (Gutman, 1982; Manyuiwa and Crawford, 2002):

• The consumption-relevant cognitive structure is organised in terms of chains, which link the perception of concrete product attributes to self-relevant consequences and ultimately the attainment of life values;

• Values, as end states, play a dominant role in guiding choice patterns;

• People cope with a diversity of products that are potential satisfiers of their values by grouping them into sets or classes so as to reduce the complexity of choice;

• Consumers learn to associate particular consequences with particular actions.

Concrete

The theory has been applied in consumer research, with previous studies focusing on food and drink choice (Fotopoulos et al., 2003; Grunert et al., 2003; Russel et al., 2004; Brunso et al., 2004; Hall et al., 2001, Vannoppen et al., 2002), luxury products (Valette-Florence, 1998) and brand equity (Wansink, 2003). Although not substantially, the theory has been applied in the tourism, hospitality and leisure fields. Specifically, it has been applied to study the motives underlying destination choice (Klenosky, 2002; Klenosky et al., 1993), the decision to visit museums (Jansen-Verbeke and Rekom, 1996) and the satisfaction with a hotel stay (Orsingher and Marzocchi, 2003). Only a few studies concentrated on motives to use purchasing channels. For example, Vannoppen et al. (2002) compared the motives for buying apples through either farm shops or supermarkets.

In evaluating MEC theory, one pattern that emerges is that virtually all the research has concentrated on the understanding of the motives for preferring the object, be it a product, a practice or a person. With a few exceptions (e.g. Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002; Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 2000), little research has been done regarding the ‘de-motivation’ process.

While the ‘motivation’ process sheds light on the factors influencing the performing of the behaviour, the de-motivation’ process enables an understanding of the factors influencing against the performing of that behaviour.

The motives to purchase can be of different nature from the motives to not purchase. For example, in the Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) study, the attributes to consume organic food were associated to the intrinsic characteristics of the product (e.g. quality of the food), whereas the attributes not to consume organic food were related to the extrinsic characteristics (packaging and price). In other words, the motives to perform a behaviour are usually related to perceptual factors, whereas the motives not to perform may or may not be, since they can also be associated to (a lack of) resources.

3.4.2. Involvement

The concept of involvement was put forward in 1947 by the social psychologists Sherif and Cantril. They viewed involvement as the relation between the ego and an object. Later (Sherif and Sherif, 1967) involvement was defined as the centrality of beliefs involved with

an individual. In social psychology, involvement has been used to understand the effect of persuasive communications on attitudes (Park and Mittal, 1985).

In consumer behaviour research, the first reference to the construct occurred in 1958 (Houston and Rothschild, 1978) but it was only adopted in marketing by Krugman in 1965.

Researchers soon accepted the relevance of involvement for consumer behaviour to the extent that it became a basic component of some of the most influential consumer behaviour models (e.g. Howard and Sheth; 1969; Engel et al., 1968). Similar to other fields in consumer behaviour literature, there has been much debate about what is involvement.

The different ways in which involvement has been conceptualised and consequently operationalised has favoured the continuation of this debate (Laaksonen, 1994; Rothschild, 1984). Laurent and Kapferer (1985) argued that nuances in the meanings of involvement derive from differences in the antecedent conditions producing involvement. Zaichkowsky (1985), on the other hand, suggests that this discussion arises from the different applications of the term involvement, that is, it has been applied to advertisement, products and purchase situations.