PURCHASING DECISION

Chia sẻ: Haithanh Haithanh | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:46

0
65
lượt xem
25
download

PURCHASING DECISION

Mô tả tài liệu
  Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Tham khảo tài liệu 'purchasing decision', kinh doanh - tiếp thị, kỹ năng bán hàng phục vụ nhu cầu học tập, nghiên cứu và làm việc hiệu quả

Chủ đề:
Lưu

Nội dung Text: PURCHASING DECISION

  1. Economic Decisions within the Private Household Hanoi, Vietnam October 2006 Erich Kirchler Well-being Money and tax (€) Leadership, advertisement, consumer loyalty etc. Group decision making (economic decisions within the private household) 1
  2. Economic decisions within the private household 15 years of studies on expenditures and other economic decisions within the family 2
  3. Decisions within private households • Normative (rational) model Identifiable decision-maker(s) Complete knowledge about all available alternatives All the consequences are clear and evaluable Evaluation on the basis of clear, stable goals All consequences have known probabilities Relevance of information can be evaluated, information can be collected • Description (K. Weick) Isolation of decisions Multiple goals Tiredness and simultanous solving of problems 3
  4. Questions • Who is/are the decision maker(s)? • Which decisions can be taken? • How do decisions proceed? • How can decisions be analysed? • Who has got influence and why? • Are decisions isolated incidents? • Which tactics do partners use? 4
  5. Who are the decision makers? Power structure Patriachy Harmony in the relationship Egoism principle Equity Credit Love low principle principle principle high Egoism principle Matriarchy 5
  6. Interaction characteristics (a) Interdependence vs independence of partners: People in relationships that can be described using the love principle are dependent upon one another in their feelings, thoughts and actions and are considerate on each other. (b) Long-term vs short-term credit: In ad hoc groups or economic relationships, give and take are directly linked (principle of reciprocity).When partners trust one another, they look for experiences that satisfy both partners and distribute the available ressources according to needs. Balance is sought over the long term. If the relationship progresses harmoniously, then in the end „book-keeping“ – to use a banking analogy – is no longer necessary. (c) Joint maximisation of profits vs cost-benefit analysis:Unhappy partners whose relationship has become an economic relationship seek to exploit their opporunities for profit to the full.The more harmonious the relationship, the less interest a partner has in concluding a trade with their partner. (d) The distribution of rewards using rules of need vs equity rules. (e) Abundance vs scarcity of ressources: Whilst in economic relationships only certain types of ressources are traded, which are mainly universalistic in terms of the concept of Foa and Foa (1974), in close relationships also particularistic ressources besides universalistic ones are exchanged. (f) Spontaneous altruism vs control of demands and obligations: Happy partners do not seek to keep an account of demands and obligations. They act spontaneously in an partner-oriented manner. (v. experiments of Clark, 1984). 6
  7. Which decisions are there? Decisions in private housholds Economic Non-economic - decisions decisions Money management Savings decisions Capital investment management Purchase decisions 7
  8. Non existent Individual Interest Collectivist High Syncratic Financial commitment decisions Decision script Autonomous decisions Habitual decisions Spontanous decisions Ready Low Unimportant Socialvisibility Symbolic 8
  9. Syncratic decisions Interpersonal Probability conflict Agreement conflict Value conflict Distribution conflict 9
  10. How do decisions proceed? Umwelt (z. B. Marktgeschehen, Referenzpersonen) Person A Person B Bedürfnis Bedürfnis Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder Set von Gewohnheits- Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen entscheidung entscheidung Informationssuche Informationssuche egoistische egoistische Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Machtrelation Machtrelation Harmonie Harmonie altruistische altruistische Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Präferenzordung Präferenzordung Machtrelation Machtrelation autonome autonome Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung Produkttyp Produkttyp Vergleich der Meinungen Konflikt Übereinstimmung Wert- Sach- Verteilungs- intra- konflikt konflikt konflikt individueller Konflikt Machtrelation Nutzens- regelung Harmonie synkratische Konfliktlösungs- Entscheidung versuche 10
  11. Umwelt (z. B. Marktgeschehen, Referenzpersonen) Person A Person B Bedürfnis Bedürfnis Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder Set von Gewohnheits- Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen entscheidung entscheidung Informationssuche egoistische Bewertung der Alternativen Informationssuche egoistische Bewertung der Alternativen Context Machtrelation Machtrelation Harmonie Harmonie altruistische altruistische (e.g. market events, Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Präferenzordung Präferenzordung Machtrelation Machtrelation reference people) autonome autonome Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung Produkttyp Produkttyp Vergleich der Meinungen Konflikt Übereinstimmung Wert- Sach- Verteilungs- intra- konflikt individueller konflikt konflikt Konflikt Machtrelation Nutzens- regelung Harmonie synkratische Konfliktlösungs- Entscheidung versuche Person A Person B Need Need Spontansous or Spontaneous or Set of Set of habitual habitual alternatives alternatives decision decision Inform. search Inform. search Egoistic Egoistic evaluation of evaluation of alternatives alternatives Power Power Harmony Harmony Altruistic Altruistic evaluation of evaluation of alternatives alternatives Preferences Preferences Comparison 11
  12. Umwelt (z. B. Marktgeschehen, Referenzpersonen) Person A Person B Bedürfnis Bedürfnis Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder Set von Gewohnheits- Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen entscheidung entscheidung Informationssuche Informationssuche egoistische egoistische Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Machtrelation Machtrelation Harmonie Harmonie altruistische altruistische Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Präferenzordung Präferenzordung Machtrelation Machtrelation autonome autonome Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung Produkttyp Produkttyp Vergleich der Meinungen Konflikt Übereinstimmung Wert- konflikt Sach- konflikt Machtrelation Harmonie Verteilungs- konflikt intra- individueller Konflikt Nutzens- regelung Power Power synkratische Konfliktlösungs- Entscheidung versuche Autonomous Autonomous decision Harmony Harmony decision Product type Product type Comparison of opinions Agreement Conflict 12
  13. Umwelt (z. B. Marktgeschehen, Referenzpersonen) Person A Person B Bedürfnis Bedürfnis Spontan- oder Set von Spontan- oder Set von Gewohnheits- Gewohnheits- Alternativen Alternativen entscheidung entscheidung Informationssuche Informationssuche egoistische egoistische Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Machtrelation Machtrelation Harmonie Harmonie altruistische altruistische Bewertung der Bewertung der Alternativen Alternativen Präferenzordung Präferenzordung Machtrelation Machtrelation autonome autonome Entscheidung Harmonie Harmonie Entscheidung Produkttyp Produkttyp Comparison Vergleich der Meinungen Konflikt Übereinstimmung Wert- Sach- Verteilungs- intra- konflikt individueller konflikt konflikt Konflikt Machtrelation Harmonie Konfliktlösungs- Nutzens- regelung synkratische Entscheidung of opinions versuche Agreement Conflict Value Probability Distribution Intra- individual conflict Power Regulation of benefit Harmony The end Syncratic Resolution decision of conflict 13
  14. How can decisions be analysed? • Observation in the laboratory and in private settings: • Ad hoc small groups: In close relationships, processes develop that are unique. Typically small groups were mainly observed in the laboratory and were ad hoc acquaintances who had only recently met. These volunteers were asked to perform a task that was neither particularly interesting nor particularly challenging. Because these participants had neither a shared past nor the prospect of a shared future in front of them, there was no reason for them to show particular commitment to the joint task and the interactions were at best an ordered series of actions, whilst in close relationships complex patterns of interaction can develop over a short period of time which can be difficult to decipher for an external observer. • Synthetic families are, compared to partners in close relationships, like a "good-looking car with no engine" (Kemp, 1970, p. 30). 14
  15. • Interview techniques • Who is the informant? Davis (1970) reports that the perceived pattern of influence of partners in discussions about purchasing a car or furniture is a near-perfect match if the information provided by men and women is taken across the sample as a whole. At the aggregated level, differences between individual couples' responses are balanced out; whereas at the level of individual couples there are clear differences in male and female perceptions. • When partners are asked to recount their shared experiences, their accounts often differ markedly. The differences are partly caused by the difficulty of recalling and "reconstructing" mundane events, and partly because people distort their account to bolster their own self-esteem. • Kirchler (1989) summarized the results of 16 studies looking at influence patterns in relationships, as reported by both partners, and found that in about 60% of cases overall there was congruence in reports. In over a third of cases the reports differed. • Partners in close relationships describe shared events differently and are also barely able to imagine themselves in the position of their partner. Even happy partners lack „empathic accuracy“. Increasing relationship quality is associated with increasing presumed similarity between the behaviour of the partners and increasing „false consensus effect“. 15
  16. ... and then he said that he would neverExactly!! You let leave me. yourself go... 16
  17. Correlation between self-perception and the partner perception (results of the Italian study are shown in brackets; Kirchler, 1999; Kirchler and Berti, 1996) Information about r=.54 (.58) Information about tactics: man reports tactics: woman on woman reports on man r=.61 Accuracy of information (.52) from woman r=.71 (.71) r=.69 (.67) Perceived Perceived r=.60 Accuracy of congruence information congruence (.55) from man Self-perception r=.57 (.60) Self-perception by the man by the woman Congruence 17
  18. Sources of divergence Different tendencies to provide socially desirable answers. Strong emotions can "blind" participants to the feelings of their partner and to details of social interactions. Unclear remembrance due to relative unimportance of the everyday events being reported. Finally, it is known from narrative interviews and studies of "accounts of one's own relationship" (Hinde, 1997) that partners construct different images of their shared reality and "plug the gaps" in their own memory so that the past appears consistent, meaningful and logical (Ross, 1989). When complex information needs to be processed with little time available, and when events have been perceived and dealt with without much attention and are therefore recalled poorly, then interviewees will often resort to stereotypes, prejudices or schematized images in the hope that reality will in correspond to this to some degree (Hastie, 1982). 18
  19. Sources ... Everyday life at home is marked by a variety of mundane, routine events which are rarely paid any attention. Because attention is directed elsewhere, the reliability of memory of those events is called into question. Memory fades if events lie a long time back in the past ... Saltfort and Roy (1981) compared data from questionnaires with diary records and found that the diaries reported the purchase of cheap, unimportant, non-fashionable products far more often than the questionnaires. It is probable that in retrospect special events are recalled more often than routine actions. The mood influences the evaluation of events. Bower (1981) hypothesizes that experiences which are congruent with one's feelings are remembered better than those which are incongruent. Everyday life is complex and is structured cognitively by relationship partners in their own subjective manner. The private language of the partners is an indication of the subjective organization of shared events. In a questionnaire, the possibilities for subjective structuring of the experienced reality is severely limited. 19
  20. Sources ... Questionnaire responses are ultimately also dependent on the possible alternative answers provided. This may sound banal – however, this does not simply mean that the researcher is presenting his or her picture of reality through the order of the answers and forcing those interviewed to answer within a defined framework. Schwarz and Scheuring (1988) demonstrated impressively that the differentiation contained within the scale of answers can also lead to completely different sets of results. Schwarz and Scheuring (1988) asked about the frequency of sex with the partner and frequency of masturbation, offering in each case a 6-point scale. In one test condition, answers were differentiated using a high-frequency field, and in the other test condition a low-frequency field was covered (see Table 4). After this a question was put asking about the quality of the relationship, with an 11-point scale given. When high-frequency alternative answers were offered, results were obtained which showed that around 77% of those interviewed had sex with their partner at least once a week, and around 69% reported a masturbation frequency of at least once a week. If the low-frequency alternative answers were used, then the corresponding figure for sex with the partner fell to around 39% and for frequency of masturbation to around 42%. Satisfaction with the relationship was however at the same level under both test conditions. 20
Đồng bộ tài khoản