ENGLISH TASK

JURNAL

BY :
GUSNELDI
(123110308)
II.C

POLTEKKES KEMENKES RI PADANG

D.III KEPERAWATAN PADANG
2014

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR FROM A CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

PERSPECTIVE: AN ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Julia M. Bristor, The University of Michigan
ABSTRACT
This paper extends an earlier argument that the field of consumer behavior should
be organized along philosophic dimensions that highlight differences in approaches
to research. In drawing upon philosophies of science that are more contemporary t
an logical empiricism, an organizational framework employing three dimensions is
Presented.
INTRODUCTION
While logical empiricist philosophy has had a dominating influence on consumer
behavior research, more contemporary philosophies of science have an important
role to play, yet their impacts and contributions are only beginning to be explicitly
recognized. In a departure from the logical empiricist's insistence on the single
scientific method (Hunt 1983) it has been clearly shown that theories which have
evolved from different philosophies and research traditions embody different
ontological and axiomatic assumptions, and epistemological criteria (Anderson
1982, 1984; Morgan 1980; Morgan and Smircich 1980; and Pfeffer 1982). Due in
part to its multidisciplinary heritage, the field of consumer behavior supports
allegiances to a variety of different, and as will be shown, often incompatible,
research traditions and philosophies. As a result, consumer behavior has proven
very difficult to organize, or synthesize, into a general theory. Past efforts have
attempted to organize the field by contributing discipline (Zielinski and Robertson
1981) and by topic (Helgeson et al 1984); general theories of consumer behavior
(e.g., Howard 1977; Engel and Blackwell 1982) have been very useful as
pedagogical tools but have been largely unoperationalizable. Lack of success at
both endeavors is due to the failure to explicitly consider fundamental philosophic
issues. Organizational schemes which fail to account for underlying philosophic
assumptions, and general theories which attempt to combine philosophically
incompatible mid-range theories cannot be particularly productive.
This paper, and its predecessor (Bristor 1984) depart from orthodox thought to
argue strongly that a general theory of consumer behavior is neither desirable nor
appropriate at this time. Instead, efforts should be directed toward building an
organizational framework by drawing upon philosophy of science so as to delineate
and highlight differences in assumptions and approaches to consumer behavior
research along dimensions that explain why these differences exist. The purpose of
the present paper is to present the three dimensions that are seen to best organize
the field in such a way that assumes, identifies, and then highlights a variety of
fundamental philosophic assumptions 2nd methods that have been brought to bear
on consumer behavior research. To better understand theory-method linkages, it is
imperative to specifically identify the fundamental philosophic assumptions and
implications inherent in consumer behavior theories.
Three dimensions, perspective on consumer behavior, level of analysis, and
empirical problem context will provide the foundation for building the desired

framework. These three dimensions are all subsumed under a general consumer
behavior paradigm which serves as an umbrella over the dimensions by specifying
the phenomena and problems of interest, and delineating rough boundaries for the
field (Bristor 1984). Before detailing the dimensions and their research implications,
it is necessary to consider in general terms the role of philosophy of science in
consumer behavior research and the contributions that a philosophy of science
based framework can make.
THE ROLE
RESEARCH

OF

PHILOSOPHY

OF

SCIENCE

IN

CONSUMER

BEHAVIOR

Considering its fundamental impact on the research process, philosophy of science

has been a seriously neglected issue in consumer behavior research. Failure to
consider the implications of philosophy of science and to identify the philosophic
underpinnings of a theory has often confused and exacerbated research
disagreements. For example, the recent circular dialogue between Calder, Phillips
and Tybout (1981, 1982, 1983), Lynch (1982, 1983) and McGrath and Brinberg
(1983) is a case where the underlying philosophic and methodological issues were
never identified and addressed and thus the result was confusion, not resolution.
Much of the dispute centers around the role of external and construct validity in
consumer behavior research and their relationship to one another. It is not until the
fourth paper of the series that Lynch (1983) points out, almost as an afterthought in
a footnote, that the two parties employ the term construct validity differently.
Unfortunately Calder et al's (1983) reply fails to pick up on this critical distinction.
Instead, they return to a rehash of their earlier arguments in which they claim to be
adhering to Popper's-notions of falsificationism. Without passing judgment on
falsification as a philosophy of science, it must be noted that Calder et al appear to
selectively extract bits of the philosophy that advance their position but do not fully
understand or interpret it. The dialogue is capped by the introduction of a new
validity framework (McGrath and Brinberg 1983) that attempts to smooth over past
differences. Despite its merits, there still remains the fundamental problem that
until terminology is clarified and philosophic positions better understood, each
party's arguments will be largely misinterpreted, misunderstood or ignored by the
others.
Two important philosophic concepts, paradigms and metaphors, were introduced
earlier (Bristor 1984) to show how and why different research approaches were
inherent in consumer behavior. To summarize, paradigms refer to the
Weltanschauung, worldviews or frames of reference through which researchers
approach their scientific tasks. In the context of this framework, each dimension
constitutes a paradigm; the general consumer behavior paradigm represents a
unifying or shared Weltanschauung while the other three paradigms serve to
highlight different approaches to consumer behavior research.
Metaphors are representations of phenomena; broader than just a simple literary
illusion, they provide a means for creating, representing and communicating
scientific knowledge (Morgan and Smircich 1980). Both theories and models can be
thought of as metaphors. For the purposes of this organizational framework, the
focus will be on theories as metaphors. This is intended to emphasize that they
present only partial or one-sided views of reality (Morgan 1980). Because of this, a

variety of metaphors can and should be employed to gain a fuller understanding of

consumer behavior phenomena. Thus, the proposed framework can both organize
the field in a manner that makes the philosophic assumptions upon which
metaphors or theories are grounded explicit, as well as making consumer behavior
researchers more aware of the range of approaches available.
FRAMEWORK CONTRIBUTIONS
In addition to framework benefits suggested earlier (Bristor 1984), the framework
makes three other major contributions. First, the framework can be used to
delineate a set of conceptual problems found in consumer behavior research.
Traditionally, philosophies of science have focused on a variety of empirical
problems, which usually exist within the context of a theory, while virtually ignoring
broader, more important conceptual problems. These can occur when two theories
are in conflict with one another, when a theory conflicts with a methodology or
when a theory is incompatible with "extra-scientific beliefs" in areas such as
metaphysics, theology, logic or ethics (Laudan 1977). As Laudan notes, scientists
who view scientific problems and progress strictly in empirical terms fail to
recognize a major source of a discipline's problems. This framework does not
provide solutions to such conceptual problems, but, by explicating important
philosophic assumptions, it provides a methodology for identifying the source of
conceptual problems.
Secondly, the framework extends well beyond dominant logical empiricist thought
by rejecting the prevailing notion of the necessity and existence of the single
scientific method. It explicitly acknowledges that there are and should be multiple
scientific methods and that there exist no universal or objective criteria by which to
evaluate the knowledge that each produces. This position is consistent with a
relativistic view of science which holds that different research groups will utilize
different standards to judge the scientific adequacy of knowledge claims (Anderson
1983 and Peter and Olson 1983).
Finally, the framework provides a means for critically evaluating the usage of
theories that were developed in the context of another discipline or research
tradition and transferred into consumer behavior. Transfers have always posed
problems in the social sciences. For example, Anderson (1984) illustrates several
problems resulting from marketing's uncritical adoption of the concept of
shareholder wealth maximization from financial theory. The family life cycle (FLC) is
an excellent example of a concept that was taken from another field and altered
substantially. Originating in rural sociology, the FLC was developed as a processual
model to explain and describe family growth development over time. Unfortunately,
this has been all but lost on consumer behaviorists and marketers who have
generally used the concept as a classificatory scheme (c.f. Wells and Gubar 1966
and Murphy and Staples 1979). More recently, Wagner and Hanna (1983) compared
the FLC to family composition variables with respect to their ability to predict
clothing expenditures. While these researchers all ask well founded questions, they
do not appropriately reflect the original and theoretical underpinnings as developed
in rural sociology. While alterations may in fact be necessary in the cross-discipline
or research tradition transfer of theory, (see Bristor and Qualls, forthcoming, for
suggestions how this might be done with the FLC) it is imperative that researchers

understand precisely what they are altering and the implications, philosophically
and theoretically, of doing so. The main point is that a better understanding of the
goals, axioms and assumptions of theories would help prevent misapplications as
well as specious distinctions and comparisons between theories, and would better
facilitate knowledge development in consumer behavior. The following three
dimensions of the framework will contribute toward achieving this understanding.
PERSPECTIVE ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
A critical philosophic dimension that guides consumer behavior inquiry relates to
the perspective adopted by a researcher with respect to the causes or determinants
of consumer behavior. The importance of a theory's perspective on consumer
behavior is that basic assumptions about the antecedents of behavior have strong
implications for the choice of variables and appropriate research methodologies.
Furthermore, these assumptions may lead to one theory being incompatible with
another in the sense that they cannot be combined without altering or violating the
basic ontological and axiomatic assumptions about behavior upon which they are
grounded. This argument may be used to explain why gene a l models or theories of
consumer behavior that have attempted to integrate several mid-range theories
have never been satisfactorily operationalized. For example, operationalizing
reference group theory and learning theory together in the Engel and Blackwell
model (1982) has not been achieved, not for lack of "good" research but because of
the vastly different philosophic orientations of the two theories.
As adapted from Pfeffer's (1982) 'perspectives on action' in organizational theory,
three general perspectives can be identified: 1) consumer behavior seen as
purposive, boundedly or intentionally rational and prospective or goal directed; 2)
consumer behavior seen as externally constrained or situationally determined; and
3) consumer behavior seen as random and dependent on an emergent, unfolding
process. The first two perspectives are based on the stimulus-response paradigm
which assumes that behavioral consequents are predictable from antecedent
stimuli. The third perspective rejects such a notion and maintains that, to the extent
that prediction is possible, it is from knowledge of the unfolding process rather than
a priori conditions (Pfeffer 1982). While the three perspectives are not
philosophically compatible, they are all necessary for the development of consumer
behavior knowledge. There is a danger in employing only one perspective because
researchers often fail to challenge the appropriateness or consider explicitly the
implications stemming from the assumptions inherent in each perspective.
Consumer as Purposive, Boundedly
Prospective or Goal Directed

or

Intentionally

Rational

and

This first perspective has clearly dominated consumer behavior theory; its origins
are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and the philosophical underpinnings of
American life and culture for which free will and conscious choice are venerated and
idealized (Pfeffer 1982). The essence of the perspective is that behavior is internally
and goal directed, and that choice occurs according to a consistent set of
preferences which maximize value and is thus prospectively rationally economic
and psychological theories of consumer behavior adopt this perspective.

Examples of the purposive perspective are numerous. Perhaps the most pervasive
theory, which has itself been identified as one of the five paradigms in marketing
(Arndt 1983), is information processing. Other examples include utility maximization
theory, expectancy value theory, the Fishbein model of behavioral intentions and
other multiattribute attitude models, and Cognitive learning theories.
The implications of this perspective are far reaching. First, consumer behavior
phenomena is seen to be a function of individual-specific processes; thus the source
of explanatory variables lies largely within individuals. Secondly, this perspective
also implies that since consumer behavior is caused by certain variables, knowledge
of the independent variable allows inferences to be made about the dependent
variables.
Each perspective has its own set of problems, caveats and limitations. In this case,
their importance relates in part to how deeply and implicitly rooted this paradigm is
in both scientific and extra-scientific beliefs. This can result in a failure to consider
or challenge the appropriateness of the assumptions inherent in this perspective
when transferring a theory from one discipline to another or applying it within a
particular consumer behavior research context. In addition, if theories are viewed as
metaphors, it is clear that, despite providing valuable insight and knowledge, it is
only one view or explanation of the consumer behavior phenomenon of interest.
With this in mind, it is not surprising that researchers are typically only able to
explain a small amount of variance in their dependent variables. In the case of the
first perspective, a focus on individual-specific factors will not account for variance
due to situational or external factors.
Consumer Behavior as Externally Constrained or Situationally Determined
In direct contrast to the first perspective, the second focuses upon external stimuli
and constraints, rather than upon internal individual-specific variables, to explain
consumer behavior. Thus, behavior is attributed to situational variables and other
external contingencies and demands over which an individual may have little
cognizance or control (Pfeffer 1982). Prediction of behavior is possible through
knowledge of independent variables, and given certain- behaviors or other
dependent variables, it is possible to reconstruct or make inferences about
explanatory variables. To the extent that cognitions are considered, they are afterthe-fact, and rationality is retrospective. Examples of the externally constrained
perspective include behavioral theories of learning, the family life cycle, role
theories, reference group theory.
Implications of this perspective parallel the first in that it specifically suggest where
to look for explanatory variables. However, in this case, they are external to
individuals. Thus, this perspective is often associated with sociological theories. As
far as researcher's abilities to explain variance, the earlier comments regarding the
systematic exclusion of a large group of variables also apply.
CB as Random and Dependent on an Emergent, Unfolding Process
Finally, the third perspective denies that consumer behavior can be predicted from
either knowledge of individual or external variables. Too many individual variables
impact behavior, and knowledge of external variables is insufficient because they

too are numerous and may be very uncertain or ambiguous. While more difficult to
characterize and less homogeneous than are the other two, this perspective tends
to absorb those theories that are inconsistent with the first two. General
characteristics include a rejection of either an internally directed or externally
determined rationality of behavior. Rationality, goals and preferences emerge from,
rather than guide, behavior. Therefore, the focus of such a perspective is upon the
processual, sequential or unfolding nature of behavior, rather than upon static
variables. (Pfeffer 1982).
Within this perspective, two very different types of approaches are readily
identifiable. Neither group would be described as containing well developed,
explanatory theories such as those found in the first two perspectives. The first
group might be termed mathematical models and the second, qualitative or
processual approaches. In general, mathematical models, such as a stochastic
brand switching model based upon past purchase behaviors, have prediction as
their goal. As such, the underlying assumption is that the best way to predict future
behavior is through knowledge of past behaviors. That is, future behavior
probablistically emerges from past behaviors.
The goals of the second group, the qualitative or processual approaches, are to
identify and study behavioral antecedents while recognizing that the behavior of
interest cannot be explicitly modelled, a priori, because of its emergent nature. As a
result, these approaches have often not been granted theoretical status under
logical empiricist criteria but have more frequently been classified as qualitative
methodologies Under logical empiricist dogma, qualitative methodologies do not
produce bona-fide knowledge and are permissible in the context of discovery, but
not justification (Hunt 1983). However, this separation of discovery and justification
has been shown to be a sophistic distinction (Suppe 1977). More contemporary
philosophies recognize that both qualitative and quantitative research
methodologies can achieve a variety of cognitive ends (Anderson 1984). Some
recent trends in the consumer behavior literature would suggest that many
researchers are finding that traditional logical empiricist methodological
prescriptions can only develop our knowledge base so far and only in certain
directions. Indeed, there is a great deal of consumer behavior phenomena that
cannot be captured by s ta tic models and measures, but must be studied by
dynamic, processual approaches. The potential knowledge gains from the study of
symbolism (Levy 1959 and Solomon 1983), consumer mythology (Levy 1981), or
the experiential aspects of consumption (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) cannot be
summarily ignored or dismissed because they fail to fit into the logical empiricist
philosophy
of
science.
Appropriate
qualitative
approaches
include
ethnomethodologies, hermeneutics, case studies, network analyses and
phenomenology. However, there is no a priori reason why these qualitative methods
cannot be used in conjunction with qualitative methods, within a particular research
tradition, if that would help achieve its cognitive goals. Furthermore, there is also no
a priori reason to think that the aforementioned topics cannot ultimately be studied
via quantitative methods. One major stumbling block here though is that we have
been trained to see the world as containing linear, non-interactive relationships
which do not capture emergent, processual behaviors. As a result we tend to ignore
the non-linear, interactive relationships or to force them into the mold with which
we are comfortable. In summary, the lack of theoretical knowledge from this

emergent perspective should be accepted as a challenge to consumer behavior

researchers, not as a judgment that it is a useless avenue for knowledge production.
LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
A second philosophically derived dimension of the framework that impacts
consumer behavior research is the level of analysis chosen to explain phenomena.
Three levels that are utilized by consumer behavior theories are individual, group
and aggregate. Inherent in this dimension are fundamental beliefs about the nature
of human interaction and social structure (Pfeffer 1982). At issue are the questions
of whether or not groups and aggregations are merely sums of their individuals or
more than the sums, and whether they should be reduced to the study of individual
behaviors or analyzed at higher levels.
All three levels are vital in consumer behavior inquiry because each provides
different perspectives on, and solutions to, problems. The choice of a theory which
employs theoretical concepts and mechanisms at a particular level has important
philosophic and methodological implications. In addition to reflecting beliefs about
the nature of human interaction and social structure, a particular level reflects a
philosophic preference as to the best way to explain consumer behavior. It also
implies what the appropriate unit for data collection might be, as well as how to
analyze it.
The issue of the appropriate level of analysis is related to the general problem of
data aggregation. Since few group and aggregate concepts exist in consumer
behavior that have achieved a desirable degree of validity, researchers must often
resort to aggregating individual level measures in their attempts to explain higher
level phenomena. (See Borgatta and Jackson, (1980) for a comprehensive treatment
of data aggregation.) Thus it is critical for the development of consumer behavior
knowledge that the implications stemming from the choice of a level of analysis and
data aggregation techniques be made explicit.
Individual Level
Those who support the individual level would argue that all consumer behavior is
fundamentally an individual phenomenon. Thus to most productively study
consumer behavior, the focus must be on the individual even when studying group
phenomena. Use of the individual level of analysis is dominant in consumer
behavior theory; examples include attribution theory, attitude theories, and theories
of perception, motivation and learning. In part, this dominance is due to the fact
that analytically, the individual level has achieved the most sophistication. It is
relatively easier to take measurements at the individual level than to capture social
and behavioral phenomena at the group and aggregate level.
Group Level
Those who opt for the group level maintain that it is not possible to reduce
phenomena to the individual level because there are theoretical mechanisms
operating at the group level that do not exist at the individual level. Furthers they

argue that individual level analyses can become hopelessly reductionistic down to
biological mechanisms.
Although Alderson (1956) argued forcefully that the household was the appropriate
unit of analysis and Davis (1976) advocated that the family is the critical decision
making and consumptive unit, consumer behavior researchers have been slow to
develop theories at the group, including the household, level. The cause of the
problem is due in part to the lack of truly group level concepts, and the
methodological difficulties involved in developing them. Future efforts should be
devoted to correcting this deficit. Nonetheless, role theories, reference group
theory, theories of household decision making and diffusion of innovations all have
important contributions to make to consumer behavior knowledge.
Aggregate Level
Economic theories have contributed heavily to aggregate level analyses. Rather
than a focus upon individuals or groups, it is upon aggregate phenomena such as
demand curves or consumer sentiments as well as social class and culture.
Although aggregate level theories are rare in consumer behavior research, they too
represent an important and unique perspective on consumer behavior phenomena.
Comments regarding the methodological problems of aggregating data or
developing higher level concepts are also relevant here. In addition, use of
aggregate level data may fall prey to the ecological fallacy (Robinson 1950)
whereby inferences about individuals are incorrectly made based upon aggregate
measures. An example of such could occur if a researcher wanted to make a
statement about an individual's income based upon a knowledge of a correlation
between race and income.
EMPIRICAL PROBLEM CONTEXT
Finally, the third framework dimension relates to the context of the empirical
problem. An empirical problem is a substantive question about the phenomena
which are a part of a particular science's domain (Laudan 1977). In this framework,
four problem contexts are relevant: managerial problems, public policy/consumer
welfare problems, consumer problems and theory qua theory problems. In contrast
to the forementioned conceptual problems that may occur within or between
theories, empirical problems always occur within the scope of a particular frame of
reference or theory. Therefore, problems are defined in part by the context of
inquiry. Despite this contextual nature, logical empiricists have often treated
empirical problems as though they were present in the world as objective pieces of
unambiguous data or as if they had a life of their own. Instead it is well established
in more contemporary philosophies of science that researchers always approach
problems through the lens of some conceptual network (Laudan 1977). A problem in
one context may be construed very differently in another. For example, several
researchers might see a grocery shopper comparing brands of canned tomatoes
and define their research problem very differently. One might be concerned with the
positioning of a particular brand; another might be interested in how consumers
actually make comparisons. In the second case, using canned beans or peaches as
a stimulus would be just as effective. A third researcher might be studying the

consumer information environment and the use of unit pricing labels, while a fourth
researcher might be trying to develop a normative theory for maximally effective
shopping behaviors under time constraints. In other instances, what may be viewed
as a problem in one context may not be in another. For example, the long standing
topic of brand loyalty illustrates this. Consumer behavior researchers with a social
psychology orientation have a tempted to explain brand loyal ar in terms of factors
such attitudes, personality or lifestyle. Among social psychologists, there has been
much controversy over the definition of brand loyalty and its antecedents However,
this group as a whole stands in stark contrast to mathematic modelers who use
stochastic models based upon past purchase behaviors to predict brand loyalty.
Because their goals relate to brand loyalty prediction, as opposed to explanation,
defining and measuring constructs such as attitudes are not even considered to be
a part of the problem. A second example of this is the casual relationship between
cognitions and affect. It is generally considered axiomatic, not problematic, but to
Zajonc and Markus (1982), whether or not, or when, this relationship occurs is a
major research problem.
Inclusion of this philosophic dimension in the framework is important for several
reasons. First, this dimension extends beyond logical empiricist philosophies by
demonstrating the contextual, rather than universal nature of empirical problems.
This is not to say that researchers working from different frameworks cannot
communicate or have no shared experiences. By virtue of socialization, culture and
education, researchers to hold a multitude of shared experiences in common.
Secondly, the framework can show that a particular theory is useful in more than
one problem context, but that the goals, assumptions and methodologies may differ
by context. For example, information processing may be studied in the theory qua
theory context to better understand and develop a theory of short term memory
processing of written stimuli. Experimentation using advertisements as stimuli
might be part of the methodology. On the other hand, a public policy researcher
might operationalize, and apply the theory as given, to set guidelines for regulating
the length of time written nutritional information, should appear on television
advertisements. His methodology might involve showing advertisement to subjects
under simulated viewing conditions. Third, an examination of the forementioned
philosophic assumptions and implications within the problem solving context can
help researchers to judge the appropriateness of their approach. Lastly, the
dimension continues to adopt a contemporary view of science by explicitly
recognizing subjective aspects of science.
Managerial Problems
The managerial problem solving context has been a major area for consumer
behavior inquiry. This generally involved approaching the research problem from a
fisherman's perspective- catching consumers (Tucker 1974). Such goals have strong
implications for what theories, variables, measures and methodologies are available
for managerial control and thus will be appropriate for problem solving. Relevant
issues and theories from this perspective include forming and changing consumer
perceptions, attitudes and beliefs using multiattribute attitude models, inducing
desired consumer action by moving them up the hierarchy of effects, or designing
an effective promotional message by utilizing family role theory.

Public Policy/Consumer Welfare Problems

Empirical problem in the context of public policy/ consumer's welfare are
increasingly important in consumer behavior research. Although a theory may be
used both in this and the managerial context, a problem is likely to be seen
somewhat differently and the goals of the research, as well as the methods will be
very different. In conducting research to set public policy, assumptions regarding
the nature of consumer behavior and the appropriate level of analysis are of critical
importance. Examples of public policy/consumer welfare problems include
consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, information environments and overload and
the effects of advertising on children.
Consumer Problems
The context of consumer problems has been sorely neglected in consumer behavior
research. Such an approach to consumer behavior involves asking questions from
the consumer's point of view, such as how to be the most effective and efficient
consumer possible. It also involves the study of consumption behaviors rather than
buying behaviors. Relevant topics are only beginning to be considered in the
domain of consumer behavior research. They include: consumption and disposition
(Jacoby 1978); having" behaviors (Belk 1982); experiences such as consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982); and consumption as a
human behavioral phenomenon (Belk 1984).
Theory Qua Theory Problems
This problem context classifies a type of empirical inquiry whose goal is to study
and understand basic human processes without regard for ultimate applications.
When a particular application is used in this context, its role is to provide a setting
or stimuli, but it is of secondary importance. For example, a researcher may study
the information processing of pictorial versus audio presentations and use
advertisements as stimuli, but the focus is on theory examination rather than
advertising applications. Later research, or another researcher, may employ the
theory for certain managerial applications. The importance of this theory qua theory
context relates to the need to consider research occurring at the consumer behavior
knowledge frontier instead of at the base of core knowledge. Furthermore, since this
context is where substantial advances in theoretical knowledge occur, and since
theories evolving from this type of research are often transferred to other problem
solving contexts for decision making or evaluative purposes, it is particularly
important that the philosophic assumptions upon which a theory is grounded are
clearly specified.
SUMMARY
This paper continued earlier arguments that a gene al theory of consumer behavior
is neither feasible nor appropriate. Instead, the field should be organized into a
framework using philosophic dimensions that can highlight differences and show

why theories and research approaches are often fundamentally incompatible. Such
an approach rejects logical empiricism in favor of a more contemporary philosophy
of science perspective. Three dimensions, perspective on consumer behavior, level
of analysis, and empirical problem context, were developed for use in the
framework. This represents the second major step in an ongoing research project.
The final step will be to actually employ the framework to organize the field.
REFERENCES
Alderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action, Homewood, IL.:
Richard D. Irwin.
Anderson, Paul. A. (1982), "Marketing Strategic Planning and the Theory of the Firm,
Journal of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 15-26.
Anderson, Paul A. (1983), Marketing, Scientific Progress and Scientific Method,"
Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 18-31.
Anderson, Paul A. (1984), "On Paradigms and Shareholder Wealth - A Reply to
Howard and Despande," unpublished working paper, Blacksburg, VA: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Arndt, Johan (1983), "The Political Economy Paradigm: Foundation for Theory
Building in Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 44-54.
Belk, Russell (1982), "Acquiring, Possessing, and Collecting: Fundamental Processes
in Consumer Behavior," in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives,
Ronald F. Bush and Shelby D. Hunt, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association,
185-190.
Belk, Russell (1984), "A Manifesto for a Consumer Behavior of Consumer Behavior,"
in 1984 Winter Educators' Proceedings, eds., Anderson, Paul F. and Michael J. Ryan.
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Borgatta, Edgar F. and David J. Jackson (1980), Aggregate Data, Beverly Hills, CA.:
Sage Publications.
Bristor, Julia M. (1984), "Organizing Consumer Behavior: A Paradigmatic
Perspective," in 1984 Winter Educators' Proceedings, eds., Anderson, Paul F. and
Michael J. Ryan, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Bristor, Julia M. and William J. Qualls (forthcoming), The Household Life Cycle:
Implications for Family Decision Making, in Marketing to the Changing House- hold:
Managerial and Research Implications, M. L. Roberts and L. Wortzel, eds.,
Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger.
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips and Alice M. Tybout (1981), "Designing Research
for Application," Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (Sept.), 197-207.
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips and Alice M. Tybout (1982), "The Concept of
External Validity," Journal Consumer Research, 9 (Dec.), 240-244.
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips and Alice M. Tybout (1983), Beyond External
Validity, Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 112-114.
Davis, Harry L. (1976), "Decision Making within the Household," Journal of Consumer
Research, 2 (March), 241-260.
Engel, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed.,
Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.

Helgeson, James G., E. Alan Kluge, John Mager and Cheri Taylor (1984), Trends in
Consumer Behavior Literature: A Content Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research,
10 (March), 449-454.
Holbrook, Morris 8. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), "The Experiential Aspects of
Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (Sept.), 132-140.
Howard, John A. (1977), Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1983), Marketing Theory, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Jacoby, Jacob (1978), "Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review," Journal of
Marketing, 42 (April), 87-96
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and its Problems, Towards a Theory of Scientific
Growth, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbols for Sale," Harvard Business Review, 37 (JulyAugust), 117-124.
Levy, Sidney J. (1981), Interpreting Consumer Mythology: A Structural Approach to
Consumer Behavior," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 49-61.
Lynch, John G. Jr. (1982), "On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer
Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (Dec.), 225-239.
Lynch, John G. Jr. (1983), "The Role of External Validity in Theoretical Research,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 109-111.
McGrath, Joseph E. and David Brinberg (1983), External Validity and the Research
Process: A Comment on the Calder/Lynch Dialogue, Journal of Consumer Research,
10 (June), 115-124.
Morgan, Gareth (1980), -Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization
Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (4), 605-622.
Morgan, Gareth (1980), Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization
Theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (4), 605-622.
Morgan, Gareth and Linda Smircich (1980), 'The Case for Qualititative Research,"
Academy of Management Review, 5 (4). 491-500.
Murphy, Patrick E. and William A. Staples (1979), "A Modernized Family Life Cycle,
Journal of Consumer Research. 6 (June), 12-22.
Peter, J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson (1983), "Is Science Marketing?" Journal of Marketing,
47 (Fall), 111-125.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1982), Organizations and Organization Theory, Boston: Pittman.
Robinson, William S. (1950), "Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals,
American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic
Interactionism Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research 10 (Dec.), 319-329.
Suppe, Frederick (1977), "Alternatives to the Received View," in The Structure of
Scientific Theories, Frederick Suppe, ed ., Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 119232.
Tucker, W. T. (1974), "Future Directions in Marketing Theory," Journal of Marketing,
38 (April), 30-35.
Wagner, Janet and Sherman Hanna (1983), "The Effectiveness of Family Life Cycle
Variables in Consumer Expenditure Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 10
(Dec.). 281-91.

Wells, William D. and George Gubar (1966), "Life Cycle Concept in Marketing
Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (Nov.), 358-363.
Zajonc, Robert B. and Hazel Markus (1982), Affective and Cognitive Factors in
Preferences,- Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (Sept.), 123-131.
Zielinski, Joan and Thomas S. Robertson (1981), Consumer Behavior Theory:
Excesses and Limitations," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. IX, Andrew
Mitchell, ed., St. Louis, MO. Association for Consumer Research. 8-12.
REVIEW :
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?
Id=6404