The Field of Consumer Behavior:

Criticisms, Conceptualizations, and Conundrums

DEBBIE MACINNIS

VALERIE FOLKES*

April 21, 2008

1
 Author Note

* Debbie MacInnis is the Charles L. and Ramona I. Hilliard Professor of Business

Administration and Professor of Marketing, Marketing Department, Marshall School of

Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0403, (213) 740-

5039 (macinnis@usc.edu).

Valerie Folkes is the USC Associates Professor of Business Administration and Professor

of Marketing, Marketing Department, Marshall School of Business, University of

Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0403, (213) 740-5055

(folkes@marshall.usc.edu)

2
 ABSTRACT

Advancement of a field of study depends not just on the accumulation of knowledge but

also on a shared understanding of its defining properties and goals. Despite a proliferation

of knowledge about consumer behavior, critics within the field have debated fundamental

issues about these properties and goals. Specifically, the field has witnessed debate on

issues that include (1) what constitutes “consumer behavior”, (2) is consumer behavior an

independent, interdisciplinary field and (3) to whom should consumer behavior research

be relevant. Progress toward resolving the debate over these issues requires greater

conceptual clarity. To serve this goal, we articulate six major models that could

characterize the field. Each of these empirically derived models bears some semblance to

the current status of or aspirations for the field, yet each offers different implications for

knowledge valuation, knowledge generation, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge

transmission, and none is without its downsides. Although we do not advocate in favor of

particular model, we do argue that the field requires (1) debate as to the value of these

and other models of the field and (2) some degree of convergence on where we as a

discipline should stake our claim.

3
 The past 50 years have witnessed an explosion in academic research about

consumers. A plethora of studies have yielded substantial knowledge about consumer

choice, attitude and satisfaction judgments, emotions, symbolic consumption behaviors

and more. As is often true, the birth and growth of new fields is inevitably accompanied

by growing pains that surface in the form of criticisms. Some criticisms of consumer

behavior are particularly discomfiting because they pertain to issues fundamental to the

field, specifically: (1) what constitutes “consumer behavior”, (2) is consumer behavior an

independent, interdisciplinary field and (3) to whom should consumer behavior research

be relevant.

We argue that criticisms at this fundamental level reflect dissatisfaction with the

status quo of academic research on consumer behavior and illuminate alternative models

of the field. Different models lead to different perspectives on what consumer behavior is,

to whom our research should be relevant, whether the field is an independent,

interdisciplinary field, and indeed what is meant by “interdisciplinary”. Below, we

articulate six major models that could characterize the field. Each takes a different stance

on the above-noted criticisms as each stakes out not just what “consumer behavior”

encompasses but also what it should encompass and what is and should be outside its

disciplinary boundaries. Each also offers different implications for the advancement of

the field. Our aim in depicting these models is to provide a framework for further

discussion about the field of consumer behavior and the goals we seek to attain.

The article is structured as follows. We first briefly review the three criticisms.

We then articulate six abstract models that could characterize the field of consumer

4
behavior and the implications of each. We conclude with a discussion regarding the value

and implications of multiple models of the field.

MAJOR CRITICISMS OF THE FIELD OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Three major criticisms about consumer behavior, often voiced by leading

consumer research scholars, have arisen over the past 50 years. In general, the criticisms

find expression in the context of editorials, journal articles, or professional association

addresses, with the author lamenting the status quo, or comparing it with an ideal. The

fact that the issues have been raised repeatedly, often by senior scholars with perspective

on the field, suggests some misgivings about the field’s status, direction, and

contributions.

Criticism 1: What Is “Consumer Behavior?”

The first criticism considers the essence and boundaries of the field of consumer

behavior and hence the substantive issues that logically fall within its boundaries. Early

conceptualizations focused on consumers as “buyers” and hence emphasized consumer

behavior as “buyer behavior” (Engel, Kollat and Blackwell 1968; Howard and Sheth

1969). This “purchase” focus was viewed as unnecessarily restrictive, however, and led

some to consider a more expansive definition of consumer behavior (Sternthal and

Zaltman 1974).

5
 Since then, critics have suggested broadening the process duration of consumer

behavior (from buying to acquisition and disposition (Belk 1984; Jacoby 1976)) and

the forms of acquisition that constitute consumer behavior (from buying to borrowing,

inheriting, stealing and other forms of procurement, Jacoby 1976; Sheth 1982). Consumer

behavior is said to include not just end users, but businesses, government, hospitals,

manufacturers, retailers, and wholesalers (Frank 1974; Jacoby 1976).The domains of

choices that constitute consumer behavior have also been broadened to include fertility,

mobility, education (Frank 1974), the consumption of time (Feldman and Hornik 1981),

and experiences (Holbrook 1987; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Sheth 1982). Since

marketing efforts extend beyond the marketing of products and services, consumer

behavior has been deemed relevant to myriad marketing contexts, including social

marketing (Andreasen 1993), social services marketing (Frank 1974), and the marketing

of religion (O’Guinn and Belk 1989). Consumer behavior also extends to dark side issues,

such as addiction, compulsion, homelessness and gambling (e.g., Hirschman 1991).

On the other hand, some researchers argue that this expansion leaves the field

without disciplinary boundaries, leading one to question what differentiates “consumer”

behavior from “human” behavior (Holbrook 1987; Simonson, Carmon, Dhar, Drolet and

Nowlis 2001). Indeed, Holbrook (1987) argues that the term consumer behavior “that by

now, it stands for everything, which in this case is tantamount to nothing” (pg. 128).

Folkes’ (2002) Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Presidential Address argued

that consumer behavior is different from general human behavior since it engenders

unique interpersonal relationships (e.g., exchange relationships influence the power

balance between buyers and sellers), involves unique contextual features (e.g., the

6
proliferation of mass media persuasive messages), and entails domain specific goals (e.g.,

materialism). Nevertheless, consensus on what does and does not constitute “consumer

behavior” is far from clear. Deighton (2007), like Folkes (2002) and Holbrook (1987)

before him, argues for the need to bound the scope of consumer behavior so as to

differentiate what consumer behavior is and what distinguishes it from other forms of

human behavior.

Criticism 2: Is Consumer Behavior an Independent and Interdisciplinary

Discipline?

Although what is and what is not consumer behavior is a topic for debate, the

second criticism involves a conflict between an ideal of the field as independent and

interdisciplinary versus its status as a sub-discipline of marketing. A discipline, “a subject

that is taught or a field of study” (Webster), has “disciples” (i.e., faculty and students in a

university) who are “disciplined” in an area of specialization and in a thought system,

typically involving research paradigms, theories and analytical tools (Chettiparamb 2007;

Heckhausen 1972). A discipline’s infrastructure – its professional journals and societies –

play a major role in defining it. We acknowledge that disciplinary boundaries can be

amorphous and fluid. Yet, researchers seem to associate themselves with a primary

discipline and appear to follow the theories, paradigms, methodologies, and substantive

issues of a specific discipline or small set of disciplines. Fields that blend disciplines are

“interdisciplinary” to the extent that they integrate research (and researchers) from two or

7
more discrete disciplines with the goal of yielding novel insights to a problem at hand

(Chettiparamb 2007; Mason and Goetz 1978).

The late 1960s and early 1970’s witnessed a fundamental shift in aspirations for

consumer behavior from its position as a sub-domain of the marketing discipline to an

independent discipline in its own right that was interdisciplinary in its approach to

understanding consumers. Such perspectives were manifested in the charters of two

institutions-- the Association for Consumer Research and the Journal of Consumer

Research (JCR). JCR’s interdisciplinary aspirations are exemplified by the journal’s

subtitle (“An Interdisciplinary Quarterly”), and were reinforced by Frank’s inaugurating

editorial (Frank, June 1974). This interdisciplinary goal has been echoed by subsequent

JCR editors (Deighton, 2005; Kassarjian1984, 1986; Mick 2003; Monroe 1993, 1994)

and ACR presidents (Belk 1987; Bernhardt 1984; Gardner 1977; Jacoby 1976; Lutz

1989; Sheth 1982; and Wilkie 1981; see also Holbrook 1987).

Despite surveys of scholars in the field that support these aspirations (Lutz 1988;

Mick, 2003), they have not been realized. Indeed the challenge of creating an

independent and interdisciplinary approach to consumer behavior was recognized early in

the inception of ACR and JCR. Editor Pratt noted that the journal’s biggest problem was

getting manuscripts from scholars housed outside the marketing discipline (Pratt 1976).

At ACR, presidents Pratt (1974), Gardner (1977), and Bernhardt (1984) bemoaned the

organization’s limited academic diversity. At JCR, editorial review boards, while

expanding in size, were increasingly being represented by marketing academics as

opposed to academics from other disciplines. Moreover, JCR editors’ and ACR

Presidents’ pleas for interdisciplinary research went largely unheeded, leading Simonson

8
et al. (2001) to conclude that “with relatively few exceptions, JCR and ACR have not

become forums in which researchers from multiple fields exchange ideas about consumer

behavior” (pg. 263). Deighton’s (2005) JCR editorial similarly asserts that we are “not

yet a field in which many disciplines play, let alone play interactively” (pg. ii). Thus, the

field’s success at fulfilling its independent and interdisciplinary aspirations has been

questioned.

Criticism 3: To Whom Should Consumer Behavior Research be Relevant?

Academic research in consumer behavior has the potential to be relevant to both

theory and application. Mick’s (2003) poll of 30 established researchers indicates that

issues of relevance are viewed as central to the development of the field. What is

controversial, however, concerns toward which audiences our research should have

precedence. At least six audiences could benefit from consumer research: (a) academics

within the marketing field, (b) academics outside of marketing, (c) marketing

practitioners and practitioners in training (e.g., students), (d) public policy makers, (e)

consumers themselves, and (f) society (Shimp 1994).

Critics have lamented the field’s lack of relevance to five of these six constituents.

In regard to academic audiences, Journal of Consumer Research articles have had their

impact primarily within the marketing discipline, as opposed to other disciplines or to

linking disciplines with one another (Cote, Leong and Cote 1991).

Criticisms abound that our field lacks relevance to business practitioners and

public policy makers (Gardner 1977; Jacoby 1976; Sheth 1992). Although ACR’s

9
constitution envisions ACR as a forum for the exchange of ideas among academics,

practitioners and public policy makers, ACR has struggled to maintain a membership

base that includes these constituents (Bernhardt 1984; Gardner 1977). Published research

in consumer behavior often lacks an orientation directly useful to resolving marketing

and public policy problems (Chakravarti 1992). Although some scholars defend a non-

business research focus (Belk 1984; Hirschman 1986; Holbrook 1985, 1987), an applied

managerial perspective has not been the focus of academic research efforts.

Concern about the impact of our work for other applied constituents has also been

raised. Mick (2006), like others before him (Bazerman 2001; Belk 1984, 1987; Cohen

and Chakravarti 1990; Hirschman 1991; Hutchinson 2004; Richins 2001), notes that our

research has not done enough to advance the needs of consumers and society. His call for

“transformative consumer research” represents an attempt to spur consumer researchers

to study problems and issues that are often phenomenon driven (e.g., AIDS, obesity,

addiction) and important to the world at large.

Aspirations for greater relevance seem to have fostered the development of

specialized journals (e.g., Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP), Journal of Consumer

Culture, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing) that

publish research accentuating implications for specific target groups. Still, no resolution

has emerged regarding whether targets beyond marketing academia should be the focus

of our efforts and if so, which deserve priority.

MODELS AND DISCIPLINES

10
 Collectively, these criticisms suggest that consumer behavior is an amorphously

defined field that exists as a sub-domain of marketing. It is viewed as neither

interdisciplinary nor relevant to myriad academic and applied audiences. Whether one

agrees with all of these criticisms or only a subset, their existence clearly reflects some

dissatisfaction with the status quo. Where the field stands in response to these criticisms,

however, is critical, as it has implications for knowledge advancement. Specifically, a

particular stance on each criticism has different implications for how consumer behavior

research should be valued, generated, inculcated, and disseminated. To date, the field has

lacked a systematic means of structuring these issues so that the issues and their

implications can be considered more completely.

To provide this structure, we articulate six potential models (and associated

metaphors) of consumer behavior described in table 1. The collective set of models is

derived empirically (vs. theoretically); that is, the models emanate as alternatives to the

criticisms observed in the extant literature. They are not derived from epistemologically-

based perspectives on how disciplines should operate. They are specified as alternative

models of consumer behavior here since each suggests different views on (1) what

consumer behavior is, (2) whether consumer behavior is an independent field and

whether it can/should be interdisciplinary, and (3) to which audiences consumer behavior

research should be relevant. Each also offers different implications for consumer

behavior knowledge; that is, (4) how consumer behavior knowledge should be evaluated,

(5) what factors best foster its development, (6) how knowledge should be acquired by

junior colleagues, and (7) how and to whom knowledge is best disseminated.

11
 Paradoxically, each model bears some resemblance to the status quo, though the

status quo is not fully consistent with the implications of any one model. This disconnect

between a model’s implications and the status quo is itself a potential driver of the above-

noted criticisms. To the extent that one adheres to a given model but finds the status quo

inconsistent with the model’s implications, criticism of the field is likely. Moreover, the

fact that each model is partially consistent with the status quo suggests a further basis for

criticism of the field. That is, perhaps the field is characterized by multiple, competing

models, making the field lack direction.

----- Insert table 1 here -----

Our objective in describing these models is not to suggest that the

models or their implications are exhaustive. Nor is it to argue in favor of a particular

model. Rather, it is to articulate long-standing criticisms directed at the field, describe

what could be models of the field, and to make explicit the implications of adopting any

one model. We hope that the articulation of these models begins a dialog so that members

of our field can further discuss them, identify others that seem viable, and comment on

future directions for the field. The reader should note that the fact that we cite or quote a

given scholar in describing a model does not mean that an individual personally

represents such a model or that they would agree with our characterization of a particular

model. In fact, consumer researchers might find themselves adopting various models at

different points in time or under different contexts (e.g., when talking with students or

managers versus academics in other fields). We do not claim that the above-noted

12
criticisms are unique to the field of consumer behavior. However, issues concerning

epistemology and the development of disciplines in general are outside the scope of this

article.

The Behavioral Consumer Marketing (Slice of Pie) Model

According to the Behavioral Consumer Marketing Model (see figure 1 and table

1), consumer behavior is one of 3 sub-domains of marketing; the others are marketing

models and marketing strategy. A more recent variant of this “slice of pie” model

assumes that consumer behavior is one of 2 sub-domains of marketing; the other is

marketing models.

----- Insert figure 1 here-----

Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” As a sub-domain of marketing, what

differentiates consumer behavior from non-consumer behavior is that the phenomenon

under study has to do with a marketplace where individuals make acquisition, usage, and

disposition decisions. Most prototypically and most restrictively, the “marketplace” refers

to an economic marketplace involving financial transactions and marketplace exchanges.

Usage and disposition issues are also relevant to the extent that they provide

opportunities or insights for marketing activities and future economic exchanges. Thus,

this model assumes that the field of consumer behavior studies behaviors that are relevant

to an economic marketplace and those that have implications for marketing practice.

13
Moreover, given its behavioral orientation, study tends to focus on consumers as end-

users, as opposed to business to business buyers or other institutions.

Disciplinary Orientation. In this model, consumer behavior is not an independent

field because it is a sub-domain of marketing (see table 1). Within the marketing

discipline, consumer behavior is distinct from quantitative models because it draws on

“behavioral” fields (e.g., psychology, sociology and anthropology versus more

quantitatively oriented fields like economics, engineering, or operations research).

Research is “interdisciplinary” to the extent that behaviorally oriented researchers in the

marketing field attempt to understand some aspect of consumers using insights from base

behavioral disciplines. However, because consumer behavior is different from non-

consumer behavior (i.e., behavior that occurs outside an economic exchange based arena),

the goal is to (a) gain novel insight into how behavior in a consumer context differs from

that in a non-consumer context and/or (b) understand how the results apply to marketing

decision making. One would not expect researchers in non-marketing fields to engage in

research on consumers.

Relevance Priority. As a sub-domain of marketing, consumer behavior research is

surely relevant to marketing academics and marketing practitioners, hence these

audiences should have precedence. To balance a marketing perspective, research on

public policy also deserves priority, though it is secondary in importance. Research

designed to contribute to other academic audiences has still lower priority. This is to be

expected since the contexts investigated in consumer behavior research (economic

14
exchange) and the problems addressed (relevance to marketing) are different. Hence, we

should not expect that consumer researchers’ work should be useful for other disciplines.

Consumer behavior is typically the dependent variable in this model, often the result of

marketing activity. Rarely is the impact of consumer behavior on consumers themselves

or society the focus of investigation. A marketing-focused perspective also dominates

research designed to help consumers themselves.

Implications. Importantly, the Behavioral Consumer Behavior Model, as with the

models described below, offers unique implications for consumer behavior knowledge;

that is, (1) how it should be evaluated, (2) what factors will best foster its development,

(3) how it should be acquired by junior colleagues, and (4) how and to whom knowledge

is best disseminated.

According to the Consumer Behavior Marketing model, consumer research

should be valued to the extent that it has impact on academic research in the marketing

field (e.g., publications in major marketing journals). Research should also be rewarded

for its impact on marketing practice in for-profit and non-profit arenas (Engel 1981),

either directly or through preparing students for success as marketing managers.

Diffusing knowledge to practitioner audiences is more effective through academic journal

articles divorced of abstruse terminology and technical language, as well as through

practitioner articles, consulting, and practitioner-focused books.

Since consumer behavior is a sub-domain of marketing, academic networks will

cluster around others in the field of marketing. Indeed, researchers in marketing would

likely categorize themselves and others as “CB”, “modeling” or “strategy” researchers.

15
One would expect that most academic researchers who study consumer behavior are

hired by business schools and are members of marketing departments. One would also

expect that the field’s major gatekeepers (journal editors, association presidents, review

board members) are employed by business schools. Journals like JCR that focus on

consumer behavior would be expected to publish work by marketing academics who are

interested in behavioral issues and editorial review boards would be comprised of

behavioral researchers in the marketing field. We would not expect that editorial review

boards of the field’s major journals include individuals who represent other areas of

marketing such as marketing strategy or marketing models. Since marketers and policy

makers are potential beneficiaries of academic research, they should also partner in

research on consumers (Wilkie 1981). To help academics gain deeper insight into issues

relevant to the economic marketplace, consumer behavior journals might seek

outstanding practitioners to write articles and solicit them for funding. Professional

organizations should make special efforts to integrate practitioners into their

organizations and conferences.

Our most promising PhD students should have spent time as managers, in

consulting, or in government organizations, as their real world experiences with

consumer issues facilitates identifying consumer behavior problems of relevance to

marketers. Doctoral training in marketing should include classes titled “consumer

behavior”, “marketing strategy” and “marketing models”. Marketing journals (as opposed

to journals in other disciplines) should be the primary focus of PhD seminars.

16
 Resemblance to the Status Quo. Certain aspects of the field resemble this model.

The fact that major journals in marketing focus on: (1) managerial (Journal of Marketing,

Journal of Marketing Science), (2) consumer behavior (JCR, JCP), or (3) quantitative

(Marketing Science) aspects of marketing is consistent with its existence. Also supportive

is that the field’s largest academic conferences appeal to a certain “type” of marketing

academic (AMA; ACR; Marketing Science). Furthermore, key thought leaders,

gatekeepers, and authors/attendees are housed in marketing departments, and

forthcoming research is targeted to likeminded academics in the marketing field (e.g., the

Social Science Research Network’s three separate working paper series: Managerial

Marketing; Consumer Marketing, and Quantitative Marketing). Promotion and tenure

dossiers of consumer researchers are typically evaluated by academics in marketing as

opposed to academics in allied fields. Furthermore, citation analyses indicate that

consumer research does tend to be most relevant to marketing academics as opposed to

academics in other disciplines (e.g., Baumgartner and Pieters 2003). ACR has historically

included Directors of Practice and Public Policy as well as Directors of Academic

constituents. Doctoral training in marketing does typically include classes titled

“consumer behavior”, “marketing strategy” and “marketing models”, and marketing

journals (as opposed to journals in other disciplines) are often the primary focus of

marketing PhD seminars (Bauerly and Johnson 2005).

The resemblance to the status quo to this model is only partial however. As the

criticisms above demonstrate, the extent to which the field has served a marketing

practitioner audience has been questioned (Chakravarti 1992; Jacoby 1976; Wilkie and

Moore 2003), and marketing practitioners’ involvement in academic consumer behavior

17
journals and at consumer behavior conferences is rare. Whereas research partnerships

with marketing practitioners do occur (e.g., through organizations such as MSI, through

public policy conferences), they are the exception rather than the rule for consumer

researchers. Moreover, contributions to marketing academics in the form of top-tier

journal articles are more highly valued than are contributions to marketing practice (e.g.,

trade books, practitioner-focused journal articles). Within the marketing discipline, not all

faculty members who study consumer behavior have PhDs in marketing; marketing

departments have been open to hiring consumer researchers with PhDs in base behavioral

disciplines, particularly psychology. Finally, doctoral programs tend to recruit PhDs with

backgrounds in base disciplines as opposed to backgrounds in marketing practice (Shaw

and Jones 2005; Sheth 1992).

Customer Marketing (Matrix) Model

The Customer Marketing Model (see figure 2; table 1) bears many similarities to

the Behavioral Consumer Marketing model, particularly in its view of consumer behavior

as a sub-domain of marketing. The fundamental difference is the entity under study

(customers versus organizations). More specifically, whereas the previous model

distinguishes consumer behavior from quantitative models, in this model, research from

both behavioral and quantitative sciences are used to understand how customers in an

economic marketplace operate (see figure 2).Thus, the “matrix” model unites those who

study customers even though they may draw on different methodological, statistical, or

18
disciplinary bases. Other researchers in marketing study marketing managers or

organizations (vs. customers), using behavioral and/or quantitative perspectives as well.

Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” Customer behavior includes consumers in

an economic marketing context. However, perspectives of consumer behavior are broader

since the study of customers includes not only end users, but business to business

customers. Research involves the study of disaggregate but also aggregate (marketplace)

effects and it studies customer behavior in both static and dynamic environments.

----- Insert figure 2 here-----

Disciplinary Orientation. Since consumer behavior is a sub-field of marketing, it

is not a unique field. Nevertheless, the disciplinary bases on which consumer behavior

knowledge draws are broad and include disciplines that are behaviorally and

quantitatively focused. Research is “interdisciplinary” to the extent that researchers in the

marketing field attempt to understand some aspect of customer behavior (e.g.,

consumers’ responses to advertising or pricing) using diverse theories and perspectives.

Like the previous model, the objective is to use these disciplines to gain novel insight into

how behavior in a consumer context differs from that in a non-consumer context or how

the results can apply to marketing decision making. Interdisciplinary perspectives should

be adopted to the extent that they help to understand a marketing-relevant phenomenon

(e.g., decisions about market segmentation, positioning, branding, advertising, pricing),

where insights into customer behaviors provide actionable implications for marketing

19
practitioners. Research is not interdisciplinary in the sense that we do not expect that

researchers in disciplines outside a marketing arena share an interest in the study of

consumers.

Relevance Priority. As with the previously described model, customer behavior is

relevant to academics and practitioners in the marketing field. A focus on “customers”

also fits with the marketing field’s “customer orientation” in both B2B and B2C markets.

Lesser priority is attached to public policy issues and still less on the impact of consumer

research on other disciplines, society, or consumers themselves.

Implications. The Customer Marketing model offers implications similar to the

Behavioral Consumer Marketing (Piece of Pie) model which we do not discuss here for

brevity sake. Additionally, it implies that advances in knowledge are most likely when

academics can understand a common aspect of customer behavior (e.g., customer

reactions to price increases) from diverse (behavioral and quantitative) perspectives.

Ideally, interdisciplinary perspectives can be brought to bear in a single academic article.

However, even if individual research studies examine customers from a single discipline

or use a single method, it is expected that marketing academics who study consumer

behavior appreciate, understand, and are open to research that uses multiple perspectives

and methods. Hence, progress in the field should be realized to the extent that behavioral

and modeling academics work together (or at least understand each other’s work) on a

common customer problem of relevance to marketing decision making so as to deeply

understand it from multiple perspectives. The blending of behavioral and quantitative

20
research would require editorial review board members from the field of marketing who

are open to and capable of evaluating research on a substantive customer issue from

diverse perspectives. Review boards should be sufficiently broad to cover the substantive

customer-focused issues of relevance to marketing decision making. If area editor

structures are developed, one would expect that they revolve around marketing relevant

phenomena for which consumer insight is important (e.g., advertising effects, pricing

effects, services, etc.). Dissertations and other academic perspectives that blend

quantitative and behavioral approaches should be highly regarded. Similarly, scholars

should be rewarded for breakthrough contributions to the discipline of marketing that

blend behavioral and quantitative perspectives. Since such partnerships require a

common language, PhD students should develop a program of study that stresses breadth

rather than base disciplinary depth (i.e., a well-rounded curriculum), and one that that

allows for research opportunities in both quantitative and behavioral (social) domains.

Resemblance to the Status Quo. This model resembles the status quo in ways

similar to the previously described model. Additionally, it resembles the status quo as

there are many researchers in the field of marketing who do study customer behavior

from a quantitative perspective. Moreover, PhD programs do often require that students

gain some basic understanding of both behavioral and quantitative perspectives on

customers and organizations.

Again, however, resemblance to the status quo is only partial (MacInnis 2005;

Rossiter 1989; Sheth 1972, 1982; Sheth and Garrett 1986). Behavioral and quantitative

researchers’ reliance on different (a) paradigms, (b) theories, (c) levels of analyses, (d)

21
methodologies, and (e) statistical approaches hinders researchers’ communications about

and identification of solutions to problems for which a common interest may emerge.

Hence, collaboration between behavioral and quantitative scholars has been the exception

rather than the rule. One reason why may be that manuscripts that blend perspectives are

more difficult to publish since behavioral and quantitative reviewers may use different

criteria to evaluate manuscripts. Editorial review boards of journals like JCR are almost

exclusively comprised of behavioral researchers and do not include a cadre of researchers

who represent a quantitative modeling perspective. Researchers who study consumers

from a quantitative perspective tend not to describe themselves as “consumer behavior

researchers”, even when they study end users (versus intermediaries or business to

business buyers). Finally, a trend toward specialization in research methods and

theoretical perspectives encourages PhD students to choose a “behavioral” or a

“quantitative” research track.

Intra-Disciplinary Consumer Behavior (Silo) Model

According to the Intra-Disciplinary Consumer Behavior Model, many academic

disciplines study consumers (see figure 3), including those in communications, media

studies, psychology, sociology, economics, finance, medicine, anthropology, history,

health care, and literature. Constituents in some of these fields (e.g., health care) are not

necessarily interested in knowledge relevant to other fields (e.g., marketing). Hence while

many disciplines study consumer behavior, interaction among disciplines is limited. The

metaphor that describes and differentiates this model is an agglomeration of silos.

22
 Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” Whereas the first two models restrict

consumer behavior to the economic marketplace and topics of potential relevance to

marketing practice, the intra-disciplinary model permits an expanded view of consumer

behavior that includes forms of acquisition for which there is no economic exchange --

such as borrowing, stealing, or inheriting. Consumer behavior further transpires without

economic exchange, as in campaigns to sway voters or to solicit volunteers, and it

includes the functional as well as dark side aspects of consumption. Furthermore,

consumer behavior is evident in myriad decisions, including decisions about education,

fertility (population ecology, demographics), and mobility (real estate, geography, urban

planning). Some disciplines consider the consumer in an economic context (e.g., health

care), however, the behavior of consumers (e.g., patients) rather than the economic

aspects of exchange may be the focus of efforts. This model can also accommodate an

even more expansive perspective which focuses on anything that deals with “consumers”,

regardless of whether it focuses on “behavior” per se. Thus, consumer safety laws,

consumer education programs, consumer credit practices, and consumer housing prices,

would all fall within the boundaries of this model. Accepting each discipline’s

perspective leads to amorphous boundaries for what falls within consumer behavior.

----- Insert figure 3 here-----

Disciplinary Orientation. According to the Intradisciplinary Model, consumer

behavior is not its own distinct field; instead it is a subfield of many different disciplines.

23
Although numerous disciplines study consumer behavior, they vary in their focus on

unique constituents and problems relevant to that discipline. With each discipline having

its own audiences, topical focus, objectives, and meaning of “consumer behavior”,

interdisciplinary research is unnecessary.

Relevance Priority. The audience for which research is potentially relevant

depends on the discipline. Each discipline is independent and so has different academic

(and perhaps practitioner) audiences. In marketing, research may be evaluated primarily

for its impact on marketing academics and practitioners. In other applied disciplines (e.g.,

health care), consumer research may be valued for identifying interventions that solve

social problems. In base disciplines (e.g., history) consumer research may be pertinent

only to academic audiences (e.g., historians interested in understanding historical

developments and movements).

Implications. The Intradisciplinary Model is similar to the “Piece of Pie” model in

terms of its implications for knowledge valuation. Editorial boards of journals in

disciplines that publish consumer research may be “inbred” and may have little overlap

with other disciplines. Editors of major consumer-focused journals in each field should

strive to construct review boards of the most talented and respected people within the

home discipline. Moreover, evaluators of research should be primarily concerned about

an author’s contribution to the home discipline and its relevant audiences (e.g., marketing

thought and practice) as opposed to other disciplines. Promotion and tenure cases should

24
be judged by academics in the home discipline, and citations within the home (vs. other)

disciplines should be an indicator of impact.

As to generating knowledge, scholarly communities built around the home

discipline should be most fruitful (e.g., ACR’s conference attendees from the home

discipline of marketing). Because different disciplines have different goals and audiences

and may study different entities (buyers versus voters) using different time frames

(current versus historical), consumer researchers in marketing do not necessarily need to

be broadly read. Hence, consumer researchers who are interested in marketing can safely

assume that research relevant to the aspects of consumer behavior that they wish to study

resides within the marketing discipline. Collaborations across disciplines are likely to be

the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, one’s disciplinary orientation and the

applied audiences to whom research is relevant may orient researchers to search for

funding from different sources. Thus, consumer researchers in marketing are more likely

to seek funding from corporate sources and corporate-sponsored institutions (like the

Marketing Science Institute), whereas consumer researchers in communications and

health care may pursue funding from foundations and government grants, respectively.

PhD students should receive primary training in their home discipline, being

immersed in concepts, theories, and problems that are relevant to the academic and

applied constituents they serve. Although students may receive training in other

disciplines, such training is limited to the acquisition of knowledge regarding

methodology and statistics rather than substantive issues. To disseminate knowledge,

disciplines whose constituents are primarily academics should focus on academic

journals and scholarly books (vs. government reports, press releases, or trade books).

25
 Resemblance to the Status Quo. Table 2 shows that indeed many disciplines

outside of marketing sponsor professional organizations that focus on consumers. Table 3

also indicates that many journals outside the marketing discipline publish research that

relates to consumers. Furthermore, the editorial boards of many scholarly journals that

publish consumer research are often “inbred” and include few interdisciplinary scholars.

Even though considerable research on consumers exists outside the marketing field,

disciplines outside of marketing are not necessarily interested in marketing or the

economic marketplace per se. Hence, citations across disciplines are the exception rather

than the rule, making consumer behavior knowledge relatively insular. Research is often

evaluated for its contribution to the home discipline and is evaluated by individuals

within the home discipline. Notably though, while marketing academics may believe that

consumer research pertinent to marketing is most likely found in the marketing discipline,

the final column of table 3 shows that researchers in other fields often study concepts and

phenomena of considerable interest to marketing academics (e.g., risk perceptions,

consumer preferences, product use). Hence, while silos may aptly characterize the

interdisciplinarity of consumer research, the potential for cross-disciplinary fertilization

is certainly suggested by table 3.

----- Insert table 2 and table 3 here -----

The intradisciplinary model does not completely describe the status quo however.

Many consumer researchers in marketing departments do align themselves with at least

26
one other academic field (consumer psychology, consumer sociology, consumer

anthropology). Yet some might question whether the blending of two disciplines (e.g.,

marketing and psychology) that often results from such alignments truly reflects a full-

scale “interdisciplinary perspective”. Specialized journals and conferences do link

researchers from diverse disciplines (e.g., the Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP).

Furthermore, as the quest for research with societal significance has grown among

consumer researchers in marketing, so too has their interest in some applied fields that

focus on public and social welfare (e.g., health care, education, consumer finance), and in

non-corporate sources of funding (Kahn 2007).

Interdisciplinary Consumer Behavior (Hub and Spokes) Model

According to the Interdisciplinary Model, consumer behavior is a unique and

independent discipline; one that synthesizes insights from multiple fields to understand

specific consumer behavior phenomena.

Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” According to this “hub and spokes”

model, the topical domains that encompass consumer behavior are broad (e.g., symbolic

consumption, diffusion of innovation, price sensitivity, materialism, compulsive buying),

but they are limited to the behavior of individuals in an economic marketplace.

Researchers in diverse disciplines converge due to their common interest in the same,

uniquely consumer-focused phenomenon even though they approach it from a different

perspective (historical, anthropological, economic, psychological, etc.; see figure 4; table

27
1). For example, understanding consumers’ grooming rituals would require the synthesis

of anthropological insights about ritual behavior and their varying manifestations across

cultures, psychological insights about impression management and habits, economic

insights into consumer spending and grooming items, and historical insights about

grooming trends to place it within its proper context. Like the matrix model, research in

this domain is restricted to economic, marketplace based phenomena. However, unlike

that model this model is open to topics that operate beyond the “customer” arena and its

marketing emphasis (e.g., obesity). Furthermore, unlike the matrix model, this model

emphasizes end users (consumers) and does not include B2B markets. Falling outside the

boundaries of consumer behavior would be phenomena only peripherally related to

economic exchange (e.g., voting behavior, social marketing, literacy). So, too, would the

study of consumer-related entities endemic to organizations or institutions (e.g.,

consumer housing pricing, consumer safety laws). Although these entities may impact or

be impacted by consumer behavior they are topical domains that fall within the

boundaries of other fields (e.g. economics, law). This more restricted focus thus

differentiates consumer behavior from the intradisciplinary perspective.

----- Insert figure 4 here -----

Disciplinary Orientation. According to this “hub and spokes” model, consumer

behavior is its own, interdisciplinary field; not a sub-field of marketing (as implied by the

slice of pie and matrix models) or a subfield of other disciplines (as implied by the

intradisciplinary model). In this model, truly “interdisciplinary” research does more than

28
join two disciplines (e.g., marketing and psychology). Rather, research that spans

multiple disciplines is critical. Only through such cross-disciplinary fertilization can one

realize the full and complete picture of a given consumption phenomenon (Zaltman 2000).

Although any single project need not be interdisciplinary, researchers should be open to

using research from multiple disciplines to gain deeper insight into the consumer

phenomenon they study. Like the matrix model, this interdisciplinary perspective sets a

premium on the use of multiple methods so as to establish the internal and external

validity of findings and determine the extent to which findings are replicated across

multiple methodologies (Lehmann, 1996; Monroe 1992a, 1992b).

Relevance Priority. Relevant research is that which sheds light on a consumption

phenomenon, particularly if it blends insights, methods, or theories from multiple

disciplines. Research priority goes to diverse academic audiences who study consumer

behavior; not just marketing academics, but academics in communications, psychology,

sociology, anthropology, history, etc. who share an interest in the same consumption

phenomenon. A stable cadre of scholars who focus on a specific consumption issue (e.g.,

obesity) could foster multi-pronged solutions to problems associated with it. In this way,

the multidisciplinary perspective has the potential to contribute to the betterment of

consumers and society, though these contributions may not be the primary goal. Whereas

such research may offer implications for marketers and public policy makers such

implications are not a priority focus.

Implications. Research that provides deep and multi-faceted understanding of a

given consumer behavior phenomenon among a diverse academic audience should be

29
highly valued and hence rewarded. Of particular value, should be novel integrative

theories and review articles that synthesize extant research in ways that promote novel

big picture perspectives. Also valuable is identifying new and important problem areas

and recruiting scholars across disciplines to collaborate in investigating them.

From the standpoint of knowledge generation, rather than aligning with “camps”

who define themselves as “positivist” or “post-positivist”, or “behavioral or

“quantitative”, scholars should be sufficiently broad minded to value other perspectives

that can help shed light on the phenomenon of interest. Instead, researchers should defin

themselves in terms of the phenomenon they study (e.g., an obesity, gift giving, or

materialism researcher).

The interdisciplinary model also suggests not just openness to multiple

perspectives, but more than lip service encouragement of insights from relatively ignored

disciplines. For example, research on obesity might benefit not just from insights from

psychology and nutrition, but from an understanding of the history of obesity, its varied

meanings across cultures, social groups that are particularly vulnerable to obesity and

more. Hence, this perspective might argue for a “balance” in disciplinary inputs in

contrast to the current larger influence of psychology compared to other disciplines in

consumer research. Some imbalance in a field is likely because theories and methods

advance understanding in an irregular manner. However, the interdisciplinary approach

suggests the field needs to make special efforts to prevent being malformed.

Conferences may be organized by topical phenomenon, and specialized journals

devoted to a multidisciplinary study of some consumer behavior phenomenon should be

encouraged. Academics in marketing departments who study consumer behavior should

30
reach out to researchers who study the same phenomenon, regardless of the department or

school at which they are housed. To the extent that interdisciplinary journals have area

editors, the areas might be defined by those who are experts in a specific phenomenon or

set of phenomena. Researchers may secure funding from multiple sources (government

agencies, corporations, and foundations) that recognize the phenomenon’s social

significance.

Given the premium placed on interdisciplinarity, doctoral programs should favor

broadminded PhD applicants with academic prowess in multiple social sciences (Wilkie

1981). PhD training would build on that orientation by emphasizing breadth of

knowledge across disciplines and depth of knowledge about a consumer problem. PhD

training should focus not on a base discipline, but on multiple base disciplines relevant to

the phenomenon at hand. Students should learn to understand and appreciate various

philosophies of science, research methodologies, and their complementarity (Mick, 2003).

Because the interdisciplinary perspective requires that researchers understand a

phenomenon from multiple perspectives, a premium should be placed on increasing

journal article language accessibility to readers who share an interest in the phenomenon

but who may not have the background to manage esoteric, discipline-specific jargon.

Resemblance to the Status Quo. The fact that top journals and organizations that

claim an interest in consumer behavior (JCR and ACR) were designed to be

interdisciplinary suggests that this model is consistent with the implied direction of the

field. JCR’s tagline is “an Interdisciplinary Quarterly” and the 12 organization Policy

Board that guides the journal. The model is also consistent with, JCR editors’ repeated

31
requests for interdisciplinary research (e.g., Frank June 1974; Kassarjian and Bettman,

1982, 1984; Lutz 1986, 1988; Mick 2003; Monroe 1990, 1993). Government grants

increasingly mandate interdisciplinary research teams in requests for proposals,

suggesting that interdisciplinary research is valued as a mechanism for generating novel

insights with potential implications for social welfare.

The interdisciplinary model’s implications rarely manifest themselves in the

status quo. Although some consumer researchers do claim an interest in specific

consumption phenomena (e.g., self-control), researchers often adhere to a specific

disciplinary orientation (e.g., psychology) as opposed to an interdisciplinary orientation.

Interdisciplinary research teams are the exception, not the rule. Doctoral students are

discouraged from being too broadly focused and methodological and theoretical

specialization, not breadth, is typically encouraged. Further hindering an interdisciplinary

approach is that universities are rarely organized in such a way that individuals studying

similar consumption phenomena are even proximally located. Faculty members

sometimes fail to know of others (even at their own university) who work on a similar

topic.

Multidisciplinary Consumer Behavior (Onion) Model

Like the Interdisciplinary Model, the Multidisciplinary Model of Consumer

Behavior (see figure 5) holds that consumer behavior is different from behavior in other

contexts and that accumulated knowledge about consumer behavior is sufficiently rich to

constitute a distinct and separate field of “consumer behavior”. The field’s richness

32
reveals itself in the form of many disciplines studying consumer behavior; each from a

different (multidisciplinary) perspective, as opposed to an integration of these disciplines

(an interdisciplinary perspective). Knowledge can be gleaned by focusing on any level of

the “onion” that constitutes consumer behavior, from the most micro to the most micro

(e.g., biological, psychological, actions, interactions with small groups, social, cultural,

and geographic forces).

Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” The perspective on consumer behavior

resembles the interdisciplinary perspective to the extent that the field encompasses

myriad disciplines and many approaches (Chakravarti 1992; Chettiparamb 2007; Mason

and Goetz 1978; Monroe 1993) in an attempt to understand consumption-relevant

phenomena. The most closely related, independent discipline is consumer sciences, a

long-recognized academic discipline more closely associated with family life and family

economics and with issues involving the consumer interest or consumer rights.

----- Insert figure 5 here-----

Disciplinary Orientation. According to the Multidisciplinary model, consumer

behavior is an independent and unique discipline that benefits from insights from many

academic disciplines (see table 1). The independent status of consumer behavior is

warranted given the increasing role of consumption within the lives of individuals and

across cultures (Belk 2002). Consumer behavior also requires its own field since

concentrating on the various levels at which consumer behavior operates (biological,

33
individual, group, societal, etc.) permits a more complete picture of all that consumer

behavior entails. Research is “interdisciplinary” to the extent that the field includes

researchers who study consumer behavior from multiple perspectives, though the

research itself is discipline-specific. In other words, in contrast to the interdisciplinary

model, the prevalence and complexity of consumer behavior suggests that advances are

best realized by specialization in the concepts, theories, methodologies and paradigms

relevant to a particular “layer” of the consumer behavior onion. Different disciplines

therefore yield different but complementary views of consumer behavior (e.g., aggregate

spending behavior, downward sloping demand curves, individual preferences, and rituals

as the focus of macro-economics, micro-economics, psychology and anthropology,

respectively (Holbrook 1987). Interactions among the various layers of the onion are

limited. Rather than being interdisciplinary, research is multidisciplinary.

Although consumer behavior is an independent discipline, a complete

understanding of consumer behavior requires reliance on various base disciplines that

study general behavior (neurology, psychology, sociology, and economics) for theories,

concepts, and research paradigms. Hence, a multidisciplinary model involves less

isolation across disciplines than the intradisciplinary model without requiring the

synthesis implied by the interdisciplinary model. Researchers here align themselves with

particular camps of researchers who coalesce by virtue of common method or

paradigmatic assumptions about good research. Consequently, a researcher is likely to

self-categorize either in terms of (a) disciplinary orientation (e.g., a “consumer

psychologist”, “consumer anthropologist”, “consumer historian”), (b) focus on “micro-

level” or “macro-level” issues, one’s disciplinary orientation, or (c) philosophy of science

34
perspective (e.g., “positivist” vs. “post positivist”). These labels contrast with those

implied by other models. Researchers endorsing the piece of pie or matrix model might

describe themselves as “consumer behavior researchers,” whereas researchers endorsing

the interdisciplinary model would be more likely to describe themselves by their focus on

a specific phenomenon (e.g., consumer satisfaction researcher).

Within applied fields (e.g., marketing, health care, communications, law) it is

possible to find researchers within the same department who identify with different

disciplines (i.e., layers of the onion). Thus, in marketing, one would expect to find

researchers who share a common interest in “consumer behavior” but who align

themselves with different disciplines (consumer psychology, consumer sociology,

consumer anthropology).

Relevance Priority. Research is relevant to the extent that it fosters general

understanding of consumer behavior. Hence, the primary audience is consumer behavior

scholars, with knowledge being pursued for knowledge sake, regardless of any applied

implications. Academic audiences for consumer research include not just marketing

academics but academics in communications, psychology, sociology, anthropology,

history, and health care—all of whom share an interest in the consumer. At a more macro

perspective, “consumer behavior” could be the independent variable, not just the

dependent variable, and researchers may be interested in studying the impact of consumer

behavior on society, though not necessarily with the idea of developing policy

recommendations.

35
 Implications. From the standpoint of knowledge valuation, the Multidisciplinary

model suggests that “significant” research contributions are those that add to academic

knowledge relevant to a particular layer of the onion. External evaluators for promotion

and tenure cases may therefore include other consumer researchers who focus on the

same level, even though they may be housed in different disciplines (e.g., consumer

psychologists in marketing, psychology, communications, etc.). In light of specialization,

researchers who study consumer behavior from different levels of analysis may feel

incapable of judging the contribution of research from a different level- even though they

share a common focus on consumer behavior. Furthermore, scholars approaching the

same phenomenon (e.g., grooming rituals) from one discipline (e.g., anthropological

understanding of cross cultural variation in grooming rituals) may value an aspect of the

phenomenon that is considered trivial by researchers approaching the phenomenon from

a different perspective (e.g., psychological aspects of impression management), and vice

versa. Specialization may also create paradigmatic tensions, with researchers that study

different layers of the onion failing to appreciate and appropriately value the

contributions of researchers who study a different layer. In contrast, tensions over the

importance of relevance to applied audiences would not be as prevalent because of this

model’s focus on academic (vs. applied) contributions to knowledge.

Research at a particular level should be regarded as significant to the extent that it

contributes to the base discipline; perhaps qualifying what were previously thought to be

generalizable behavioral outcomes. Depending on the disciplinary perspective and level

of analysis, contributions other than the standard journal article, such as books or

videography, would be recognized and valued. Since researchers who study consumer

36
behavior from different levels of analysis may require dissimilar time frames for

“contributions” to be realized, contributions to different disciplines (sociology) might

imply different evaluative time standards (Richins 2001).

The multidisciplinary model’s assumption that consumer behavior extends

beyond the marketing field suggests that broad-based consumer research journals like

JCR might evolve to an area editor structure, with sections focusing on different

disciplines or paradigms. It would also suggest that researchers might organize

conferences specific to the “layer of the onion” that they study. Thus, conferences that

focus on consumer psychology may be attended by those sharing an interest in individual

consumer behavior, while those who are interested in more macro consumer behavior

would attend other conferences. Incorporating research from multiple disciplines within

the same scholarly outlet (e.g., JCR) or venue (e.g., ACR conferences) exposes scholars

to different disciplines and cadres of scholars without the expectation that the cadres

necessarily collaborate.

In terms of knowledge generation, researchers who study consumer behavior

would want to build intellectual networks that relate to consumers (e.g., ACR) and to a

particular base discipline (American Psychological Association, the American

Sociological Association). Since the primary contribution of research is academic (versus

applied), academic structures that foster linkages to colleagues in the base disciplines

should be encouraged. While linkages with businesses might be useful, they are not

regarded as instrumental to knowledge generation. Collaborations among those who

examine consumer behavior from the same level of analysis or who use the same base

disciplinary theories, methods and philosophies of science are likely to be easiest and

37
contribute the most to the field due to their common focus, language, and shared

paradigms. Specialized journals accentuating different levels of analysis are likely to

appeal to different sets of researchers who study consumer behavior from a given

perspective (e.g., JCP, Journal of Consumer Culture, etc.) and broad based consumer

behavior journals may be seen as less relevant as a source for encouraging new ideas.

While the field as a whole advances by the inclusion of multiple disciplines, the

individual researcher should gain solid grounding in a single base discipline. Hence PhD

training should emphasize consumer behavior from a specific base disciplinary

perspective (neurology, psychology, sociology, economics, history). Students should be

immersed in the theories, methodologies and research philosophies that undergird the

base discipline most relevant to the level of analysis that they study, and they should be

encouraged to seek consumer behavior experts who share that focus as mentors. The

focus on the base discipline may be such that many consumer behavior researchers have

PhDs outside of marketing (Chakravarti 1992; Sheth 1992).

Finally, from the standpoint of knowledge dissemination, one would expect that

“knowledge” would be primarily in the form of works aimed at academic audiences.

Subject-specific terminology and base discipline-specific language may permeate these

scholarly outputs, making them relatively inaccessible to other audiences.

Resemblance to the Status Quo. Consistent with the model of consumer behavior

as its own multidisciplinary field is the presence of multiple discipline-specific

organizations and the scholarly output on consumers shown in tables 2 and 3. Several

leaders of the field have also suggested that this multidisciplinary (not interdisciplinary)

perspective aptly characterizes the field (Chakravarti 1992; Monroe 1993; Robertson and

38
Kassarjian 1991). Further, consumer behavior researchers do tend to self identify as

“micro” or “macro” researchers. This “micro” vs. “macro” focus is evident in the types

consumer research journals (e.g., Journal of Applied Psychology, JCP vs. the Journal of

Consumer Culture), and the structure of consumer behavior textbooks (which are

organized into “micro” and “macro” consumer behavior topics). PhD student training

does focus on a base discipline so that students can rely on theories and constructs from

these disciplines to study consumer phenomena. Specialization within a base discipline is

the norm. Furthermore, reliance on different levels of analysis and paradigms have

created tensions, revealed by the debates aired in the 1980s and 1990s on the value of

positivist versus post-positivist research (Lutz 1989; Ozanne and Hudson 1989).

The General Behavior (Mirror) Model

According to the General Behavior Model, consumer behavior is simply a form of

human behavior (see figure 6 and table 1). Rather than showing how a particular

phenomenon (e.g., memory, attitudes, relationships, rituals, impression management)

operates differently in a consumption versus a non-consumption context, the goal is to

show how the phenomenon operates similarly in (and hence applies to) other contexts.

Thus, research in consumer behavior reflects or “mirrors” general human behavior.

Whereas the intradisciplinary model focuses on “consumers” without a “behavior”

emphasis, this model focuses on “behavior” without a “consumer” emphasis.

39
 Perspective on “Consumer Behavior.” Although research about consumers falls

under the rubric of “consumer behavior”, the “behavior” is merely representative of

general human tendencies that should be replicated regardless of context (e.g., feelings of

anger are evoked similarly and have similar outcomes, regardless of whether the source is

a rude salesperson, one’s boss, a friend, a stranger, or one’s teenage child). Identifying

what falls within and outside the boundaries of consumer behavior is of little importance

given this larger goal.

----- Insert figure 6 here -----

Disciplinary Orientation. Consumer behavior is not its own field, because it is a

subfield of the study of human behavior. The consumption context is not a defining

feature because one anticipates that findings in a consumption context generalize to other

contexts. Consumer behavior is “interdisciplinary” merely in the sense that consumer

researchers use theories and methodologies of those in the base disciplines to replicate

findings in myriad applied contexts.

Relevance Priority. Research that helps scholars understand how humans behave

is most relevant. Whereas study of a particular construct might have practical

consequences (for marketing, law, organizational behavior, etc.) or implications for

consumers, public policy and society, these applications do not drive the construct’s

study—though they may justify its importance. The goal of research is intellectual -- to

40
understand human behavior—in particular, the specific phenomenon at hand— what it is,

how it unfolds, how it is experienced, what predicts it, and under what situations.

Implications. Although applied domains may yield novel insights into the more

basic behavioral science domains, it is more likely that influence will flow in the opposite

direction, with the base discipline contributing more to the applied discipline than vice

versa. Underscoring human behavior generally would lead to heavy borrowing from the

primary behavioral disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology) to applied domains

(marketing, organizational behavior, finance, accounting, law, etc.). Faculty should be

rewarded when research contributes to the base discipline (e.g., by being cited there), as

well as when importing concepts studied in base disciplines of human behavior and

showing that they apply in a consumption context. The direction of influence of an

applied field on the base discipline field should be asymmetric (e.g., psychology should

contribute more to marketing than the reverse) because the general behavior model does

not presume that faculty in the base disciplines are interested in applied issues.

Faculty and PhD students should also collaborate with others in base disciplines

(e.g., with psychologists or sociologists), perhaps emulating them and seeking them as

mentors. The field would benefit by exposure to eminent researchers on human behavior

(e.g., inviting them to give talks at academic conferences and to write articles on human

behavior for our most prestigious marketing journals). Individual scholars will benefit by

forging alliances with faculty in base disciplines (e.g., through attendance at their

brownbag seminars, reading working papers, and attending their conferences). Broad-

based consumer behavior journals like JCR should have area editors and editorial review

41
board members that are experts in a particular aspect of human behavior (e.g., emotions,

decision making, inferences, and risk perceptions).

PhD students (including those housed in marketing departments) should receive

substantial training in base behavioral disciplines where they learn about a specific aspect

of general human behavior (e.g., memory) and identify theories and methods that can be

applied to the study of consumer behavior. They should be avid readers of base discipline

journals and should search for innovative constructs in those areas that might also exist in

a consumption context. Finally, since the goal is to identify phenomena that apply to

human behavior in general, communication about consumers should be comprehensible

to those in the base disciplines rather than using jargon unique to consumer behavior or to

marketing.

Resemblance to the Status Quo. Several aspects of the field are consistent with the

General Behavior model. First, academics in marketing who study consumer behavior

often rely on disciplines that study basic human behavior (particularly psychology) and

cite their work more than they contribute to that literature (e.g., Cote et al.1991; Leong

1989). Consumer research does borrow heavily from other social sciences as opposed to

developing novel concepts and theories (Jacoby 1976; Olson 1982). Academics in

marketing who study consumer behavior also employ standard constructs from base

behavioral disciplines (particularly psychology), and draw on theories developed in these

disciplines rather than develop ones that are unique. Furthermore, in many studies

published in marketing journals, the consumption context relates only tangentially to the

study. For example, a researcher might use brand names to understand memory, however,

42
one might expect similar results if the researcher used names of places, people, or

nonsense syllables. Moreover, one could omit the word “consumer” from a number of

JCR or even marketing journal articles (particularly those with a psychological focus) and

substitute the word “person” without loss of understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

The explosion in research on consumers has brought with it criticisms and

controversies pertinent to such fundamental issues as (1) what constitutes consumer

behavior; (2) is/should consumer behavior be it’s own interdisciplinary field, and (3) to

whom should consumer behavior research be relevant. These criticisms suggest that the

field lacks clarity about (a) its boundaries, (b) whether it exists as a sub-discipline of

marketing (as opposed to being an independent discipline) that should or can be

interdisciplinary and (c) to whom it should be relevant. The models depicted in Table 1

suggest alternatives to the status quo.

Importantly, none of the models described here offers a panacea; each has

downsides. Some clearly bound what is and is not consumer behavior; others do not.

Several models limit interaction across disciplines creating the potential for redundancies.

Others require cross-disciplinary training. Some emphasize implications for one

constituent (e.g., academics) while ignoring others. Some create the potential for cross-

disciplinary tensions; others less so. Some emphasize depth in one respect (e.g., depth of

knowledge about a particular consumption phenomenon) at the expense of breadth (e.g.,

less breadth about various types of consumption phenomenon).

43
 Notably, the models also offer different views on the meaning of

“interdisciplinary” research. Some (e.g., the multidisciplinary model) suggest that the

field is interdisciplinary without requiring that a given piece of research or an individual

researcher be interdisciplinary whereas others emphasize interdisciplinarity at the level

of the phenomenon under investigation. Some suggest that interdisciplinary research is

reflected by combining two disciplines (e.g., marketing and psychology). Others suggest

that truly “interdisciplinary” research involves the blending of perspectives from many

disciplines.

The fact that each model bears some similarity to the status quo of consumer

research may reflect or have led to different mental models held by various leaders in the

field. Thus, some academics may adhere to the “piece of pie” model by trying to apply

their research to managers’ predicaments; others may adhere to the “mirror model” by

emulating basic social sciences; still others may believe that research should be

phenomenon driven, necessitating an interdisciplinary approach consistent with the “hub

and spokes” model. Thus, different researchers may have internalized different mental

models of the discipline’s “true path”. To the extent that a given individual has a single

mental model, s/he might perpetuate his or her own mental models through their gate-

keeping and PhD student training functions.

Alternatively, perhaps those who characterize themselves as “consumer

researchers” adopt one or more models or aspects of a given model at various points in

time or in various contexts (e.g., teaching versus reviewing versus recruiting). The

existence of multiple models may also reflect the discomfort or at least ambivalence on

the part of consumer researchers over the nature, targets, and implications of their

44
research. On the one hand, it may be reasonable to expect that researchers employed by

marketing departments conduct research that is useful for marketing practitioners

(consistent with the “”piece of pie” and “matrix” models). However, some researchers

may feel uncomfortable using science to help marketers achieve self-serving ends,

particularly when those ends seem to disadvantage consumers or provide little benefit to

society. Researchers may also feel reluctant to conduct research that addresses a practical

matter (regardless of the applied audience) because doing so might seem less “academic”.

Viewing ourselves as an “applied” field dilutes our “academic” self-concepts, making the

interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary and mirror models more palatable.

The fact that each model bears some resemblance to the status quo may also

reflect evolutionary aspects of the field. The tri-partite characterization of the field of

marketing (emblematic of the slice of pie model) did not characterize the marketing

discipline in the 1970s. Then, researchers in marketing conceptualized their research

more in terms of substantive areas (e.g., customer satisfaction, family decision making,

consumer information search) pertinent to marketing. Such perspectives characterized the

matrix model. Specialization within the fields of marketing and consumer behavior may

have stimulated the slice of pie model (in marketing) and the multidisciplinary model (in

consumer behavior). Recent writings (e.g., Deighton 2007) suggest a trend toward the

mirror model, with some consumer research being so similar to research in psychology

that reviewers and editors question articles’ contributions to the consumer behavior field.

Curiously, the interdisciplinary model, long touted as the model to which we aspire

seems least representative of the field’s evolution.

45
 The fact that each model bears some similarity to the state of or aspirations for

consumer research may also suggest that whether by design, circumstance, or

happenstance, the field may be characterized by multiple models. One might argue that a

multiple model perspective is fruitful. Indeed, multiple models might ultimately yield

deeper and richer insights into the field of consumer behavior. Furthermore, because each

model has its own downsides, adopting multiple models might serve complementary

goals. Moreover, it is possible that intellectual tensions resulting from multiple models

have enhanced rather than inhibited our field’s development.

Whereas multiple models are not necessarily problematic for a field, a field that

encompasses significant cadres subscribing to many disparate models of the field creates

inconsistent implications for knowledge creation, evaluation, development and

dissemination. Multiple models also create the potential for tensions within departments

as different models may yield different decisions about faculty hiring, PhD student

training and selection, and tenure votes. Clarity on models guiding the field also impacts

what researchers in the field study, and hence the nature of the intellectual contributions

that can be made. Thus, articulating and evaluating the field’s alternative models should

provide a framework for discussing the purpose consumer behavior knowledge should

serve and how the field must self-organize to attain these goals.

For example, the potential existence of different mental models by different

editors could create not only the above noted criticisms, but also a schizophrenic quality

to the nature of consumer behavior research. A scholar who has invested considerable

energy into a research project that has been cultivated by an editor with one mental model

may find his or her work rejected outright by a subsequent editor who holds a different

46
model. Although our field does not need orthodoxy, and we do not wish to over-manage

the direction of the field (Bagozzi 1992) it would probably be better off with fewer

models of the discipline and with a shared understanding of terms (e.g., multidisciplinary,

interdisciplinary). A useful debate is difficult if individuals interpret basic terms

differently and if the implications of each model have not been thought through.

Discussion of the field’s criticisms and potential models that might drive it should

not be interpreted as an indictment of consumer research. The past 50 years has seen

enormous research productivity. Even though consumer research has thrived despite a

lack of clarity on models of the field, clarity can only enhance the impact of our

contributions. Increasing clarity has been the goal of this article. Interestingly, while

Mick (March 2003) wrote that “we are adolescent, still struggling to figure out who we

are and whether what we do will ever matter to anyone else” (pg. vii), Engel wrote over

20 years earlier that “we are destined to permanent adolescence unless we do some

serious stocktaking” (pg. 12). Perhaps now is the time for such stocktaking to occur.

47
 REFERENCES

Andreasen, Alan R. (1993), "Presidential Address: A Social Marketing Agenda for

Consumer Research Behavior Researchers, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.

20, ed. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research, 1-5.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1992), “Acrimony in the Ivory Tower: Stagnation or Evolution,”

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (4), 355-359.

Bauerly, Ronald J. and Don T. Johnson (2005), “An Evaluation of Journals Used in

Doctoral Marketing Programs,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33

(3), 313-329.

Baumgartner, Hans and Rik Pieters (2003), “The Structural Influence of Marketing

Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and its Sub-areas over Time,”

Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 123-139.

Bazerman, Max H. (2001), “Consumer Research for Consumers,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 27 (March), 499-504.

Belk, Russell W. (1984), “Manifesto for a Consumer Behavior of Consumer Behavior,”

Scientific Method in Marketing, ed. Paul F. Anderson and Michael J. Ryan,

Chicago IL: American Marketing Association, 163-167.

Belk, Russell W. (1987), "ACR Presidential Address: Happy Thought,” Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 4, ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo,

UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1-4.

48
Belk, Russell W. (2002), “Changing Consumer: Changing Disciplinarity,” The Changing

Consumer: Markets and Meanings, ed. Steven Miles et al, London, Routledge,

145-161.

Bernhardt, Kenneth L. (1984), "Association for Consumer Research 1983 Presidential

Address: ACR- Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” in Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol., ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer

Research, 1-3.

Chakravarti, Dipankar (1992), “Appraising Consumer Research: There’s More to Vision

than Meets the Eye,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (4), 361-

366.

Chettiparamb, Angelique (2007), Interdisciplinarity: A Literature Review,

Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, University of Southampton,

England.

Cohen, Joel B. and Dipankar Chakravarti (1990), “Consumer Psychology,” Annual

Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, ed. Mark R. Rosenzweig and Lyman W. Porter,

Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc., 243-288.

Cote, Joseph A., Siew Meng Leong, and Jane Cote (1991), “Assessing the Influence of

the Journal of Consumer Research: A Citation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer

Research 18 (December), 402-410.

Deighton, John (2005), “From the Editor-Elect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32

(June), iii–vii.

Deighton, John (2007), “From the Editor: The Territory of Consumer Research: Walking

the Fences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), iii-vi.

49
Engel, James (1981), "The Discipline of Consumer Research: Permanent Adolescence or

Maturity?,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann

Arbor: MI Association for Consumer Research, 12-14.

Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell (1968), Consumer Behavior,

New York: Rinehart & Winston.

Feldman, Laurence and Jacob Hornik (1981), “Use of Time: An Integrated Conceptual

Model,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (March), 407-419.

Folkes, Valerie (2002), "Presidential Address: Is Consumer Behavior Different,”

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, ed. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent

Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 1-4.

Frank, Ronald E. (1974), “The Journal of Consumer Research: An Introduction,” Journal

of Consumer Research, 1 (June), iv-v.

Gardner, David M. (1977), “Presidential Address,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.

4, ed. William D. Perrault, Atlanta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 1-3.

Heckhausen, H. (1972), “Discipline and Interdisciplinarity” Interdisciplinarity: Problems

of Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris: OECD, 83-89.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986), “Marketing, Intellectual Creativity and Consumer

Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, ed., Richard J. Lutz, Provo,

UT: Association for Consumer Research: 433-435.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1991), "Presidential Address: Secular Mortality and the Dark

Side of Consumer Research: Or How Semiotics Saved my Life,” Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 18, ed. Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon,

Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 1-4.

50
Holbrook, Morris B. (1985) “Why Business is Bad for Consumer Research: The Three

Bears Revisited,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, ed., Morris B.

Holbrook and Elizabeth Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer

Research, 145-56.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1987), “What is Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 14 (June), 128-132.

Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New

York: Wiley.

Hutchinson, J. Wesley (2004), "Presidential Address: Are We the Good Guys?,”

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, ed. Barbara E. Kahn and Mary Frances

Luce, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 1-5.

Jacoby, Jacob (1976), “Consumer Research: Telling it Like it is,” Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 3, ed. Beverlee B. Anderson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for

Consumer Research, 1-11.

Kahn, Barbara (2007), “Presidential Address,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34,

ed. Gavan Fitzsimons and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer

Research.

Kassarjian, Harold H. and James R. Bettman (1982), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 9 (September), iv.

Kassarjian, Harold H. and James R. Bettman (1984), “Tenth Anniversary Editorial,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (March), v- vi.

51
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1986), “Consumer Research: Some Recollections and a

Commentary,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, ed. Richard J. Lutz,

Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 6-8.

Lehmann, Donald R. (1996), "Presidential Address: Knowledge Generalization and

Conventions in Consumer Research: A Study in Inconsistency,” Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 23, ed. Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., Provo,

UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1-5.

Leong, Siew Meng (1989), “A Citation Analysis of the Journal of Consumer Research,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 492-497.

Lutz, Richard J. (1988), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), iv.

Lutz, Richard J. (1989), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), vii-viii.

Lutz, Richard J. (1986), “From the Editor-Elect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13

(December), iv-v.

Lutz, Richard J. (1989), "Presidential Address: Positivism, Naturalism and Pluralism in

Consumer Research: Paradigms in Paradise,” Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1-

8.

MacInnis, Deborah J. (2005), “Them versus Us: Woes on the Bifurcation of the

Academic Marketing Discipline, Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 14-16.

Mason, Joseph Barry and Helen Goetz (1978), "The Problems, Pitfalls, and Opportunities

in Interdisciplinary Applied Consumer Research,” Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 5, ed. Kent Hunt, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research,

Pages: 734-737.

52
Mick, David Glen (2003), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), iii- x.

Mick, David Glen (2006), "Presidential Address: Meaning and Mattering Through

Transformative Consumer Research,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33,

ed. Cornelia Pechmann and Linda L. Price, Duluth, MN: Association for

Consumer Research, 1-4.

Monroe, Kent (1992a), “Editorial: On Replications in Consumer Research: Part I,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), iii-iv.

Monroe, Kent (1992b), “Editorial: On Replications in Consumer Research: Part II,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), iii-iv.

Monroe, Kent (1993), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), iii-v.

Monroe, Kent (1994), “Editorial,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), v-viii.

O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Russell W. Belk (1989), “Heaven and Earth: Consumption at

Heritage Village,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 227-236.

Olson, Jerry C. (1982), "Presidential Address -- 1981: Toward a Science of Consumer

Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, ed. Andrew Mitchell, Ann

Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, v-x.

Ozanne, Julie L. and Laurel Anderson Hudson (1989), “Exploring Diversity in Consumer

Research,” Interpretive Consumer Research, Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research, 1-9.

Pratt, Robert W. Jr. (1974), "ACR: A Perspective,” Advances in Consumer Research Vol.

1, ed. Scott Ward and Peter Wright, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer

Research, 1-8.

53
Richins, Marsha L. (2001), "Presidential Address: Consumer Behavior as a Social

Science,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, ed. Mary C. Gilly and Joan

Meyers-Levy, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 1-5.

Robertson, Thomas S. and Harold H. Kassarjian (1991), Handbook of Consumer

Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rossiter, John R. (1989), “Consumer Research and Marketing Science,” Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research 407-413.

Shaw, Eric H. and D. G. Brian Jones (2005), “A History of Schools of Marketing

Thought,” Marketing Theory, 5 (3), 239-281.

Sheth, Jagdish N. (1982), "Consumer Behavior: Surpluses & Shortages,” Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 9, ed. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Arbor: Association for

Consumer Research, 13-16.

Sheth, Jagdish N. (1992), “Acrimony in the Ivory Tower: A Retrospective on Consumer

Research,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (4), 345-353.

Sheth, Jagdish N. and D. E. Garrett (1986), Marketing Theory: Classical and

Contemporary Readings, Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.

Shimp, Terence A. (1994), "Presidential Address: Academic Appalachia and the

Discipline of Consumer Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, ed.

Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer

Research, 1-7.

54
Simonson, Itamar, Ziv Carmon, Ravi Dhar, Aimee Drolet and Stephen Nowlis (2001),

“Consumer Research: In Search of Identity,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

249-275.

Sternthal, Brian and Gerald Zaltman (1974), “Broadening the Concept of Consumer

Behavior,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, ed. Scott Ward and Peter

Wright, Association for Consumer Research, 488-496.

Wilkie, William L. (1981), "Presidential Address: 1980,” Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer

Research, 1-5.

Wilkie, William and Elizabeth Moore (2003), “Scholarly Research in Marketing:

Exploring the Four Eras of Thought Development,” Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 22 (Fall), 116-146.

Zaltman, Gerald (2000), “Consumer Researchers: Take a Hike!,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 26 (March), 423-428.

55
 TABLE 1
MODELS OF “CONSUMER BEHAVIOR”

Model Name and How Is Consumer Is Consumer Is Consumer Behavior To Whom Should
Metaphor Behavior Defined? Behavior a Interdisciplinary? Consumer Research be
Unique Relevant?
Discipline?

Behavioral Consumer
Marketing (slice of pie)
Model;
See figure 1)
Limited to end users No- it is a sub- To the extent that Marketing academics;
in an economic domain of behavioral marketing Marketing practitioners;
marketplace/ marketing academics use behavioral policy makers
consumption disciplines to understand
what makes consumer
behavior different from
general human behavior

Customer Marketing Same as above but No- it is a sub- Same as above Marketing academics;
(matrix) Model; includes end users, domain of Marketing practitioners;
See figure 2) B2B, government marketing policy makers
and NGOs

Intra-disciplinary (silo) Loosely to include No - it is a sub- No Emphasis depends on the discipline;

Model each discipline's domain of In Marketing, primary audience is
See figure 3) idiosyncratic multiple marketing academics,
definition disciplines (see practitioners
table 2) and public policy makers

Interdisciplinary Model (the Limited to consumer- Yes Yes Academics from multiple disciplines
hub and spokes metaphor; focused who share an interest in the same
See figure 4) phenomenon uniquely consumer-focused phenomenon

Multidisciplinary Limited to consumer- Yes The field may be Academics from multiple disciplines
(onion) Model; focused interdisciplinary, but who share an interest in
See figure 5 phenomenon researchers are not; consumers from a particular
Emphasizes specialization level of analysis

General Behavior (mirror)
Model; See figure 6
Loosely, because Perhaps, but it is Yes to the extent that Academics interested in general
consumer more relevant as research in applied human behaviors (emotions, memory,
behavior = human a context in disciplines replicate work choice, impression management)
behavior which human found in base disciplines on in which consumer behavior
behavior is the construct of interest could be a context)
revealed

56
 TABLE 2

ACADEMIC JOURNALS WITH "CONSUMER" IN THE TITLE

________________________________________________________________________________________

Journal____________________________Disciplinary Orientation____________________Inaugural Issue

J. of Family & Cons. Sciences Am. Ass. of Family and Consumer Sciences 1909

J. of Cons. Affairs Am. Council on Cons. Interests 1967

Family & Cons. Sciences Research J. Nat. Ass. Of Teacher Educators for
Family and Cons. Sciences 1972

J. of Cons. Research Interdisciplinary (12 sponsoring organizations) 1974

J. of Cons. Policy Law, economics and behavioral sciences 1977

Int. J. of Cons. Studies Consumer science, policy and education 1977

J. of Family & Cons. Sciences Education Family and consumer sciences education 1982

J. of Cons. Marketing Marketing 1983

J. of International Cons. Marketing Marketing 1988

J. of Cons. Psychology Society for Consumer Psychology 1992

J. of Retailing & Cons. Services Interdisciplinary 1994

J. of Cons. Behavior Multidisciplinary - social sciences 2001

J. of Cons. Culture Interdisciplinary - social sciences and humanities 2001

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

57
 TABLE 3:
SAMPLE OF ARTICLES FOUND IN ELECTRONIC DATA BASES THE USE "CONSUMER" IN THE ARTICLE TITLE
OR ABSTRACT (BY DISCIPLINE)*

Number
Number
Percentage of
Discipline of Representative Journals Sample Topics
of Total journals
articles
Identified

consumer attitudes; consumer choice;

Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing consumer perceptions; willingness to pay;
Marketing 13467 40.8% Research, Journal of Advertising, Marketing 37 consumer satisfaction; consumer
Science, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing emotions; consumer experiences;
consumer preferences
Consumer consumer attitudes; consumer choice;
Behavior Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of consumer memory; consumer inferences;
(defined by Consumer Affairs, Journal of Family and consumer self-control; consumer
5432 16.4% 16
journals with Consumer Sciences, Journal of Consumer emotions; consumer expectations;
"consumer" in Psychology symbolic consumption; consumption
the journal title) meanings

drug advertising/promotion; food

consumption; obesity; drug consumption;
New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the alcohol consumption; consumer safety;
Health and
4312 13.1% American Medical Association, Food Protection, > 150 consumer trust; compliance; consumer
Medicine
American Journal of Medical Quality privacy; medical decision making;
consumer risk perceptions; consumer
satisfaction

consumer demand; consumer prosperity;

American Economic Review, Applied
consumer prices; consumer purchase
Economics 3259 9.9% Economics, Rand Journal of Economics, Review 56
incentives; consumers' valuations of
of Economics and Statistics
goods; consumers contract

consumer product use; consumer fraud;

Food and Drug Law Journal, Banking Law
direct to consumer advertising; consumer
Law 1360 4.1% Journal, American Business Law Journal, 35
protection; consumer sales practices act;
International Financial Law Review
consumers' rights; consumer advocacy

58
 consumer risk perceptions; consumer
Psychology and Marketing, The Journal of preferences; consumer emotions;
Psychology 1300 3.9% Psychology, Journal of Economic Psychology, 26 consumer choice; consumer conformity;
Journal of Applied Psychology consumer decision making; consumer
perceptions

consumer needs; consumer perceptions;

Harvard Business Review, Management word of mouth; consumer products;
Management 1175 3.6% Science, International Journal of Industrial 17 consumer empowerment; consumer
Organization, Sloan Management Review satisfaction; consumer attention;
consumer trends; consumer resistance

direct to consumer advertising; energy

The Journal of Policy, Energy Policy, consumption; consumer screening; food
Policy 860 2.6% Telecommunications Policy, Policy Studies 9 advertising and obesity; video game
Journal usage; price perceptions; meaning of
money

ad meaning; consumer trust; consumer

Journal of Communication, Public Opinion
media usage; consumer nationalism and
Communication 495 1.5% Quarterly, Journalism and Mass Communication 17
political symbolism; consumer opinions;
Quarterly, Journal of Media Economics
consumer communities

consumer health care options; cosmetics

Journal of American History, Business History and beauty perceptions; consumer
History 351 1.1% Review, American Historical Review, Journal of 16 culture; consumer perceptions of
Social History masculinity; consumers' display of
domestic interiors; consumption meanings

purchase decisions; consumer

Public Finance Quarterly, Journal of Banking expectations; consumer credit; consumer
Finance 319 1.0% and Finance, Journal of International Money and 22 finances; consumer confidence; consumer
Finance, Strategic Finance advocacy groups; consumer rebates;
consumer litigation; consumer protection

consumer confidence; consumer

Journal of Political Economy, Public Choice, regulation; consumer culture; consumer
Political
274 1.0% Annals of the Academy of Political and Social 7 power; consumer safety; consumer
Science
Science welfare; consumer tastes; consumerism;
consumer perceptions

59
 symbolic consumption; brand
American Journal of Sociology, American communities; consumer culture; children
Sociology 249 0.8% Journal of Economics and Sociology, British 19 as consumers; ethnic consumption;
Journal of Sociology, Sociology consumer networks; social class and
consumption; consumer society

Human Ecology, Journal of Popular Culture, consumerism; brand images; consumer

Anthropology
183 0.6% Technology and Culture, Media, Culture and 20 culture; product perceptions; product
and Culture
Society consumption; product commodification
33036 100.1%

Table 2b is designed to illustrate the simple point that the study of consumers is not isolated to the marketing discipline. The data are based on an
electronic search of academic journal articles that contained the word “consumer” in the article’s title or abstract. We aggregated the number of
articles within a specific journal and classified the journals by discipline. This scheme allowed us to determine the number of journals and the
number of articles in journals that fit a given discipline. The absolute number of articles identified likely under-represents accumulated research on
consumers since in many cases online access did not completely cover the number of years of the journal’s existence. May also under-represent
contributions in fields where publications more commonly appear in books vs. academic journal articles (e.g., history, sociology, literature).
Caution should be used when interpreting the percentages of articles across disciplines since (a) electronic access is not consistent across the
disciplines, (b) our search focused on the term “consumer” as opposed to potential synonyms for consumers (e.g., “buyers”, “investors”,
“members”, “guests”, “voters”, “patients”, “clients”, “donors”, or “patrons”, (c) we do not claim to have done an exhaustive search for journals-
hence it is possible that relevant journals have been omitted given the databases from which we were able to search, (d) journals of relevance to
multiple disciplines (e.g., “Journal of Competition, Law and Economics”) were assigned to only one discipline, and (e) some journals (e.g., the
Journal of Marketing) have been in existence for a substantially longer period of time than others (e.g., JCR). This fact explains why Table 2b finds
more research on consumer behavior in the marketing discipline than in the field of consumer behavior.

60
 FIGURE 1

BEHAVIORAL CONSUMER MARKETING (SLICE OF PIE) MODEL

Marketing
Models

Consumer
Behavior

Marketing
Strategy

61
 FIGURE 2

CUSTOMER MARKETING (MATRIX) MODEL

Entity Studied
Customers Firms/Managers

Behavioral

Methodological
MARKETING
Approach
Quantitative

Customer Behavior (e.g.,

stockpiling; adoption;
advertising response;
willingness to pay; brand
loyalty)

62
 FIGURE 3

THE INTRA-DISCIPLINARY (SILO) MODEL

Marketing Economics Psychology Finance Medicine Pol. Sci. History

Anthropology

Customer Consumer Consumer Consumer Investment Patient Voter Consumption

Behavior Economics Psychology Culture Decisions Behavior behavior History

63
 FIGURE 4

THE INTERDISCIPLINARY (HUB AND SPOKES) MODEL

Anthropological Economic
Psychological

Consumer Behavior
Phenomenon
Communications (Consummation) Marketing
(e.g., Materialism;
Gift Giving, Price Sensitivity)

Literary Historical
Sociological

64
 FIGURE 5

THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY (ONION) MODEL

Historical

Anthropological

Sociological/Geographical
Economic
FIGURE 6

Psychological
THE HUMAN BEHAVIOR (MIRROR) MODEL

Neurological

65
 FIGURE 6

THE HUMAN BEHAVIOR (MIRROR) MODEL

Dimension of Human Behavior

(e.g., choice, attitudes)

Choice of Choice of Choice of Choice of Choice of

Products Candidates Time Partner Job

66