 The BDT Effect and Future: A Reply to John Lynch and Norbert SchwarzItamar Simonson
Research Papers from Stanford University, Graduate School of Business Abstract: Lynch and Schwarz offer different assessments of the "mission accomplished" conclusion and the summary of the manner in which BDT research tested well-established economics assumptions and offered an alternative view of decision making. By and large Lynch and I are in agreement regarding the effectiveness of the BDT research approach given its mission and audience; building on his own experiences, John reinforces the call to social psychology "immigrants" to contribute even more to emerging decision topics in consumer behavior. By contrast, Schwarz questions the value of the "mission," refers to the economics assumptions regarding decision making as a mere "strawman," and is critical of the BDT focus on effects instead of offering a coherent process theory of decision making. In the first section of this reply, I argue that (a) establishing robust effects first, typically followed by a study of moderators, processes, and rivals, was the most effective approach given the field's mission and audience, and (b) no single framework or theory can account for the many different ways in which the value maximization assumption is violated and decisions are made. Regarding the proposed research program to study the interactions between the evolving information environment and consumer judgment and choice, both Lynch and Schwarz offer alternative hypotheses with respect to key questions. In particular, they both disagree with the suggestion that the ability to easily access more and better information about quality and to make comparisons tends to produce better decisions and decrease the types of irrationality violations previously demonstrated by BDT researchers. They point in particular to information overload, the limitations of quality information, and the "echo chamber" characteristics of social media. There are also disagreements regarding other propositions pertaining, for example, to the role of brands and the need to rewrite large sections of the consumer behavior textbook. I discuss the important issues raised by Lynch and Schwarz and the factors that moderate the overall impact of the information environment. As our exchange demonstrates, this is a rich and important area that offers BDT and other researchers a wide range of topics and competing predictions that can be addressed in future research. We have two outstanding commentators, John Lynch (hereafter "Lynch") and Norbert Schwarz ("Schwarz"), both of whom are exceptional researchers who have made numerous important contributions. Their comments in this case are very different. I am in agreement with Lynch on most issues, especially as they relate to the record and characteristics of BDT research as well as a decision facing consumer BDT researchers. In the second part, we make some different predictions regarding the impact of the evolving information environment on consumer decision making. Lynch, who joined the marketing field from social psychology about 35 years ago, also shares his perspective on the call to social psychologists who have joined the marketing field over the past 15 years to contribute even more to the proposed consumer-centric research areas. Unlike the Lynch comment, the Schwarz critique of BDT research creates a sharp contrast between the "mission accomplished" recap presented in the main article and his view of the field's shortcomings. Schwarz's point of view regarding BDT has been shared and expressed for many years by some researchers within the consumer research community. Now that a key milestone in the BDT field lifecycle has been reached (as suggested in the main article), I am glad to have the opportunity to present my point of view regarding this critique as presented by Schwarz and like-minded researchers in the consumer behavior field. I hope not to make Lynch feel neglected, but I will focus in the first part of this reply on Schwarz's comments. Date: 2014-09 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecl:stabus:3163 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Research Papers from Stanford University, Graduate School of Business Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.