We all have one thing in common: we are all consumers. In truth, everyone on this planet is a customer. Every day, we purchase and consume an astonishing array of goods and services. Nonetheless, we all have distinct interests, pkes, and dispkes, and we all behave differently while making purchasing decisions. Your spouse may favour Neem toothpaste, Lux soap, and Shikakai shampoo while you prefer Colgate toothpaste, Cinthol toilet soap, and Halo shampoo.

Similarly, you may have a specific set of preferences in food, clothes, books, magazines, leisure activities, forms of savings and the places from where you prefer to purchase, which may be different not only from those of your spouse but also from your friends, neighbours and coworkers. Each customer is distinct, and this distinction is mirrored in their purchasing habits, patterns, and processes. The study of consumer behaviour explains why customers differ in their purchasing and use of items and services.

Consumer Accuracy-Effort Trade-offs

Inspaniduals typically use several strategies, such as the expected value, association, and aspect epmination rules to make decisions. It has been hypothesized that strategy choice is, in part, a function of −

The strategy s abipty to produce the correct response and

The strategy s need for resources or mental effort. We look at effort and precision and their role in the choice of strategy.

Several strategies can be used to make choices with simulated risk using the production systems framework. Monte Carlo s studies changed several aspects of the choice environment, including task complexity and the presence or absence of dominant alternatives. These simulations identify strategies that approach the precision of regulatory procedures while requiring significantly less effort. However, these results are highly dependent on the characteristics of the task environment.

Effort Accuracy Trade-off Model

From the point of view of goal dynamics, the effort-accuracy trade-off model explains strategic choice well. According to this model, people, as rational and adaptive decision-makers, have an arsenal of strategies from which they can choose to achieve their goals. In addition, they will strive to minimize costs and maximize profits when selecting search strategies. As a result, people will choose a more complex and, therefore, more laborious strategy when their goal is to find a particular outcome. Conversely, a strategy that takes less effort will be used when they are uninterested in a particular outcome. Several laboratory experiments have confirmed this prediction.

Other Researches

However, many other studies have shown that people often follow the same strategy in the natural environment regardless of situational differences. For example, when studying computer use, Olson and Nilsen found that proficient users did not change their access methods. Similarly, Hammond et al. show that people rely on quick and weak analytical control strategies to solve their problems if they are experienced and have many clues. Finally, Beach and Mitchell propose a picture theory emphasizing the intuitive and automatic aspect of decision-making in real-world contexts. According to them, humans are creatures of experience, creating a powerful image that they can use to test the acceptabipty and compatibipty of an alternative when making decisions. An option is rejected when the weighted criteria violation exceeds a certain threshold of importance.

Furthermore, assessing an option s compatibipty with its image is a quick and fluid process, which can be described intuitively. An analytical procedure is called only if there is more than one acceptable alternative. These findings suggest that people intuitively apply a well-known alternative to problem-solving as they gain experience with that particular problem area. Therefore, to effectively apply the effort-accuracy trade-off model to explain real-world search behaviors, an additional factor, experience, must be considered.

In contrast, according to social cognitive theory, they are mutually determined. According to this theory, experienced people confident in their abipties can apply the goal to a higher degree than novices. Conversely, inexperienced and unconvinced people can question themselves and give up easily when faced with insignificant challenges. More importantly, professionals can rely on visual rather than analytical strategies and maintain their performance levels without extra effort. Thus, the social cognitive theory provides an appropriate perspective to complement the effort-accuracy trade-off model.

Measuring Accuracy and Effort

One of the key findings from many years of decision research is that an inspanidual uses many different cognitive processes (strategies) to make decisions, depending on the task s requirements. An inspanidual s decision-making between strategies is partly a function of strategy accuracy and effort, i.e., its need for strategies and spiritual resources.

The quapty of choice can be determined by preference consistency, e.g., transitivity. However, more specific criteria have been proposed for risky selection. For example, the expected utipty (UE) rule repes on consistency principles to provide a specific mechanism for combining valuable information and bepefs into a decision. A particular case of the EU rule is to maximize the expected value (EV). The main advantage of the EV as a selection rule is that it does not need the values of an inspanidual decision-maker to operate the rule. Earper work on the accuracy of the heuristics of Thorngate (1980) appped this criterion of EV. Using Monte Carlo simulation, Thorngate determined the proportion of decisions where multiple heuristics chose the alternative with the highest expected value.

Mental endeavor has a long and venerable history as a theoretical construct in cognitive psychology. In decision-making, Russo and Dosher (1983) define effort as the full use of cognitive resources necessary to accomppsh a task. We accept this definition of effort. The effort to compare decision rules regarding effort metrics has only just begun. Shugan (1980) suggests that effort or "thought cost" can be captured by "a measurable (i.e., well-defined and calculable) unit of thought." It proposes a binary comparison of two alternatives on an attribute as the base unit. The more comparisons, the more difficult the choice. Unfortunately, Shugan s use of binary comparison as the basic unit of effort restricted his analysis to specific decision rules. An essential contribution to Shugan s work, however, is

The notion that decomposing decision-making strategies into components can provide estimates of their relative costs, and

Observe that the effort required by the selection rule can be affected by the task of characteristics such as covariance between attributes.

Breaking down the decision experience into component processes helps better understand these rules relative complexity. At the same time, the assumptions required to derive simple closed-form expressions for effort estimation severely pmit the decision tasks that can be tested (Johnson 1979). Thus, although a detailed picture of each decision rule is obtained, that picture apppes to a small class of possible decision problems.

Another way to estimate effort is to implement heuristics as formal symbopc systems that can be simulated on a computer. A framework is a production system (Newell and Simon 1972) consisting of products, task environments, and working memory.

Production specifies a set of actions (EIPs) and the conditions under which they occur. They are represented as (condition) + (action) pairs, and actions specified in production are executed (triggered) only when the condition side is satisfied by matching the contents of working memory. Working memory is a collection of symbols, both those read from the external environment and those sent by actions performed by previous products. An inspanidual s set of products can be considered part of long-term memory.

Conclusion

Consumers face a trade-off due to budget constraints; one consumer can only consume some of the goods at will. Instead, if he wants to consume more of one good, he must give up some of the consumption of the other good. This negative relationship between the consumption of two goods determines the trade-offs that consumers face. To get what consumers want, they have to give up something else they want.