The power and limitations of social relational framing for understanding consumer decision processes

The normative multiattribute utility model is not a good predictor of decision processes if con-sumers are reluctant to make difficult trade-offs, if they are averse to using a single metric (e.g., price or utility) to align noncomparable alternatives, and if there is a desire to take into account the identity of the actors involved (McGraw & Tetlock, 2005). Prescriptively, there may be some decision contexts (e.g., high-consequence consumer decisions) where such nonnormative behaviors are not in the best interest of the decision makers. Methods to encourage more nor-mative decisionmaking are outlined including: (a) decision context mechanisms (e.g., the set-ting of default options or reference prices, the provision of an acceptable framing of the deci-sion, or alternative response measures) and (b) consumer-based mechanisms (e.g., recommending the use of an agent, providing coping mechanisms, or providing social cues of acceptability). Most consumer psychologists would agree that the normative model for rational decision making is the multiattribute utility theory or expected utility theory (Keeney & Raiffa, 1976) model that is based on compensatory decision rules. Compen-satory models allow trade-offs among attributes such that a good value on one attribute can make up for bad values on oth-ers. Many have argued that making trade-offs is a key compo-nent of rational decision making (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998). These prescriptive models have been used for all kinds of marketing and consumer decisions (Hauser & Urban, 1977