Question
(a) Describe explanations and examples of compensatory, non-compensatory and partially compensatory strategies of consumer decision-making. [6]
(b) Evaluate explanations and examples of compensatory, non-compensatory and partially compensatory strategies of consumer decision-making, including a discussion of application to everyday life.
Evaluation in your answer can include strengths, weaknesses and a discussion of issues and debates. [10]
Section C: Health Psychology
Answer all questions.
Mark scheme
8(a) Describe explanations and examples of compensatory, non -compensatory and 6 Annotations:
partially compensatory strategies of consumer decision -making. Add the levels to get the mark
awarded e.g. NAQ and L2 = 2
Use Table A: AO1 Knowledge and understanding to mark candidate responses to this marks, L1 and L2 = 3 marks,
question. L1 and L3 = 4 marks, L3 and
L3 = 6 marks
There are a number of possible consumer decision-making strategies that can be used by
consumers. Consumers may vary between strategies, depending on the purchase and the Plus, overall level at the
individual. bottom of the response as
follows:
Compensatory 1 or 2 marks = L1
A customer will allow the value of one attribute to compensate for another. For example, 3 or 4 marks = L2
when buying a new car, the preferred model may compensate for a high mileage. 5 or 6 marks = L3
Richarme (2005) described two compensatory strategies:
• Equal weight strategy, where attributes are seen as being equally important (model
of car and mileage are equally important). Mark compensatory/partially
• Weighted additive strategy, where some attributes are more important e.g., valuing compensatory with one level
the low mileage much more highly than the make or model. AND
Non-compensatory with
Non-compensatory second level.
Each attribute is evaluated individually (rather than one compensating for another). So,
when buying a new car, even if it was a good price, the ideal model, and had a low To achieve full marks must
mileage, it would be immediately rejected if it was not the correct colour. Simon su ggests cover all 3.
three non-compensatory strategies:
• Satisficing – the first product to meet the basic requirements is chose and no further Can credit details of the
consideration takes place e.g., if a new essential but basic item is needed, we might Jedestski et al. study for
simply buy the first one seen. compensatory/non-
• Elimination by aspects – this sets a ‘cut-off’ value for the most important attribute compensatory level.
and allows everything that meets that attribute to remain under consideration. These
remaining items are assessed against the next attribute and so on. For example, when
buying a washing machine, you might decide on the minimum capacity so anything of
at least that capacity is considered, then you might consider another factor, such as
choice of washing programs, for the remaining washing machines.
8(a) • Lexigraphic – the most important attribute is evaluated and if one item is considered
superior in terms of this attribute, this immediately stops the decision-making process,
and the item is chosen. If one item does not emerge as best on the most important
attribute, then consideration moves to the next attribute etc. For example, you need to
buy a washing machine but have a large family so you will get the washing machine
with the biggest capacity, and won’t consider other factors.
Partially compensatory
These are a middle group between compensatory and non-compensatory strategies. Two
examples are:
• Majority of conforming dimensions – this strategy involves evaluating two products
against all relevant attributes and keeping the one that does best. This one is then
compared to the next product and so on until there is only one product left. For
example, you might look at two washing machines and compare them on price, and
disregard the more expensive one, then compare the cheaper one with another
washing machine and so on.
• Frequency of good and bad features – all products are compared to the appropriate
cut-off values and the product that has the most positive features exceeding the cut-off
values will be chosen. For example, comparing all washing machines on important
factors, such as capacity, efficiency and price, and choosing the one that seems best
across all factors.
Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
8(b) Evaluate explanations and examples of compensatory, non -compensatory and 10 For each evaluation
partially compensatory strategies of consumer decision -making, including a point/issue/strength/weakness
discussion of application to everyday life. /paragraph assess each and
record level on left hand side.
Use Table B: AO3 Analysis and evaluation to mark candidate responses to this question.
Use AN for analysis and
A range of issues could be used for evaluation. These include: CONT for specific detail.
• Named issue – application to everyday life – These strategies all lend themselves Overall level awarded
well to everyday life examples and can be considered of practical value. underneath the candidate’s
– Application to everyday life must be evaluative and not descriptive. Giving an response as follows – ‘best fit’
example of one of the strategies using a product that customers purchase (e.g. from individual points e.g. if all
laptop, iPhone, BMW car) is descriptive. L2 award L2 regardless of
– Practical applications are creditworthy – if a company can identify which strategy how many, e.g. 6 L2 = 4
most of their customers use, they can design their website to accommodate this marks.
e.g. if compensatory allow customers to select different models of a product and
see a comparison of the feature where they differ and where they are the same. If 1 L4 and 2 L3 award L4 (but
– However, it would be difficult to generalise as to whether the same customers use give 7 rather than 8 marks).
the same strategies all the time, or for only certain types of items (large,
expensive purchases as opposed to small less important items). Are customers If only 2 points but different
consistent in their use of strategies? What happens if purchase decisions are levels not usually sufficient for
made alone as opposed to jointly e.g., buying a family car. the higher level overall,
e.g. 1 L1 and 1 L2 = L1 (2
• Cultural differences – In some cultures there may be far more choices available marks).
compared to others. With fewer choices of items to purchase, this would compromise e.g. 1 L2 and 1 L3 = L2 (4
the types of strategies available to consumers. Levels of affluence within a community marks).
could also be factors. In some less affluent cultures, different decision-making could
be involved in purchasing food items than in others.
• Reductionism versus holism – Making decisions are clearly quite complex
procedures. It can be helpful to reduce decision-making to a variety of classifications
but in doing so this may be losing the human and more whimsical aspects of everyday
life.
8(b) • Determinism versus free-will – Having theories that are deterministic can be
extremely helpful as it does allow predictions to be made. This could be helpful for
sellers of, for example, washing machines or computers to know that people will tend
to use certain predictable strategies. However, in decision-making there must be
aspects that are less predictable and open to free-will.
• Idiographic versus nomothetic – All of the strategies for decision-making seem to
be geared towards establishing general laws and are thus nomothetic. This same
decision making could be explored idiographically by getting a consumer to explain
their choices to an interviewer.
Additional issues candidates may include
• Generalisations
• Individual versus situational
Other appropriate responses should also be credited.