GB534 Unit 10 Consumer Behavior Report Example

Explaining One $721.65 Stroller Well Enough to Forecast a Different One: A Unit 10 Consumer Behavior Report

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB534: Consumer Behavior

Unit 10 Consumer Behavior Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The couple, the stroller brand and every date and figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and sources cited are real.

Executive Summary

The couple bought Front Range Strollers' full-size model because it best served their strongest motive, protecting the baby on rough suburban sidewalks, while passing the partner's test of fitting the car. Their beliefs about trunk fit and ride, shaped by the expectant parent's sister and confirmed in the store, gave the stroller the best attitude score among options they could afford. The decision was made on day 29 and the purchase delayed twelve days for a registry discount. Six weeks of ownership confirmed the ride but revealed frustration with weight.

Under three counterfactuals, the explanation predicts a compact stroller for a car-free couple, a different full-size brand if trunk dimensions had been unclear, and the same purchase without the discount but sooner. For a second child, it predicts a compact.

The Purchase Narrative

Day 1: the expectant parent opens a registry checklist. Days 2 to 20: reviews, videos, a store demonstration on day 9 and the sister's recommendation on day 14. Days 15 to 29: a shortlist of three; on day 26 the partner tests trunk fit and eliminates one. Day 29: the $849 model is chosen and added to the registry. Days 30 to 41: waiting for the 15 percent completion discount. Day 41: bought online for $721.65. Weeks 1 to 6 of ownership: daily walks on cracked sidewalks; the baby sleeps on walks; lifting the stroller into the car becomes the partner's job and a recurring complaint.

Analysis

# Motivation

Laddering interviews in Unit 3 found that most buyers of this stroller linked its tires and sturdy frame to protecting the baby, while rejectors linked its weight to a loss of freedom. Gutman (1982) explains products as means to valued ends. For this couple, protection dominated because they drove and lived among rough sidewalks; freedom mattered less because the stroller rarely had to be carried far.

# Perception

The couple judged weight by lifting, and the perception study in Unit 4 showed that parents cannot feel small weight differences. The stroller's 27.4 pounds were noticeable, but the trunk fit was the perceived attribute that mattered, and the partner judged it directly.

# Attitude

In the Fishbein model, attitude is the sum of beliefs times evaluations (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Trunk fit was the most valued attribute for parents generally, and for this couple the partner's test raised their belief about Front Range's trunk fit above what most parents held, closing the gap with the more expensive European model, which they ruled out on price.

# Reference Groups

The sister acted as the strongest informational influence, as Bearden and Etzel (1982) would predict for a publicly used product. The partner acted as a co-decider with a veto, a household influence the multiattribute model alone does not capture.

# Decision Process and Post-Purchase

The decision followed an extended process ending well before the transaction. Post-purchase, the ride met expectations and the weight disappointed, a partial disconfirmation of expectations that left the couple satisfied overall but aware of a trade-off (Oliver, 1980).

Each framework explains one part of the purchase; together they explain why this couple, in this city, with this car, bought this stroller and not the others they considered.

Tension Among the Five Lenses

On one point the lenses pull apart. The attitude model, using average parents' beliefs, ranks the European stroller first; motivation and reference groups explain why this couple did not choose it. Price is the missing link: the European model's $1,199 price put it beyond what the couple would spend, so the attitude ranking described preference but not choice. Ajzen's later work on perceived control, mentioned in Unit 5, helps here, but the clearer point is that an attitude score must be read alongside the budget the household actually has. The frameworks combine best when each is asked the question it answers: motivation explains what the couple wanted, perception and attitude explain how they judged the options, reference groups explain whose judgments counted, and the decision process explains when the choice was made.

What the Couple Got Wrong

The couple underestimated how often the stroller would be lifted. They tested trunk fit once, in a store, and did not imagine doing it twice a day with a baby in one arm. That gap between a one-time test and repeated use is the source of the post-purchase frustration, and it suggests a demonstration the brand could add: lifting the folded stroller into a trunk while holding a weighted doll.

Counterfactual Tests

If the couple had been car-free and lived near light rail. Motivation would shift toward freedom, the perception of weight would dominate, and the partner's trunk test would not occur. The explanation predicts a compact stroller, which matches the pattern among rejectors in Unit 3.

If Front Range's folded dimensions had been unclear in the store. The partner's trunk test might have produced doubt rather than confirmation, lowering the trunk-fit belief. The explanation predicts the European model if affordable, otherwise the big-box system. This is the brand's most avoidable loss.

If there had been no registry discount. The explanation predicts the same choice made on day 29 and bought soon after, since the decision did not depend on the discount, only its timing.

Forecast: A Second Child

For a second child, the couple's motives change. The first stroller will still exist, protection will be partly satisfied, and the frustration with weight will be remembered. Hoyer et al. (2018) note that experience creates stored decision rules that shorten later decisions. The explanation predicts a quick purchase of a light compact with a one-hand fold, made with little search, exactly the pattern observed in the fourteen-minute purchase in Unit 1.

Implications for the Brand

Show trunk fit clearly at the point of purchase. Speak to partners as co-deciders. Address weight frustration in the first weeks of ownership, perhaps with lifting tips or a carry strap. And treat first-child buyers as future compact buyers, inviting them back with a second-child offer.

Limits

The explanation is built from one couple and composite research. It explains the purchase well after the fact; whether it would have predicted the purchase before day 1 is less certain. The counterfactuals test the explanation's internal logic, not its accuracy across buyers.

References

Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1086/208911

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600207

Hoyer, W. D., MacInnis, D. J., & Pieters, R. (2018). Consumer behavior (7th ed.). Cengage.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405