Multi Attribute Attitude Model

A consumer’s overall evaluation of a product most of the times accounts for the bulk of his or her attitude towards it (Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard & Hogg, 2006). They argue that a simple response does not always tell us everything that we need to know about why the consumer has certain feelings towards a product, nor does it tell us about what marketers can do to change the attitude of a consumer. For this reason, they assert that among marketing researchers, multi-attribute attitude models have been quite popular. Solomon (2011) concurs and asserts that because consumers attitudes are so complex, marketing researchers may use multi-attribute attitude models to understand them. Solomon et al. (2006) explain that this type of model assumes

He goes further to explain that in the theory of buyer behaviour, preferences are the predispositions toward the brands formed from past experiences upon which the buyer ranks the brands in the evoked set. This position is confirmed by Solomon et al. (2006) who note that the most influential multi-attribute model, the Fishbein model, measures three components of attitude. The first component, they explain, is salient beliefs people have about an attitude object. The second component is the object-attribute linkages, which refers to the probability that a particular object has an important attribute. The third component is evaluation of each of the important attributes. The model assumes that the consumer should have been able to specify adequately all the relevant attributes that he will use in evaluating his choice (Solomon et al., 2006). They add that the model also assumes that the consumer will go through the process of identifying a set of relevant attributes, weighing them and summing them. They posit that although this particular decision is likely to be highly involving, it is still possible that his attitude will be formed by an overall affective response. They assert that by combining these three elements, a consumer’s overall attitude towards an object can be

It incorporates both attitudes and subjective norms that people hold in predicting their future behaviour (Shrum, Liu, Nespoli, & Lowrey, 2012). They explain that the theory posits that the most proximal input into a behaviour is a person’s intention to engage in that behaviour. This, they note, implies that behaviour is intentional. In turn, behavioural intentions are determined by one’s attitude toward performing the behaviour or act and one’s beliefs about what important others think about one performing the behaviour. The weights for each component indicate that the relative weights for each component of behavioural intention will vary across people and situations. The preceding arguments are supported by Solomon (2011) and Solomon et al. (2006) who indicate that the original Fishbein model has been extended in a number of ways to improve its predictive ability. The first involves looking at intentions vs. behaviour in which they explain that many factors might interfere with actual behaviour, even if the consumer’s intentions are sincere. It is thus believed that in some instances past purchase behaviour has been found to be a better predictor of future behaviour than is a consumer’s behavioural intention (Solomon et al., 2006). They therefore explain that the theory of reasoned action aims to measure behavioural intentions, recognizing that certain uncontrollable factors hinder prediction of actual