The Role of Rationalization

in Consumer Decision Processes:

A Revisionist Approachto
Consumer Behavior*
Rom J. Markin, D.B.A.
Washington State University

INTRODUCTION

Consumer Behavior theory, evolving from the mother science discipline

of economics with its rigid adherence to marginal utility theory and the
ritualistic assumptions pertaining to the rational consumer, has proposed a
rational consumer who strives to maximize utility or satisfaction by the
careful rationing of his resources. This rational consumer model is a kind
of roving, prowling computer, ever alert to the sound of falling prices, infi-
nitely familiar with all options and alternatives, seeking, and processing
vast amounts of information-all for the purpose of making rational deci-
sons, i.e., those which lead to utility maximization via high level cognitive-
reasoning processes.
Even though consumer behavior has largely moved beyond the frame-
work of economic analysis, toward a more social-psychological orienta-
tion, the relevant consumer model which shapes our analysis of consumer
decision processes is still that of the rational-utility maximizing consumer.
The position taken in this paper, however, is that what we mostly have are
not rational decisions but rationalizing consumers and that the psychological
process of rationalization can lead to either rational or irrational behavior.
Consumer behavioralists, like others, learn to love the things for which
they labor. And they have labored so long over the idea of a rational, cal-
9 Academy of Marketing Science, Journalofthe Academy of Marketing Science
Fall, 1979, Vol. 7, No. 4, 316-334
0092-0703/79/0704--031652.00
316
 MARKIN 317

culating, information processing consumer that they have come to "love"

this model and are loathe to consider other alternatives. We have irrational
voters, irrational people, and irrational advertising but in some minds, only
rational consumers. We must readily admit that the social or behavioral
sciences have yet to generate any meaningful or relevant external standard
for judging rational behavior; yet such judgements are made by socialogists,
psychologists and other behavioral scientists. Seldom, if ever, is this
problem attacked by consumer behaviorists, which leaves us in the uncom-
fortable and compromising position of saying, "all consumer behavior is
rational." Such allegedly rational behavior becomes a kind of norm or
standard which, like Pangloss's position in Voltaire's Candide, is "the best
of all possible things, in the best of all possible worlds." After all, who
among us wants to be the first to call consumer behavior or some part of
it, irrational? Furthermore, irrational behavior does not fit our scientific
presuppositions. The notion of irrational or even rationalizing behavior
runs counter to the scientific community's general assumption of progres-
sively increasing rationality as an automatic evolutionary process. Most
scientists, even behavioral scientists in some instances, want to believe that
society has moved out of the non-rational world.
The thrust of this exploration, however, is not to tackle directly the
question of rational versus irrational behavior but to explore the more
legitimate and concomitantly more manageable psychological issues qf
how consumers rationalize their behavior. The scope and purpose of this
paper will therefore be concerned with the following:
(1) To review briefly the typical models and assumptions inherent in
consumer decision process models.
(2) To examine the relevant empirical evidence and relate this evidence
to the notion of the cognitive-rational consumer decision process
models.
(3) To develop the psychological concept of rationalization and exam-
ine the existential support for the concept.
(4) To introduce and explore the significance of transactional analysis
and attempt to show how the presence of alternative "ego states"
affects our decision processes, and
(5) Finally, based upon the psychological mechanism of alternative ego
states, to explore what might become the rudiments of a revisionist
approach to consumer behavior.
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION 1N CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
318 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

THE CONSUMER DECISION PROCESg"APPROACH

The literature of consumer behavior explicitly suggests that consumer

behavior should be studied, not as single choices, but as sequences of
choices or decisions (Nicosa 1966). These dccision processes are those
which precede the purchase and those which become the series of activities
necessary for an explanation of the final purchase. Almost all models of
consumer behavior are thus cast within the context of a decision process
approach. There are a number of common features to all these models.
Namely, they stress the important role of the individual's acquisition of
information and they describe and attempt to show a functional relation-
ship between information acquisition and processing and subsequent
behavior. The activities of information processing are reviewed as one con-
tinuous activity and it is further assumed that the process is composed of a
number of steps which occur in a time ordered and logical sequence. With-
out many exceptions, most decision process models deal with five differ-
ent steps in the decision process:
1. problem recognition and identification
2. information search
3. evaluation of alternatives
4. choice or commitment
5. post choice and commitment activities
Therefore, consumer behavior has been treated in terms of sequences of
behavioral activities. Implicit in these behavioral activities is the notion
that something is going on within the mind of the individual consumer. It
is this assumption which gives rise to the additional notion that we are
dealing with a cogniuve, and hence rational, consumer. This follows from
the presumption that the mental activity which accompanies the decision
choice processes is important and that cognitive e f f o r t - i . e . , high level
mentalistic phenomena such as reasoning, thinking, judging, comparing,
and so on, are taking place. It is for these reasons that almost all our
popular models in consumer behavior are labeled as cognitive models. And
furthermore it pegs the point as to why consumers are so frequently char-
acterized as rational because collectively consumers' behavioral responses
and choice processes are seen to consist not only of overt action but also
of unseen but nonetheless psychologically felt cognitive processes. It is
assumed that systematic changes in the cognitive structure, i.e., impres-
sions, attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitions occur as the decision pro-
ceeds. The consumer is viewed as one who initiates, responds, plans, and
 MARKIN 319

controls his own reactions to stimuli by virtue of his thinking, reasoning,

and cerebral capacity.
The basic or general models of consumer behavior, which in essense fall
into two categories, have arisen from this cognitive notion (Hansen 1972).
(1) One general class of models places the main emphasis on informa-
tion seeking and processing and thus stresses the utilitarian role of
information. These models are called information processing
models.
(2) The second general class of models places greater emphasis upon
the evaluation of alternatives as a necessary prerequisite to goal
attainment. Such models are labeled problem solving models.
Close examination of these two general categories, however, suggests
that the differences between the two may be more contrived than real.
Both models converge to the point where they emphasize the role of infor-
mation and they both imply that, by processing information, rational deci-
sions will be forthcoming. Furthermore, both classes of models put major
emphasis on the importance of information processing, high level cogni-
tive activitly, and they predict more or less complex decision processes
depending upon the specific nature of the consumer's circumstances or
problem orientation.
The evidence which we shall subsequently review leads us to assert that
the consumer decision process approach is normative! It describes a
desired ideal. It posits that consumers ought to behave that way. The
consumer decision process approach fits our classic notion of rationality,
consistency, transitivity, and utility maximation; but the model lacks one
all-important characteristic, relevance. This lack of relevance impairs its
validity as a true measure or index of behavior. All too frequently, what-
ever rationality exists in consumer behavior is that put there by the re-
searcher. Furthermore, there is an increasing contention that much con-
sumer behavior is not the result of consumer autonomy or freedom, but is
shaped and influenced by astute contingency management or control of
the environment. This behavior furthermore, is influenced more by such
emotional considerations as affect than by cognitive cerebral mechanisms
(Markin and Narayana 1975).
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
320 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR - T H E EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

There is a crushing amount of evidence available from diverse sources

which tends to support the above assertions. Surprisingly, much of this
evidence has not been synthesized and has been ignored so far as the con-
clusions concerning information processing and rationality are concerned.
Consumer behavioralists, unlike Prometheus, are loathe to attack the gods
of convention.
Empirical evidence strongly suggests that consumers:
1. Do not seek extensive amounts of information in relation to pur-
chase and consumption problems,
2. Do not process large amounts of information in relation to pur-
chase and consmnption problems,
3. Do not appear to engage in extensive problem solving behavior in
relation to big ticket or capital intensive items such as automobiles
and major appliances.

In an earlier study Machlup (1962) estimated that nearly one third o f

the G.N.P. in the United States is accounted for by the "knowledge pro-
duction" industry. We often generalize that information is knowledge but
such an assumption is likely specious. Because great amounts are expend-
ed to disseminate information does not mean that such information is
knowledge, or that consumers use such information in a cognitive or
rational manner. Often, information is generated to create affect or mood,
on the assumption that coercing moods tend to coerce will.
Other existing evidence also challenges the notion of an information
seeking or problem solving, cognitive-rational consumer. Kollat (1966)
proposes what he called a "customer-commitment hypothesis" which con-
tends that many customers are not problem solvers and therefore are not
extensive information processors because they are either unwilling or in
many instances unable to make the effort of completely spelling out their
purchase plans.
One should not argue that consumers are never rational; given certain
unique circumstances perhaps they are. For example, one researcher
(Bowen 1970) has shown that consumer-readers of advertisements are sen-
sitive to the rationality for a sales appeal only when a high involvement,
symbolically significant product is considered. Bucklin (1965)also found
that advertisements are more likely to be sought and evaluated when the
product is costly, is purchased infrequently, and the customer has no per-
ceived favorite store.
 MARKIN 321

It has been shown that there is a considerable lack of deliberation and

information processing even on such. big ticket items as durables including
houses, automobiles and major appliances (Ferber 1967). Consumer be-
havior is highly affected by cues or leading suggestions. To this extent
Cox's sorting rule model (1967) proposes that the probability that a con-
sumer will use a given "cue" in reaching a decision is, for the most part,
determined by the "cue's confidence value." What this basically distills
down to is the cue's capacity to indicate a clear choice between alterna-
tives-that is, the extent to which it amounts tc a discriminating attribute.
Surely if rational choices are ever to be found in consumer decision
making, it is likely to be in connection with such expensive commodities
as durable or consumer capital goods. Durable goods, one would expect,
ought to be purchased on the basis of price, income, and available financ-
ing-cognitive elements. Yet, style, color, odor, size, and other affective
criteria which are perceived as having high cue confidence value are usual-
ly the determining variables in such purchase situations.
If consumers do not seek and process much information in connection
with their purchase consumption experiences, neither are they to be view-
ed as empty receptacles for placing or receiving information. It has been
rather convincingly shown (Sears and Freedman 1967) that consumers
selectively expose themselves to information, and tend to see and hear
communications that are favorable or congenial to their predispositions
rather than neutral or hostile ones. This finding suggests that information
which is reinforcing or rewarding will be perceived and that the subject
will selectively expose himself to such information. Contrariwise, infor-
mation which fails to reinforce, is threatening or otherwise not rewarding,
will be avoided.
One's capacity and willingness tc seek and/or process information is a
function, in some instances, of certain behavioral predispositions or per-
sonality characteristics. Rokeach (1954; 1960) has researched the con-
cept of dogmatism or close-mindedness and concluded that certain i~divi-
duals have rigid and tightly held beliefs. This dogmatic state of mind
manifests itself in the subject's psychological field and impedes the accept-
ance of information that is contrary to the individual's sytem of beliefs.
Dogmatic consumers would therefore not be inclined to process the
information that is made available to them, but would be inclined to use
habitual behavior and to engage in abbreviated and telescoped decision
processes. All this tends to strengthen the notion of selective exposure. If
a new piece of information might weaken the existing structure of the con-
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
322 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

sumer's feelings and emotions, it will be shunned. If it reinforces the

structure, it will be sought out. This itself is much more of a behaviorist
concept than a cognitive one.
It is no surprise, either, than many advertisements contain no informa-
tion that could be pertinent to a rational decision. One researcher (Pres-
ton 1968) even calls advertisements "non-rational." Thus, it is not too
great a struggle to accept the idea that a great many consumer decisions
are made on a non-rational basis bv which is meant that potentially
available information is not used. We should point out, however, that
we have not overlooked the notion that information processing itself may
be non-rational. While Berlyne (1960) had pointed out that there is some
degree of conflict in any behavioral situation, it may not be enough to
arouse the consumer to seek and process information, given the cost o f the
activity. Seeking. processing, and evaluating information is not a free
activity, and too much passion for rationality can lead to irrational behav-
ior. Therefore, the purchase and consumption of goods should be delib-
erate and probably ought to involve the processing of adequate amounts
of information but the overly zealous pursuit of information and deliber-
ation could be both foolish and absurd.
Much behavior, consumer behavior in particular, might be explain-
ed in terms of what the French novelist Sarraute (1963) has called tro-
pisrnes. Tropismes are tire movements which cross consciousness very
rapidly everything that happens within us which is not spoken by the
interior monologue but is transmitted by sensation. What this suggests is
that most o f our behavior is spontaneous and somewhat i m p u l s i v e - n o t a
deliberate and well-reasoned cognitive reaction to problem situations, but
dictated more by passion, emotion and sensation. The preponderance of
research evidence leads to this basic conclusion (Chaffee and McLeod
1973).
The evidence suggests that consmners are to a great extent habit bound,
but that they modify habits and rationalize decisions in the interest of
novelty seeking and diversity (Venkatesan 1973). An important point to
consider, however, is that consumers rationalize their need or drive for
novelty and variety and often do not recognize either the need or the
behavior released to satisfy the need. On this background, we are led to
further suggest that the most common consumer decision processes are
most often behavioral sequences of greatly reduced complexity and the
rational-cognitive oriented choices are rare (Hansen 1972).
 MARKIN 323

THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION

The process of rationalization as an ego defense mechanism has been

universally recognized in the psychological literature. Yet the concept has
not been afforded much consideration in the field of consumer behavior.
Rationalization is a self-justification process. Camus, the French existen-
tial novelist and philosopher, asserted throughout his work (1955) that
much of man's behavior is self justification-a life long attempt to con-
vince himself and others that he is not absurd. Rationalization, in its
earlier, more Freudian oriented days, was considered an unconscious pro-
cess. However, more contemporary schools of thought are likely to relax
this restriction. In any event, rationalization is a process wherein ego-alien
thoughts, behavior, feelings, and motivations are justified or rationally
interpreted in an ego-syntonic way. In more strict psychological language,
a compromise is effected between primary and secondary processes, yield-
ing to the impulses or defenses (Coleman 1964). The result usually is a
justification acceptable to the total personality or the perceived self image
of the individual. In less formal terms, rationalization involves thinking up
logical, socially approved reasons for our past, present or proposed behavior.
Rationalization has at least two major defensive values: (1) it helps us
to justify what we do and what we believe, and (2) it aids us in softening
the disappointment connected with unattainable goals. The complexity
and subtlety of rationalization vary with what may be called the extent of
the necessary concealment, so that the greater the resistance the individual
shows to the acceptance of the given feeling, the more elaborate is the
mechanism whereby it is concealed from consciousness. Rationalization as
a psychological process is the major device whereby individuals attempt to
convince others that their behavior is guided largely by intellingent ration-
al processes. Everyone feels that as a rational creature he must be able to
give a connected, logical and continuous account of himself, his conduct
and his opinions, consequently all his mental processes are both uncon-
sciously and consciously revised to that end (Fay 1978).
With little effort, consumers can soon justify to themselves and others
the resolute necessity of purchasing a new car, opening a new account,
remodeling the old house, buying a new wardrobe, undergoing a surgical
face lift, or trying to secure a new personality and hence a new image.
All such behavior, and more, is justified or rationalized to protect one's
sense of adequacy-one's self image and self esteem.
In protecting themselves from the disappointment of unattainable
goals, consumers resort to two prevalent forms of rationalization-the so-
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DEGISION PROCESSES:
324 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

called "sour grapes" and "sweet lemon" mechanisms. The sour grapes
mechanism is based upon the fable of the fox who, unable to reach clus-
ters o f luscious grapes, decided that they were sc,ur and not worth having
anyway. A new automobile may thus not be perceived as desirable be-
cause it costs more than its worth, the insurance is too high priced, or the
consumer rationalizes that he did not shop long enough, seek much infor-
mation, or compare alternatives. Instead, in the interest of "saving time"
he bought the well known popular model.
The "sweet lemon" syndrome is in a sense an extension of the sour
grapes concept. Not only is the unattainable not worthwhile but what one
has already is remarkably satisfactory. The disadvantages of a new car are
obvious, one finds comfort in his poverty and satisfaction in his ignorance.
Such sweet lemon mechanisms are often associated with Pollyanna atti-
tudes so that everything is fine, each cloud has a silver lining and every-
thing happens for the best.
Consumers are taught to rationalize by complex shaping and socializa-
tion processes. A child soon learns to justify questionable behavior by
advancing reasons for it which he has learned are socially approved. Fur-
thermore, children and adults internalize the value attitudes of society and
follow the same procedure in justifying their behavior to themselves. In
this way rationalization becomes an important adjustive reaction in help-
ing us to avoid unnecessary frustrations and to maintain a reasonable
degree of self integrity in a dangerous a>d unstable world. The price of
this defensive reaction, however, is self deception, for we accept reasons
for our behavior which are not true ones. We characterize behavior re-
ported by consumers as rational, whereas the true reasons often lie hidden
beneath a facade of subterfuge and self-justificatory explanations.
Not only do consumers rationalize an enormous amount of their deci-
sions, they also avoid, with something approaching a compulsion, making
decisions-and they then rationalize this behavior. People in general, and
some consumers in particular, fear autonomy to the point of decidopho-
b i a - f e a r of deciding. Kaufman (1973) argues that people have such a
great fear o f making decisions that they create elaborate ruses or strata-
gems for not deciding. Such persons, however, do not fear all decisions.
Decidophobes, far from dreading meticulous decisions or distinctions, may
actually revel in them. For immersion in microscopic decisions is one way
of avoiding fateful decisions. The decidophobe has three basic behavioral
options, all of which involve a degree o f rationalization.
 MARKIN 325

1. He can avoid decisions.

2. He can stack the cards so that one alternative is clearly the right
one.
3. He can pass the buck and decline responsibility.
Furthermore, the decidophobe need not choose from among these op-
tions-he can combine them. For example, avoid if possible. If that does
not work, stack the cards, but in any case do not stand alone. Share the
misery and agony of decisions-get your wife, husband or friend to help or
to reinforce your choice.
The agony of decision making as well as rationalization is related to
cognitive dissonance. Dissonance occurs when a person holds two incon-
sistent cognitions such as bits of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, values, or atti-
tudes (Festinger 1957;Aransan 1969). Reducing dissonance is achieved in
great part through rationalization. The more a person is committed to a
course of action, the more resistant he will be to information that threat-
ens that course. When a consumer reduces dissonance, he defends his ego
and strives to maintain a positive self image. However, as we have stated,
such self justification can reach startling extremes. If consumers voluntar-
ily make a big effort or commitment that turns out sour, they are likely to
manifest considerable dissonance. After a decision, especially a difficult
one that involves much time, money, or effort, consumers almost always
experience dissonance. Consumers seek informaton to support the deci-
sions already made. For example, Mr. X. bought Brand A because he
thought it was the best, lowest priced, highest quality, better dealer-servic-
ed, and so f o r t h - t o admit otherwise would be to acknowledge one's ab-
surdity. Initial attitudes of two buyers may be only a hair's breadth apart.
However, once different choices are made, their attitudes and their
attempts to rationalize them diverge sharply. Behavior undertaken which
promises only a limited utilitarian payoff will be justified by internal rea-
sons. This form of rationalization is often found among consumers who
"like to shop." That is they receive intrinsic satisfaction from shopping
activities even though the utilitarian payoff from such shopping is often
not justifiable. They may justify or rationalize their behavior as fulfilling a
perceived role-that of the "good mother" or "devoted housewife" or they
argue that small gains on a number of items mount over time to significant
savings.
Consumers engage in extensive amounts of rationalizing behavior. What
is more, many studies of consumer decision processes give the consumer an
opportunity to rationalize his performance by listing factors which can
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
326 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

readily be offered as legitimate or rational reasons for buying or shopping.

In almost any instance, asking a consumer to give estimates or appraisals of
his behavior constitutes a threat and brings into play mechanisms to pro-
tect the self. These threatened individuals are therefore restricted in their
field of perceptions and thus do not perceive their world realistically.
Consumers have a self image and a part of this image consists of cognitions
or notions regarding their perceived role as consumers. Every customer
must ask himself this implicit question, "What is appropriate purchase,
consumption behavior?" Unfortunately our general notions about appro-
priate behavior are still tainted with puritan overtones and classical notions
of rationality. "Waste not, want not," "a fool and his money are soon
parted," "act in haste, repent in leisure," etc. Consumers responding to
these perceived values and expectations therefore rationalize their pur-
chase and consumption activities and the notion of rational, deliberate,
information processing consumer decision processes becomes something of
a self fulfilling prophecy.

TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS AND EGO STATES

Dissonance theory implicitly carries the message that man works to get
rewards. He strives to reduce dissonance, to achieve consonance because
consonance is rewarding and psychologically reinforcing. This is also the
basic message of transactional analysis; namely, that folks need strokes and
that they engage in self justificatory behavior because it is psychologically
satisfying and pleasing and because it tends to minimize one's absurdity.
The search for understanding concerning rationalizing behavior can be
found in part, within the context of transactional analysis. Transactional
analysis is a relatively new form of psychotherapy based upon, in turn, a
relatively new school of psychology (Berne 1961 ; 1964; Harris 1969). The
concept takes its name from the notion that the proper unit of psycholo-
gical analysis is the transaction. The transaction consists of a stimulus by
one person and a response by another, which response in turn becomes a
new stimulus to which the first person responds. This interaction be-
comes a kind of psychological exchange process whereby we give rein-
forcement or strokes in order to receive reinforcement or strokes. These
transactions are analyzed in order to discover which part of each p e r s o n -
parent, adult, child is originating each stimulus and response.
 MARKIN 327

A complete development of transactional analysis is beyond the scope

of this paper. However, some elementary ideas from transactional analysis
can be used to demonstrate effectively the concept of rationalization and
to undermine the notion of classic rationality.
Although the importance of feeling, mood, emotion, and general affect
in the molding of our judgements, beliefs, and conduct has for centuries
been recognized by poets and writers, academic psychology, until recently,
has usually allotted to it a very subordinate position in relation to what is
usually called cognitive intellectual processes. Transactional analysis,
taking major issue with this notion, asserts that man is not the smooth self-
acting agent he pretends to be but more realistically, is a creature only
dimly conscious of the various influences that mold his thoughts and ac-
tions. Furthermore, the transactional analysts contend that man blindly
resists with all the means at his command the forces that are making for a
higher and fuller consciousness, and that our behavior at any point in time
is affected by the relevant ego state which is in control. An ego state is a
coherent system of feelings and thoughts from which a person operates at
any given moment. There are three, of these states which Berne (1961)
calls child, parent and adult.
Each person begins at the child ego state which incorporates messages
from the environment into his own particular system of thought and feel-
ings. The child ego state is characterized as the felt concept of life. Deci-
sions are made on the basis of emotional-affective considerations and the
person in the child ego state is concerned with sense gratification and
hedonic considerations. The parent ego state is the taught concept of life.
Decisions are approached from the standpoint of "what ought one to
do?" Everything the person saw or heard his parents say and do is record-
ed in the parent ego state, as well as all the rules and admonitions uttered
by the parents. These rules and imperative oughts, representing a set of
ideal standards, become a sort of behavioral code of conduct to guide the
individual.
The adult ego state acts something like a computer. Even though it is
devoid of feelings of its own, feelings in the parent or child can activate it
to consider the variables of a situation and to promote or defer action.
The adult ego state can be thought of as the thought concept of life and it
is based upon data gathering and data processing.
Now the important point is, most models of consumers and consumer
decision processes are based upon the notion of persons who are operating
in the adult ego state. Hence, these models tend to stress rational behav-
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
328 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

ior, computer-like precision in the analysis of alternatives, and intensive

cerebral-cognitive emphasis on information seeking and information pro-
cessing. However, the transactionalists point out that by the time a per-
son is grown all three systems or ego states operate interchangeably and
often in rapid succession. Transactions with others and the events in daily
life can trigger switches from one ego state to another. Furthermore, the
transactionists contend that the child and parent ego state are more pre-
valent in the average person than is the adult ego state. Thus, the average
consumer is more likely to be child ego state or parent ego state oriented.
The child ego state says to the person, "go ahead," "why not reward your-
self," "go all the way toward total enjoyment," "you deserve a break to-
day." Indulgence and sense gratification are the hedonic essences of the
child ego. The parent ego state in the consumer would admonish the per-
son to "do what Dad or Mother would do," "be thrifty," "beware of over-
indulgence." The parent ego state is likely to be a collection of behavioral
recordings which echo older puritan themes of behavior. However, let us
point out that both the child ego state and the parent ego state do not
cause the individual to examine the facts of the situation. Nor do they
attribute a high degree of rational automony to the individual. To quote
an older saying, "What instructs hurts." It is painful to think, to reason,
to weigh, and consider alternatives. Basically, this is why persons operate
more frequently out of the child and parent ego states than from the adult
ego perspective. The following real dialogue from a transactional psycho-
therapy session (Berne 1961) dramatizes the significance of ego states in
consumer behavior.
Present, clockwise: Lazuli, Mrs. Y (observer), Spinel, Garnet, Esmeral-
da, Amber, Dr. Q (therapist).
Esmeralda: "Something that's been bothering me since Friday. I
bought a table, and when I got home I wasn't satisfied. I thought with
what I've learned here I should have been able to buy what I wanted to
buy instead of what the salesman wanted to sell me. The Adult knew
what she wanted but the Child just couldn't resist the salesman."
Q: "That's the salesman's job. He's a professional at by-passing the
Adult and appealing to the Child in the customer. If he weren't good at it
he wouldn't hold his job very long. If he is good, he learns every method
to get the Child to do what he wants."
Lazuli: ' T i n ashamed not to buy something after wasting their time."
Q: "Well, that weakness of your Child is one of the things that other
people can use to their advantage, as you know already. You people have
learned a lot here, and you're just going to have to use your knowledge
 MARKIN 329

more on the outside, and shopping is a good place to start. Nobody in this
group should be sold anything; you should all be able .to buy what you
want to buy. You're going to have to keep the Adult in control and realize
that the salesman is a trained professional trying to get to your Child. But
you also have to know your limitations. If you know that your Adult can
hold out against a salesman for only ten minutes, then at the end of ten
minutes, if you haven't made your mind up, you should walk right out of
the store rather than run the risk of letting your Child take over."

ALTERNATIVE EGO S T A T E S - A R E V I S I O N I S T A P P R O A C H
TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Astute marketing practitioners may have a better grasp of consumer

behavior than do c o n s u m e r behavior theoreticians. At least their model of
what constitutes a real consumer may be more relevant because they intui-
tively seem to recognize that many products are better promoted and
merchandised to the child ego state or the parent ego state than to the
Adult. Automobiles characteristically are promoted to a person's Child,
while insurance, savings, and investment plans are more often promoted to
the person's Parent. All this raises an intriguing question, "What ig the pre-
valant ego s t a t e which guides or motivates the purchase of various commo-
dities?" While the answer to this question is momentarily unavailable, it
nonetheless points the direction for important future research.
Marketing theoreticians are almost always disturbed and sometimes
even baffled when consumers do not conform to their own classical and
normative models of rationality. When they do not, their behavior is
characterized as manifesting psychological blocks (Gross 1974) or as being
unintelligent. For example, Rother and Benson (1974) in describing a
kind of ideal consumer ethic, state:
9 .the intelligent consumer needs information, choice, safe-
.

ty, recourse, and the capacity to decide. Intelligent con-

sumption also requires that the individual consumer's con-
sumption choices reflect his awareness of the critical social
problems of resources (scarcity) and environment (pollu-
tion). A pattern of intelligent consumption would result in
more rational consumption relative to resources and en-
vironment and woald retain a great deal of individual
choice and self selection for individual consumers.
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
330 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

The flaw in this logic again is that consumers as human being are not all
that intelligent or rational, and admonishing them to be so is not sufficient
to cause them to become such rational, aware creatures. Consumers, like
voters, have strong opinions but their views are based more on emotion
than knowledge. In a recent study (U.S. Office o f Education 1974) it was
discovered that two out of five persons in the age category 26-35 did not
know how presidential candidates are elected. Only 44 percent know how
to use a ballot correctly. Many could not name one of their own senators
or any of their own representatives. Consumers, too, are not well inform-
ed. For that matter, neither are they highly intelligent, rational informa-
tion processors. Mr. and Mrs. Middle Majority American Consumer may
well turn out to be a close approximation to Mr. and Mrs. Archie Bunker.
Thus a more relevant model o f the consumer would be one possessed of
more realistic attributes, attributes which acknowledge the frailty o f the
human condition and the presence of alternative ego states. This model
would admit to the emotional-affective nature o f the consumer. It would
characterize the consumer as mostly a rationalizer rather than strictly
rational. Consumers are not always rational; they cannot always deter-
mine a product's advantages; they do not always know what they need or
what is best for them; they cannot always even explain their true feelings
or reactions. Consumers all to frequently explain or rationalize their
behavior by giving socially acceptable reasons rather than what actually are
the real reasons for behavior. Why should this be so difficult for consumer
behaviorists to acknowledge: Freud recognized early on and subsequently
contended that man was not always controlled by his highest faculties
alone. This message is being widely disseminated now by the transactional
school of psychology and psychotherapy.
The position o f the transactionalist holds that if a large part of our be-
havior is shaped by past experiences, then also a large part of this past
behavior is recorded as a kind of script during childhood. And during
childhood one decides largely on the basis of emotional-affective, like-dis-
like responses. Child-script decisions are thus a form of primitive intellec-
tualism and as adults, the transactionalists contend that all o f us revert to
the child mode frequently when confronted with choice and decision
making responsibilities-under many conditions the adult is impaired to
the point where emotions take over inappropriately and decisions and
judgements become irrational and even unrealistic. If anything, what we
need badly to acknowledge is that a large portion of consumer behavior is
not cognitive or rational to begin with but rests, not in the higher reaches
of the intellect, but in the middle, back, and sides of the head, and in
 MARKIN 331

anxieties, hostilities, lusts, and frustrations which humans in general and

consumers in particular share with lower animals.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Throughout these pages we have attempted the studious examinations

of a critical issue in consumer behavior; namely, the issue of consumer
rationality. We have approached this task not from the perspective of
developing an external objective measurement of rationality but rather by
indirectly building the case for a rationalizing rather than a rational con-
sumer. Consumers are, no doubt, sometimes rational but they are indubi-
tiably not always rational. Furthermore, consumers, in their constant
desire not to appear absurd, do rationalize their decisions; they substitute
socially acceptable for real reasons; and they engage in extensive behavior
which is selfjustificatory.
Our ability to advance our theory and hence our understanding of con-
sumer behavior is impeded rather than enhanced by the prevalant model of
the rational consumer and the model of consumer decision processes
which emphasizes the sequential and reiterative nature of consumer deci-
sions, i.e., problem recognition, search, evaluation, decision, and post pur-
chase behavior. A diligent search of the literature leads one to conclude
that the rational consumer obsessed with seeking, searching, and informa-
tion processing activity is largely a normative rather than a positive model.
It lacks in realism but it does reflect the traditional scientific and historical
belief in classical rationality.
Consumer behavior is a behavioral science and to this extent the basic
mother science of consumer behavior must by psychology. Our mother
science acknowledges that behavior can be rational, non-rational, or irra-
tonal. Consumer behavior must do likewise. We must acknowledge that
consumers are human organisms and therefore imbued with all the frailities
of the human condition. Psychology recognizes a wide range of behavior,
some of which is pathological. Perhaps it is now time for consumer behav-
ioralists to acknowledge that much behavior is guided by affective as well
as cognitive motivations. We must admit to irrational consumer behavior
and our future research should lead us to develop standards for judging
behavior in terms of its rationality or irrationality. Perhaps we might even
consider efforts to enable consumers to better understand their own be-
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATION IN CONSUMER DECISION PROCESSES:
332 A REVISIONIST APPROACH TO CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

havior, whether i t be rational or irrational, and we m a y need to consider

facilitating the consumer's ability to recognize their own rationalizing ten-
dencies. When irrational c o n s u m e r behavior is harmful only to the indivi-
dual consumer, the behavior m a y be called neurotic; w h e n it reaches such
proportions that it is harmful to society, then it m a y be called psychotic.
In b o t h cases, a better understanding o f c o n s u m e r behavior will r e d o u n d
to the benefit o f b o t h the individual and society.
In any event, it is the c o n t e n t i o n o f this writer that based upon this evi-
dence, or at least these suppositions, a revisionist t h e o r y o f consumer be-
havior is needed. Perhaps the explanatory efforts here will b e c o m e the
springboard or seed bed out o f which this new theory will emerge.

NOTE

*An earlier draft of this paper entitled "Consumer Decision Processes": The Role
and Influence of Rationalization" was presented at the annual meeting of The Ameri-
can Psychological Association Division 23 in 1977. The author was assisted in the
preparation and development of this earlier draft by Dr. Chem Narayana. This assist-
ance is herewith acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Aronson, Elliot. 1969. "The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective."

In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 4.
Academic Press.
Berlyne, D.E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. McGraw Hill Book Co., New
York.
Berne, Eric. 1961. Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. Grove Press, New
York.
Bowen, L. 1970. The Effects of Product Involvement on the Evaluation of Rational
and Non rational Advertising Appeals. Unpublished master thesis, University of
Wisconsin.
Bucklin, Louis P. 1965. The Information Role of Advertising. J. Advertising Re-
search 5: 1-15.
Camus, Albert. 1955. The .llyth of Sysyphus, and Other Essays. Vintage Books,
New York.
Chaffee, Steven H. and Jack M. McLeod. 1973. "Consumer Divisions and Informa-
tion Use," pp. 354-385. In Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson (ed.) Consu-
mer Behavior: Theoretical Scourses. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Coleman, James C. 1964. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. Scott Foreman
and Co., Chicago.
 MARKIN 333

Cox, DonaM F. (ed.). 1967. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Be-
havior. Graduate school of Business Administration, Harvard Univ., Boston.
Fay, Brian. 1978. "Practical Reasoning, Rittionality and the Explanation of Inten-
tional Action," pp. 76-99. J. for the Theory of Social Behavior. 8.
Ferber', Robert. 1967. "Research on HousehoM Behavior." In Surveys in Economic
Theory, Ill. Macmillan Co., New York.
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford Univ. Press.
Palo Alto.
Gross, Alfred. 1974. "Psychological Blocks in Marketing," pp. 61-72. Business
Topics 22.
Hansen, Flemming. 1972. Consumer Choice Behavior: A Cognitive Theory. The
Free Press, New York.
Harris, Thomas A. 1969. I'm OK-you're OK. Avon Books. New York.
Kaufman, Walter. 1973. Without Guilt and Justice: From Decidophobia to Autono-
my. Peter H. Wyden, Inc., New York.
Kollat, David J. 1966. "A Decision-process Approach to Impulse Purchasing." In
R.M. Haas (ed.). Science, Technology, and Marketing. Amer. Marketing Assoc.,
Chicago.
Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United
States. Princeton Univ. Press. Princeton, New York.
Markin, Rom J. and Chem L. Narayana. 1975. Behavior Control: Are Consumers
beyond Freedom and Dignity? Assoc. for Consumer Res., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Nicosia, Francesco M. 1966. Consumer Decision Processes. Prentice Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Preston, Lee. 1968. "Relationships among Emotional, Intellectual, and Rational
Appeals in Advertising." Speech Monographs 35 : 504-511.
. 1954. "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism." Psych. Rev. 61: 194-
205.
Rokeach, Milton. 1960. The Open and Closed Mind. Basic Books. New York.
Rothe, James T. and Lissa Benson. 1974. "Intelligent Consumption: An Attractive
Alternative to the Marketing Concept." Business Topics 22: 29-34.
Sarraute, Nathalie. 1963. Tropismes. Maria Jolas (tr.) 1 9 6 7 . G. Braziller, New
York.
Sears, David O. and Jonathon L. Freedman. 1967. "Selective Exposure to Informa-
tion: A Critical Review." Public Opinion Quarterly 31: 194-213.
U.S. Office of Education. 1974. "Political Knowledge and Attitudes, NationalAssess-
ment of Educational Progress, pp. 11-12. Compact.
Venkatesan, M. 1973. "Cognitive Consistency and Novelty Seeking," pp. 354-385.
In Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson (ed.). Consumer Behavior: Theoretical
Source. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
 THE ROLE OF RATIONALIZATIONIN CONSUMERDECISIONPROCESSES:
334 A REVISIONISTAPPROACHTO CONSUMERBEHAVIOR

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

ROM J. MARKIN is Professor of Business Administration in the College of

Business and Economics at Washington State University in Pullman, Wash-
ington. He has published extensively in professional and academic journals
and frequently contributes papers at meetings of professional and acade-
mic societies. He has authored several books including: The Supermarket:
A n Analysis of Growth, Development and Change; Retailing Management;
The Psychology of Consumer Behavior; Retailing: Concepts, Institutions
and Management; Consumer Behavior: A Cognitive Orientation and his
latest book Marketing was published in February 1979.