Comments

Introduction (all): Psychologists have long been interested [ec2] in the topics of buying and shopping behaviour [EC3] . Some major perspectives in psychology such as behaviourism and cognitivism have formulated different theories to explain buying motivation and behaviour [EC4] . The behaviourists stress the process of operant conditioning and individual’s history of reinforcement, while the cognitive approach puts its accent on individual’s free will and intentional, voluntary action [EC5] . The views of these two perspectives [EC6] can be examined in terms of the nature of buying behaviour and the process of choice[EC7] .

Para. 2 With regard to the nature of buying behaviour, the behaviourists consider it as a response to reinforcer. One of the famous behaviourists, Alhadeff (1982 [EC8] ), represents buying behaviour as the outcome of the relative strengths of conflicting approach and escape behaviours, each of which is determined by its own reinforcers. Etc. On the other hand, the cognitive perspective views buying behaviour as more voluntary, rational and intentional in nature rather than mere response to the environment. People buy what they want to buy and their reasons for buying embrace “whatever consideration induced, inclined, weighed with or decided them to buy” (Beck, 1975). Etc.

…….

Para. 3: Based on their different conception about the nature of buying behaviour, the behaviourist and the cognitive theorists have different views on the process of choice when buying [EC9] . The behaviourists propose that consumer choice begins with an external stimulus such as an advertising message or word-of-mouth communication. Etc. However, the cognitive psychologists adopt a different approach to explain the process of choice. They consider the choice of buying as a rule-following behaviour Etc.

……

Para. 4 (all): To the behaviourists, therefore [EC10] , choice of buying is simply a behaviour, the only way of acting in a given set of circumstances defined in terms of controlling contingencies. On the other hand, the cognitive theorists present choice of buying as an outcome of internal, mental deliberation and psychological decision. Actually [EC11] , although the behaviourists and the cognitive theorists have different ideas of the content of choice, they do share similar view on the unconscious feature of choice (rather involuntary response to discriminative stimulus and the following of rules).

Conclusion (all) : To conclude [EC12] , the behaviouristic and cognitive perspectives may have certain strengths as well as weaknesses in their arguments. The behavioural perspective gives a clear and concrete picture of consumer behaviour, with the manifest account of reinforcement contingencies and the effects of environmental factors. However, it attributes buying behaviour solely to environmental stimuli and finds no explanation of consumer’s perceptions, curiosity, attitudes and intentions which we do observe to exist in real life. The cognitive approach, on the contrary, places a strong emphasis on individual’s free will, intention and purpose. However, the explanation of the choice of purchase is criticized to be too mechanistic since the decision to buy is described to undergo consideration of many reasons and social factors and the actual decision may not be so complex every time. On the whole [EC13] , the two perspectives can be studied in complement (relation?) to each other and their different claims have contributed much to our understanding of buying behaviour.

Page: 1
[EC1] This short, very general title shows this is unlikely to be part of a research project. It is more of a Lit. review exercise (which it was).

[ec2] Note the use of the present perfect tense – also in the next statement – as the writer begins her essay by describing research trends or developments up to the time of writing. This is very common when generalising about previous research. Only in the main body (para. 2) does the writer get down to discussing individual authors or studies – and then she uses the past or present tense as appropriate.

Page: 1
[EC3] Very simple, direct statement of the topic and its significance, and to whom it is significant, leading nicely into a categorisation of “psychologists” into camps.

Page: 1
[EC4] The key perspectives are introduced , but I wouldn’t be vague here – better to say “Two” rather than “some”, as the writer only intends to deal with these two.

Page: 1
[EC5] A concise summary of the two perspectives: cognitivism is defined rather more clearly and simply than behaviourism. It’s not wise to throw a jargon term like “operant” into your introductory paragraph – better to introduce it in the main body, where you have space to define it for the reader (but ask yourself: is there a simpler way to say the same thing?)

Page: 1
[EC6] Perspective can’t have views – better to say “These perspectives can be…”

Page: 1
[EC7] The writer very elegantly introduces the 2^nd of her main themes - the nature of buying behaviour and the process of choice. The reader now knows the scope and direction of the review: it will compare 2 perspectives - behaviourism and cognitivism – in terms of nature and choice re. buying behaviour.

- This is a very succinct (concise) Introduction, which does all the classic things well: introduce the broad topic, state its significance; say how you will analyse/study it – from what perspective, and looking at what aspects exactly.

Page: 1
[EC8] The writer introduces authority (Alhadeff) to illustrate or elaborate a point – not to make that point. Students often do in the first sentence of the paragraph)

Page: 1
[EC9] In this opening statement of para. 3, the writer not only signals the move to discuss the 2^nd of the nominated topics, but points to the reason why only now does it make sense to discuss choice – i.e. their accounts about choice are “based on” what they say about the nature of buying behaviour

Page: 1
[EC10] This is where connectors are useful. “Therefore” signals a summing up, and “simply” suggests this can be done concisely. One sentence for each perspective (behav. & cogn.) is enough.

Page: 1
[EC11] Again, we have a connector which offers an important signal of a shift in focus. This time, it’s to take a contrary viewpoint (like saying “in fact, I DO like marking scripts”). What is happening now in this paragraph is that the writer is stepping back from offering the viewpoints of the two perspectives as they are generally recognised and, applying them to buying behaviour, is evaluating the assumption that they oppose each other. She suggests they have similarities – this is (perhaps) her own judgement.

Page: 1
[EC12] This is the one major weakness in the essay. The writer is actually not concluding here, but just getting into her evaluation of the two perspectives. Conclusions should not contain new argument. We hear for the first time about “strengths & weaknesses” and criticisms of the theories, We are now hearing the author’s own “voice” – what she thinks. But at the same time she also feels it’s time to conclude, as she has finished reviewing the material – hence the conflict. Actually, the content is fine – it’s just the signalling that this is a conclusion that causes the problem. This is an important lesson in having the confidence to first review what two views seem to stand for, and then come in with your own evaluation as to whether these accounts offer satisfactory explanations or answers to the problem. Then conclude – summarising your main points.

Page: 1
[EC13] We could say that the Conclusion really starts here, and the writer needed to add a couple of summary statements to round off the review.