Shelby D. Hunt

Is a general theory of marketing possible? If so,what would it look like? This article (1) briefly ex-amines the nature of theory in marketing, (2) ex-plores the characteristics of general theories in thephilosophy of science, (3) proposes what a gen-eral theory of marketing would attempt to explainand predict, (4) delineates the structure of generaltheories, both in and of marketing, and (5) eval-uates the status of general theories in/of market-ing.

GeneralTheoriesand theFundamentalExplananda ofMarketing

AFTER a flurry of articles and books on marketingtheory in the 1950s and 1960s, a hiatus occurred

in the development of the theoretical foundations ofmarketing. Marketing turned toward other directions,as Lutz (1979) has observed:

For the most part. I believe that we have been ex-periencing a technological revolution of sorts, withmost of our energies being devoted to the discoveryand application of increasingly sophisticated mathe-matical and statistical procedures. This revolution hasbeen a necessary step forward for the discipline, butit has perhaps diverted our attention away from sim-ilarly important inquiry into the conceptual founda-tions of marketing (p. 3).

Evidence abounds that the hiatus is over and thatinterest in developing marketing theory is increasing.For example, there have now been three special con-ferences on marketing theory sponsored by the Amer-ican Marketing Association (Bush and Hunt 1982;

Shelby D. Hunt is Paul Whitfleld Horn Professor of Marketing, TexasTech University. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance ofJohn J. Burnett, Lawrence B. Chonko, and Robert W. Wilkes, all of TexasTech, for reviewing an earlier draft of this article, and of A, C. Samli,Virginia Tech University, for insightful observations on the fundamentalexplananda of marketing. Thanks also go to Kenneth J. Roerlng, Uni-versity of Minnesota, for providing the "triggering cue" for the devel-opment of this work.

Ferrell, Brown, and Lamb 1979; and Lamb and Dunne1980). These conferences have played a particularlysigniflcant role in encouraging marketing researchersto develop marketing theory. There have also beenseveral books on marketing theory (Bagozzi 1980; Hunt1976a, 1983; Zaltman, LeMasters, and Heffring 1982;Zaltman, Pinson, and Angelmar 1973). The works ofZaltman et al. and Hunt explore the philosophy of sci-ence foundations of marketing theory, while Bagoz-zi's work attempts to integrate metatheoretical criteriawith mathematical modeling techniques.

In addition to the special conferences and bookson marketing theory, theorists have devoted signifi-cant attention to the conceptual domain of the mar-keting discipline (Ferber 1970; Hunt 1976b; Kotier1972; Kotler and Levy 1969; Kotier and Zaltman 1971;Luck 1969, 1974). These debates on the nature ofmarketing concluded that (1) the primary focus ofmarketing is the exchange relationship, (2) marketingincludes both profit sector and nonprofit sector or-ganizations, and (3) all the problems, issues, theories,and research in marketing can be analyzed using thethree categorical dichotomies of profit sector/non-profit sector, micro/macro, and positive/normative(Amdt 1981a).

Consistent with the preceding writers, Bagozzi(1974) concurs that the basic subject matter that mar-

Journal of MarketingVol. 47 General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing / 9

keting science attempts to explain and predict is theexchange relationship. He proposes the foundationsfor a formal theory of marketing exchanges and sug-gests that "it is perhaps time to redirect our intellec-tual energy toward the development of a general the-ory of marketing" (Bagozzi 1979, p. 445). Is it time?This article addresses the question, "What would bethe characteristics of a general theory of marketing ifwe had one?" In order to answer this question, it willbe necessary (1) to examine briefly the nature of the-ory in marketing, (2) to explore the characteristics ofgeneral theories in the philosophy of science, (3) topropose what a general theory of marketing would at-tempt to explain and predict, (4) to delineate the struc-ture of general theories in/of marketing, and (5) toevaluate the status of general theories in/of market-ing.

The Nature of Marketing TheoryWhat is the nature of scientific theory? A concensusconceptualization of the characteristics of a theory is:

Theories are systematically related sets ofstatements, including some law-like general-izations, that are empirically testable. Thepurpose of theory is to increase scientific un-derstanding through a systematized structurecapable of both explaining and predictingphenomena.

This conceptualization of theory (originally pro-posed by Rudner (1966) and first introduced into themarketing literature by Hunt (1971)) is characterizedas consensus since it is consistent with the writings of(1) philosophers of science, (2) philosophers of socialscience, and (3) marketing theorists.

Philosophy of Science Perspectives on TheoryThe stream of thought that dominated twentieth-cen-tury philosophy of science has been logical (or mod-em) empiricism, which owes its origins to the logicalpositivists of the 1920s. In fact, the perspectives ofthe logical empiricists have been dubbed the "re-ceived view" of philosophy of science (Suppe 1977).Logical empiricism proposes that the "distinctive aimof the scientific enterprise is to provide systematic andresponsibly supported explanations" (Nagel 1961, p.15). Theories play a central role in explaining phe-nomena, since a theory is "a system of hypotheses,among which law fonnulas are conspicuous" (Bunge1967, p. 381). Similarly, Bergman (1957, p. 31) notesthat "a theory is a group of laws deductively con-nected." Finally, Braithwaite (1968, p. 22) suggeststhat "a scientific theory is a deductive system in whichobservable consequences logically follow from theconjunction of observed facts with the set of the fun-

damental hypotheses of the system. " Note that the viewsof all these received view philosophers of science areconsistent with the previously suggested perspective.For a formal statement of the received view of theory,see Suppe (1977, pp. 16-53).

In recent years, the proponents of logical empiri-cism have been vigorously attacked (for a discussionof the complete nature of these attacks, see Bush andHunt 1982, Keat and Urry 1975, Suppe 1977). Al-though critics fail to speak with a single voice, mostof these attacks have not centered on whether theoriescontain systematically related statements or law-likegeneralizations, or even on whether theories should beempirically testable. Rather, the attacks have focusedon issues like "what are the requirements for a gen-eralization to be considered law-like?" Proponents ofthe received view are content with the (essentially Hu-mean) notion that law-like denotes nothing more tbanthe observed regularity in the occurrence of two ormore phenomena. Critics of logical empiricism, suchas the scientific realists, insist that regularity is notenough; a kind of causal necessity must be shown(Harre and Madden 1975, p. 8). As Keat and Urry(1975, p. 44) have pointed out, both proponents andopponents of the received view hold that there are"general standards of scientificity, of what counts asan adequate explanation, of what it is that we musttry to achieve by scientific theories, and of the mannerin which empirical evidence should be used to assesstheir truth or falsity" (emphasis added). Thus, al-though they may differ as to technical details, bothadvocates and critics of the received view basicallyconcur as to the general characteristics of theory.

Marketing and Philosophy of Social SciencePerspectives

Both philosophers of social science and marketingtheorists also agree on the nature of theory. Thus,Kaplan (1964, p. 297) indicates that "a theory is asystem of laws" and that "the laws are altered by beingbrought into systematic connection with one another,as marriage relates two people who are never the sameagain." Blalock (1969, p. 2) suggests that "theoriesdo not consist entirely of conceptual schemes or ty-pologies but must contain law-like propositions thatinterrelate the concepts or variables two or more at atime." The marketing theoretician Wroe Alderson(1957, p. 5) concludes that a "theory is a set of prop-ositions which are consistent among themselves andwhich are relevant to some aspect of the factual world."Zaltman, Pinson, and Angelmar (1973, pp. 77-79)propose that a theory is a set of propositions, someof which are nonobservational, from which otherpropositions that are at least testable in principle canbe deduced. Other contemporary writers in marketingtheory use the same or similar conceptualization (Ba-

10 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

gozzi 1980, pp. 63-65; EI-Ansary 1979, p. 401; Ryanand O'Shaughnessy 1980, p. 47; Shoostari and Walker1980, p. 100; and Solomon 1979, p. 377).

Starting from the perspective that theories are sys-tematically related sets of statements, including somelaw-like generalizations, that are empirically testable,how do general theories differ from the ordinary kind?In short, what is it that makes a general theory "gen-eral"?

The Nature of General TheoriesThere are several ways that one theory can be moregeneral than another. Recalling that the purpose oftheories is to explain and predict phenomena, generaltheories can be more general by explaining more phe-nomena. That is, general theories have a large exten-sion or domain. Dubin (1969, p. 41) proposes that"the generality of a scientific model depends solelyupon the size of the domain it represents." Zaltman,Pinson, and Angelmar {1973, p. 52) concur: "A sec-ond formal syntactical dimension of a [theoretical]proposition is its degree of generality. All proposi-tions purport to refer to a particular segment of theworld, their universe of discourse."

As an example of how the extension of a theoryaffects its generality, consider the "hierarchy of ef-fects" model. As originally proposed by Lavidge andSteiner (1961), and later developed by Palda (1966),the hierarchy of effects model attempts to explain howconsumers respond to advertising through the hier-archy of cognition (thinking), affect (feeling), andconation (doing). Some empirical studies, such as thoseby Assael and Day (1968) and O'Brien (1971), havefound support for the hierarchy of effects model.

Next consider the low involvement model origi-nally proposed by Krugman (1965). The low involve-ment mode! suggests that for trivial products, the con-sumers interests are so low that they will respond toadvertising through a hierarchy of cognition, cona-tion, and affect (rather than cognition, affect, andconation). Empirical studies by Ray (1973), Roths-child (1974), and Swinyard and Coney (1978) havesupported the low involvement hierarchy. Tbe pointhere is that, according to the extension criterion, thelow involvement model is more general than the tra-ditional hierarchy of effects model, since there are manymore "low involving" products than there are "highlyinvolving" products. That is, the domain of the lowinvolvement model is larger than the domain of theoriginal hierarchy of effects model.

A second way that theories can be more generalis by systematically relating a larger number of law-like generalizations. Färber (1968. p. 173) suggeststhat in psychology ''comprehensive theories, i.e., thoseserving to organize a considerable number of laws.

depend on the state of knowledge in a given area"[emphasis added]. Similarly, Brodbeck (1968) pro-poses that:

The more comprehensive a theory is, the more it uni-fies phenomena by revealing apparently different thingsto be special cases of the same kind of thing. Theclassic example of a comprehensive, unifying theoryis Newton's. From the Newtonian theory of gravi-tation it was possible to derive Galileo's laws for thefree fall of bodies on earth, Kepler's laws about themotions ofthe planets around the sun, the laws aboutthe tides, and a host of other previously known butdisparate phenomena. It explained all these and pre-dicted new laws not previously known (p. 457).

The preceding example suggested that the low in-volvement model was more general than the tradi-tional hierarchy of effects model because it explainedrnore phenomena. A recent model developed by Smithand Swinyard (1982), referred to as the "integratedinformation response model," attempts to unify boththe traditional and low involvement models. It drawsupon the expectancy value model developed by Fish-bein and Ajzen (1975), and proposes that the key dis-tinction between purchases for "trial" and for "com-mitment" has been largely overlooked. Our purposehere is not to evaluate this new model, but rather, topoint out that, to the extent that the model is validatedby empirical testing, it represents a step forward indeveloping a more general theory of consumer be-havior. This more general theory is brought about byincorporating into one theory alt the law-like propo-sitions of both the low involvement and hierarchy ofeffects models.

A third way that theories can be general is thattheir constructs may have a high level of abstraction.Blalock (1969) states:

The general theory will be stated in highly abstractterms, with as few assumptions as possible as to theform of the equations, the values of the parameters,or (in the case of statistical theory) the specific dis-tributions of the error terms. It will often be foundthat this very general theory cannot yield useful theo-rems, and so additional assumptions will be made inorder to study important special cases . . . the prin-cipal value of a highly general theoretical formula-tion is that it enables one to place the various specialcases in perspective and to prove general theoremsappropriate to them all (p. 141).

Howard and Sheth (1969) were cognizant of therelationship between "level of abstraction" and "levelof generalization." Thus, they indicate "first, the the-ory is said to be at a moderate level of abstraction,because it deals only with b^uying bebavior, but never-theless to be abstract enough to encompass consumerbuying, institutional buying, distributive buying, andindustrial buying" (p. 391).

Unfortunately, the phrase "high level of abstrac-tion" does not have perfect antecedent clarity, and atleast three different meanings seem possible. First, high

General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing / 11

level of abstraction may indicate "more encompass-ing." This seems to be the usage suggested by How-ard and Sheth when they propose that their theory ofbuyer behavior encompasses not only consumer buy-ing, but other forms of buying as well. This meaningof level of abstraction would make it consistent withthe notion that a general theory encompasses and ex-plains a large number of phenomena.

A second possible meaning of high level of ab-straction might be that the terms in the theory are "farremoved" from directly observable phenomena. Thus,empirical referents or operational definitions for the"highly abstract" constructs may be difficult, if notimpossible, to develop. Given the requirement that alltheories must be empirically testable, there appears tobe a significant danger in developing theories that aretoo abstract, or too far removed from observable real-ity. Even marketing theorists who have recently movedaway from strict logical empiricism still hold empir-ical testing in high regard. Thus, Zaltman, LeMasters,and Heffring (1982) propose:

Once a general theoretical statement has been made,the next step is to make a deduction and translate itinto an empirical statement so that observations caiibe made and the "tmth" of the statement tested. Thistestability of a statement is of extreme importance tological deductive analysis (p. 107).

The original logical positivist position required allterms or constructs in a scientific theory to have directempirical referents, i.e., be "observable." Recogniz-ing that this position was untenable, the logical em-piricists required all abstract or "theoretical" terms tobe linked to directly observable terms via devices knownas "correspondence rules." Current analysis in thephilosophy of science suggests that even the logicalempiricist position may be too stringent. Keat and Urry(1975) propose that attention be focused on the test-ability of statements rather than the observability ofall terms in statements. Thus, they propose the fol-lowing: "A statement is scientific only if it is possibleto make observations that would count in some wayfor or against its truth or falsity" (p. 38). This prin-ciple suggests that the constructs in a theory cannotbe allowed to become so abstract (so far removed fromreality) that they render the theory incapable of gen-erating hypotheses capable of being empirically tested,since such a theory would necessarily be explanato-rially and predictively impotent.

There is a third possible meaning for high level ofabstraction. Sometimes it seems that the relationshipsamong constructs in highly abstract general theoriesare very loosely specified. Consider the problem of aresearcher attempting to test the general theory of con-sumer behavior proposed by Engel, Kollat, andBlackwell (1973). The researcher wishes to include inthe experiment the construct environmental influ-

ences. Unfortunately for the researcher, the model giveslittle guidance as to specifically which environmentalinfluences should be included and how each shouldbe related to other key constructs. When high level ofabstraction means that the relationships between manyof the key constructs in the "general" theory are veryloosely specified, empirical testing is hindered andexplanatory power is reduced. Therefore, it has beensuggested elsewhere (Hunt 1976a) that many of thesehighly abstract general models may play their mostsignificant role in what is referred to as the "contextof discovery." That is, these kinds of general modelsor theories may be most useful in suggesting fruitfulavenues for researchers to explore in generating ordiscovering theories that have direct explanatory power.

How then do general theories differ from ordinarytheories? We may conclude that general theories ex-plain a large number of phenomena and serve to unifythe law-like generalizations of less general theories.Theorists concemed with developing general theoriesshould be alert to the problems involved in empiri-cally testing their theoretical constructions. When keyconstructs in the theory become highly abstract, in thesense of being too far removed from observable real-ity or in the sense that relationships among key con-structs become too loosely specified, then empiricaltestability suffers, predictive power declines, and ex-planatory impotence sets in. Despite these limitations,such theories or models might still serve the usefulpurpose of "road maps" for guiding the theoretical ef-forts of others.

The Fundamental Explanandaof Marketing

If general theories in/of marketing have a broad do-main and unify many law-like generalizations, whatare the phenomena that these general theories wouldseek to explain and predict? In philosophy of scienceterminology, what are the fundamental explananda ofmarketing science? Altematively, in experimental de-sign terms, what are the fundamental dependent vari-ables? Consistent with the perspective of most mar-keting theorists (Alderson 1965; Bagozzi 1974, 1978,1979; Kotier 1972), this writer has proposed that thebasic subject matter of marketing is the exchange re-lationship or transaction (Hunt 1976b). The disciplineof marketing has its normative or applied side whichis technology, rather than empirical science. The pur-pose of marketing technology is to assist marketingdecision makers by developing normative decision rulesand models. Such rules and models are often basedon the findings of marketing science and various an-alytical tools (such as statistics and mathematics). Thebasic or positive side houses the empirical science ofmarketing (Hunt 1976b).

12 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

The preceding discussion implies that marketingscience is the behavioral science that seeks to explainexchange relationships. Given this perspective ofmarketing science, and adopting the customary (albeitsomewhat arbitrary) convention of designating one partyto the exchange as the "buyer" and one party as the"seller," the fundamental explananda of marketing canbe logically derived. The four interrelated sets of fun-damental explananda of marketing science are:

• The behaviors of buyers directed at consum-mating exchanges

• The behaviors of sellers directed at consum-mating exchanges

• The institutional framework directed at con-summating and/or facilitating exchanges

• The consequences on society of the behaviorsof buyers, the behaviors of sellers, and the in-stitutional framework directed at consummatingand/or facilitating exchanges

As illustrated in Figure 1, the first set of funda-mental explananda indicates that marketing scienceseeks to answer why do which buyers purchase whatthey do, where they do, when they do, and how theydo? The "which buyers" seeks to explain why certain

buyers enter into particular exchange relationships andothers do not. The "what" indicates that different buy-ers have different product/service mixes that theypurchase. The "where" is the institutional/locationalchoice of buyers. That is, why do some buyers pur-chase at discount department stores and others at fullservice department stores, and why do some buyerspurchase in neighborhood stores and others in shop-ping centers? The "when" refers to the titning deci-sions of buyers. Why do buyers purchase differentlyin different stages in the family life cycle? Finally,the "how" refers to the processes that consumers usein making their purchasing decisions. That is, whatare the identifiable stages in consumer decision mak-ing? The "how" also refers to any organizational sys-tems that buyers develop to accomplish the purchas-ing task—for example, the sharing of buyingresponsibilities among various members of the house-hold.

The second set of fundamental explananda of mar-keting concerns the behaviors of sellers. As Lutz (1979,p. 5) has pointed out, "It has been extremely unfor-tunate that the vast bulk of theory-based behavioralresearch in marketing has been on consumer behav-ior." He then concludes that "if we truly believe thatexchange is the fundamental building block of mar-

RGURE 1The Nature of Marketing Science

Basic Subject Matter Fundamental Explananda Guiding Research Questions

Exchangerelationships

FE1. The behaviors of buyers directedat consummating exchanges >

1. Why do which buyers purchasewhat they do, where they do,when they do, and how they do?

FE2. The behaviors of sellers directedat consummating exchanges

\

2. Why do which sellers produce,price, promote, and distribute whatthey do, where they do, when theydo, and how they do?

FE3. The institutional frameworkdirected at consummating and/or facilitating exchanges

3. Why do which kinds of institutionsdevelop to engage in what kindsof functions or activities toconsummate and/or facilitateexchanges, when will theseinstitutions develop, where willthey develop, and how will theydevelop?

FE4. The consequences on society ofthe behaviors of buyers, thebehaviors of sellers, and theinstitutional framework directedat consummating and/orfacilitating exchanges

>

4. Why do which kinds of behaviorsof buyers, behaviors of sellers, andinstitutions have what kinds ofconsequences on society, whenthey do, where they do, and howthey do?

General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing / 13

keting, then, we have virtually ignored (in a scientificsense) the behavior of the party selling to the con-sumer." The guiding question is why do which sellersproduce, price, promote, and distribute what they do,where they do, when they do, and how they dol The"which" points out that not all sellers participate inall exchanges. The "what" seeks explanations for thekinds of products produced, kinds of prices charged,kinds of promotions used, and kinds of distributorsemployed. The "when" seeks explanations for thetiming of the behaviors of sellers. The "where" refersto the locations, chosen by sellers to do business. The"how" refers to the processes involved and organi-zational frameworks developed by sellers when en-gaging in exchange relationships.

The third set of fundamental explananda suggeststhat marketing science seeks answers to the question,why do which kinds of institutions develop to engagein what kinds of functions or activities to consummateand/or facilitate exchanges, when will these institu-tions develop, where will they develop, and how willthey develop'} The "which" points out that not all kindsof institutions participate in the consummation and/or facilitation of all kinds of exchanges, and seeks toidentify the kinds of institutions and "what" specifickinds of activities (functions) will be performed byeach. The "when" refers to the evolution or changingof the kinds of institutions through time and "where"these changes will take place. The "how" refers to theprocesses that bring about these institutional changes.

As used here, the term institution refers both tothe intermediaries that either take title to the goods ornegotiate purchases or sales, such as wholesalers andretailers, and also to purely facilitating agencies suchas those solely engaged in transportation, warehous-ing, advertising, or marketing research. As suggestedby Arndt (1981b, p. 37), marketing institutions canalso be considered as "sets of conditions and rules fortransactions and other interactions." Note that the studyof marketing systems can be considered the study ofcollections of interacting marketing institutions. Inshort, the third set of explananda seeks to explain thenature and development of all kinds of marketing sys-tems.

The fourth set of fundamental explananda con-cerns the consequences of marketing on society. Theguiding question is, why do which kinds of behaviorsof buyers, behaviors of sellers, and institutions havewhat kinds of consequences on society, when they do,where they do, and how they dol The "which" directsthe theorists to focus on specific kinds of behaviorsand/or institutions and explain "what" kinds of con-sequences these behaviors or institutions will have onsociety. Again, the "when" refers to the timing of theconsequences, and the "where" focuses on whom theconsequences will fall. For example, will the conse-

quences fall disproportionately on the disadvantagedmembers of society? Finally, the "how" focuses onthe processes and mechanisms by which various partsof society are impacted by marketing activities. Thestudy of the kinds of consequences discussed here aregenerally subsumed under the term macromarketing.

The preceding four sets of explananda are pro-posed as fundamental in the sense that every phenom-enon that marketing science seeks to explain can ul-timately be reduced to a phenomenon residing in oneof the four sets. A general theory in marketing wouldseek to explain all, or substantially all, the phenomenain a single set. For example, a theory that purports toexplain all the behaviors of buyers directed at con-summating exchanges would be characterized as ageneral theory in marketing. In contrast, a generaltheory of marketing would purport to explain all thephenomena in all four sets.

General Theories:Structure and Status

General theories can have two different structural forms,a hierarchical form or a collection of subtheories form.A hierarehial theory is one whose component laws aredeductions from a very small subset of basic princi-ples or axioms (Kaplan 1964, p. 298). The work ofBagozzi (1978) is an example of one attempt to de-velop a general theory from a very limited set of as-sumptions concerning exchange behaviors.

The second way to develop a general theory is totake several smaller theories and combine them in asystematic fashion. This is the approach taken by Bar-tels (1968) when he proposed that a general theory ofmarketing could be developed by combining the fol-lowing seven subtheories: social initiative, marketseparations, expectations, flows, behavioral con-straints, marketing evolution, and social control. Thisis also the approach taken by El-Ansary (1979), whosuggested that the central organizing element for ageneral theory of marketing would be the channel ofdistribution. El-Ansary then identified 23 subtheorieswhich, if combined in a systematic fashion, wouldcomprise a general theory of marketing.

The position adopted here is that the developmentof a general theory of marketing along strict hierar-chical lines would be extraordinarily difficult, and thepossibility for its success would be remote. Much morelikely to be successful would be the procedure of de-veloping a general theory for each of the four sets offundamental explananda, and then integrating each ofthe four theories into one comprehensive schema. Al-though we are not close to developing a general the-ory of marketing at this time, progress is being made.There have been several attempts to develop a generaltheory of buyer behavior. Although the works of En-

14 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

gel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1973), Howard and Sheth(1969), and Nicosia (1966) have received the mostattention, there have been other efforts at developinga comprehensive model of buyer behavior (Andreasen1965, Bettman 1979, Hansen 1972, Markin 1974, Windand Webster 1972). Some of these models have re-ceived empirical support; others remain to be tested.Note that most of these models were developed in thelate 1960s and early 1970s; perhaps the time is rightfor a new integrative model, which would combinethe best aspects of the various general models pro-posed to date.

As noted earlier, marketing has generally ne-glected theory conceming the behaviors of sellers di-rected at consummating exchanges. A notable excep-tion was the work of Alderson (1965) on competitionfor differential advantage. This theoretical construc-tion purports to explain the forces motivating firms inthe maricetpiace by noting that in order to survive, firmscompete with other firms for the patronage of house-holds. A firm can be assured of the patronage of agroup of households only when the group has reasonsto prefer the output of the particular firm over the out-put of competing firms. Therefore, each firm will seeksome advantage over other firms to assure the patron-age of a group of households, a process known as"competition for differential advantage." Competitionconsists of the constant struggle of firms to develop,maintain, or increase their differential advantages overother firms. Unfortunately, very little has been donewith the theory since the middle 60s.

Several scholars have made major attempts to de-velop a general theory of marketing institutions. Us-ing a microeconomic/functionalist approach, Bucklin(1966) has developed a "theory of distribution chan-nel structure." He identifies the outputs of the channeldistribution as delivery time, lot size, and market de-centralization, and then proposes that the channelfunctions necessary to produce these outputs are transit,inventory, search, persuasion, and promotion. Afterdetermining the interrelationships among outputs andfunctions, Bucklin postulates the existence of a "nor-mative channel" which the existing channel will tendtoward in long run equilibrium.

A second theoretical work by Baligh and Richartz(1967) builds a mathematical model of the channel ofdistribution, drawing upon the original work by Bald-erston (1958). The Baligh and Richartz model is basedon the key concepts of cooperation, competition, andtheir impact on "contactual" costs. The fundamentalpremise underlying their theory is that "exchangetransactions are not costless and that in consequencethere exists the possibility that these costs can be re-duced" (Baligh and Richartz 1967, p. 6). Lastly, Rob-icheaux and El-Ansary (1975) have developed a gen-eral model for channel member behavior. The focal

point of the model is the total performance of thechannel of distribution, which is postulated to be de-termined by both structural and individual character-istics. Shoostari and Walker (1980) evaluate the modeland conclude that "the model has the potential of be-coming a highly valuable theory of channel perfor-mance" (p. 102).

To the best of this writer's knowledge, none of thethree general models conceming marketing institu-tions has been subjected to empirical tests. As withthe general models of consumer behavior, most of theattempts to generate general theories conceming mar-keting institutions were developed in the 1960s. Again,as with consumer behavior, perhaps it is time to takea fresh look at the entire area and attempt to integratethe works of such authors as Baligh, Bucklin, El-An-sary, Richartz, and Robicheaux into a comprehensivemodel.

Unlike buyer behavior, seller behavior, and mar-keting institutions, there have been no attempts to de-velop a general theory of the consequences of mar-keting on society. The work of Beckman (1957)proposes that we can use "value added" as a measureof the total output of marketing activities. Similarly,the work of Bucklin (1978) postulates procedures fordetermining the efficiency with which marketing in-stitutions perform their assigned tasks. A theory bySteiner (1973) explains the consequences on con-sumer prices of heavy advertising by national firms.Finally, Slater (1968) developed a model explainingthe role of marketing in inducing economic develop-ment. Nevertheless, none of these theories in name orin fact constitutes a general theory of the conse-quences of marketing activities and institutions on so-ciety. No one has even attempted a "general theoryof macromarketing."

Two scholars have attempted to develop generaltheories of marketing. In 1968 Bartels suggested thata general theory of marketing should consist of sevensubtheories: social initiative, economic (market) sep-arations, market flows, interactions and expectations,flows and systems, behavior constraints, social changeand marketing evolution, and social control of mar-keting. An evaluation of these subtheories (Hunt 1971)pointed out their lack of law-like generalizations andconcluded that the collection could not, therefore, bea general theory of marketing. This conclusion wasalso reached in the subsequent analysis by El-Ansary(1979).

Alderson (1965) also suggested that his work con-stituted a general theory of marketing. Although hisefforts at developing a general theory have never beenevaluated using the criteria contained herein, his workhas been partially formalized and rendered amenableto systematic investigation (Hunt, Muncy, and Ray1981). It is noteworthy that the partial formalization

General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing / 15

reveals that Alderson at least touched upon each ofthe four sets of fundamental explananda that a generaltheory of marketing would have to contain. In an at-tempt to explain the behavior of buyers, Alderson usedthe twin concepts of (1) the conditional value of agood, if used, and (2) the probability of use or theestimated frequency of use (Alderson 1965, p. 38).He used competition for differential advantage to ex-plain seller behavior and the "discrepancy of assort-ments" to explain the rise of intermediaries (Alderson1965, p. 78). Finally Alderson's normative theory ofmarketing systems explores some of the effects ofmarketing systems on society (Alderson 1965, pp. 301-321). Although Alderson addressed each of the fun-damental explananda of marketing, research in eachseparate area has gone well beyond the theoretical workof Alderson. For example, Alderson's theory of buyerbehavior would be considered a somewhat naive ap-proach today. Thus, although Alderson's efforts mustbe considered extraordinary for his time, they cannotbe considered a satisfactory general theory of mar-keting for today.

Summary and ConclusionIn summary, this article has attempted to explore thenature of general theories in/of marketing. Since the-ories are systematically related sets of statements, in-cluding some law-like generalizations that are empir-

ically testable, general theories should have thesecharacteristics and more. The extra dimension of gen-eral theories is that they should explain more phenom-ena and unify more laws. General theories in mar-keting would explain all the phenomena within one ofthe four sets of fundamental explananda of marketing:(1) the behaviors of buyers directed at consummatingexchanges, (2) the behaviors of sellers directed at con-summating exchanges, (3) the institutional frameworkdirected at consummating and/or facilitating ex-changes, and (4) the consequences on society of thebehaviors of buyers, the behaviors of sellers, and theinstitutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating exchanges. A general theory of mar-keting would explain all phenomena of all four sets.Such a general theory would probably be comprisedof an integrated collection of subtheories, rather thana hierarchical theory.

Is a general theory of marketing possible? Giventhe progress that is being made on at least three of thefour sets of fundamental explananda, and given theincreased emphasis being placed on theory develop-ment in marketing, there are grounds for optimism.There certainly is no logical reason for believing thatit is impossible to develop such a general theory.Nevertheless, even if marketing should never generatea general theory of its total subject matter, the pursuitof such a general theory, like the pursuit of truth ingeneral, would still be a worthy quest.

REFERENCESAlderson, W. (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Ac-

tion, Homewood, IL: Irwin.(1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior, Homewood,

IL: Irwin.Andreasen, A. R. (1965), "Attitudes and Customer Behavior:

A Decision Model," in New Research in Marketing, L.Preston, ed., Berkeley, CA: Institute of Business and Eco-nomic Research, University of Califomia, 1-16.

Amdt, Johan (1981a), "The Conceptual Domain of Marketing:Evaluation of Shelby Hunt's Three Dichotomies Model,"European Journal of^Marketing, 14 (Fall), 106-121.

(1981b), "The Political Economy of Marketing Sys-tems: Reviving the Institutional Approach," Journal ofMacromarketing, 1 (Fall), 36-47.

Assael, J. and G. S. Day (1968), "Attitudes and Awarenessas Predictors of Market Share," Journal of Advertising Re-search, 8 (October), 3-12.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1974), "Marketing as an Organized Behav-ioral System of Exchange." Journal of Marketing, 38 (Oc-tober), 77-81.

(1978), "Marketing as Exchange," American Be-havioral Scientist, 21 (March/April). 535-536.

(1979), "Toward a Formal Theory of MarketingExchanges," in Conceptual and Theoretical Developmentsin Marketing, O. C. Ferrell, S. Brown, and C. Lamb, eds.,Chicago: American Marketing, 431-447.

(1980), Causal Models in Marketing, NY: Wiley.Balderston, F. E. (1958), "Communication Networks in In-

termediate Markets," Management Science, 4 (January),154-171.

Baligh, H. H. and L. E. Richartz (1967), Vertical MarketStructures, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bartels, R, (1968), "The General Theory of Marketing," Jour-nal of Marketing, 32 (January), 29-33.

Beckman, T. N. (1957), "The Value Added Concept as aMeasurement of Output," Advanced Management (April),6-8; reprinted in Managerial Marketing: Perspectives andViewpoints, W. Lazer and E. J, Kelley, eds., Homewood,IL: Irwin, 1962.

Bergman, G. (1957), Philosophy of Science, Madison: Uni-versity of Wisconsin Press.

Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theoryof Consumer Choice, Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blalock, H. M. (1969), Theory Construction, Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Braithwaite, R. B. (1968). Scientific Explanation, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Brodbeck, M. (1968). Readings in the Philosophy ofthe So-cial Sciences, New York: Macmillan.

Bucklin, L. P. (1966), A Theory of Distribution ChannelStructure, Berkeley, CA: University of Califomia. Instituteof Business and Economic Research.

16 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

(1978), Productivity in Marketing, Chicago, IL:American Marketing.

Bunge, M. (1967), Scientific Research I: The Search for Sys-tem, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bush, R. F. and S, D. Hunt (1982). Marketing Theory: Phi-losophy of Science Perspectives. Chicago: American Mar-keting.

Dubin. R. (1969), Theory Building, New York: The Free Press.El-Ansary, A. (1979), "The General Theory of Marketing: Re-

visited," in Conceptual and Theoretical Developments inMarketing, O. C. Ferrell, S. W. Brown, and C. Lamb,eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 399-407.

Engel, J., D. B. Kollat. and R. Blackwell (1973), ConsumerBehavior, 2nd ed.. New York: Holt.

Färber, 1. E. (1968), "Personality and Behavioral Science,"in Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, M.Brodbeck, ed.. New York: Macmillan.

Ferber, R. (1970), "The Expanding Role of Marketing in the1970s," Journal of Marketing, 34 (January), 29-30.

FenellO. C. ,S. W. Brown, and C. W. Lamb, Jr., eds. (1979),Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing,Chicago: American Marketing.

Fishbein, M. and 1. Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intentionand Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hansen, F. (1972), Consumer Choice Behavior, New York:The Free Press.

Harre, R. and E. H. Madden (1975), Causal Powers, Totowa,NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

Howard, J, A. and J. N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of BuyerBehavior, New York: Wiley.

Hunt, S. D. (1971), "The Morphology of Theory and the Gen-eral Theory of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 35 (April),65-68.

(1976a), Marketing Theory: Conceptual Founda-tions of Research in Marketing, Columbus, OH: Grid.

(1976b), "The Nature and Scope of Marketing,"Journal of Marketing, 40 (July), 17-28.

(1983), Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of Mar-keting Science, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

-, J. A. Muncy, and N. M. Ray (1981), "Alderson'sGeneral Theory of Marketing: A Formalization," in Reviewof Marketing 1981, B. M. Enis and K. J. Roering, eds.,Chicago: American Marketing.

Kaplan, A. (1964), The Conduct of Inquiry, Scranton, PA:Chandler Publishing.

Keat, R. and J. Urry (1975), Social Theory as Science, Lon-don: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kotier, P. (1972), "A Generic Concept of Marketing," Jour-nal of Marketing, 36 (April), 46-54.

and S, J. Levy (1969), "Broadening the Concept ofMarketing," Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 10-15.

and G. Zaltman (1971), "Social Marketing: An Ap-proach to Planned Social Change," Journal of Marketing,35 (July), 3-12.

Knigman, H. E. (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertis-ing: Learning without Involvement," Public OpinionQuarterly, 29, 349-356.

Lamb, C. W. and P. M. Dunne, eds. (1980). Theoretical De-velopments in Marketing, Chicago: American Marketing.

Lavidge, R. C. and G. A. Steiner (1961), "A Model for Pre-dictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness," Jour-nal of Marketing, 25 (October), 59-62.

Luck, D. (1969), "Broadening the Concept of Marketing—Too Far," Journal of Marketing, 33 (July), 53-55 .

(1974), "Social Marketing: Confusion Com-pounded," Journal of Marketing, 38 (October), 70-72.

Lutz, R. J. (1979). "Opening Statement," in Conceptual andTheoretical Developments in Marketing, O. C. Ferrell, S.W. Brown, and C. W. Lamb, eds., Chicago: AmericanMarketing, 3-6.

Markin, R. J. (1974), Consumer Behavior: A Cognitive Ori-entation, New York: Macmillan.

Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science, New York: Har-court.

Nicosia, F. W. (1966), Consumer Decision Processes, Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

O'Brien, T. (1971), "Stages of Consumer Decision Making,"Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 283-289.

Palda, K. S. (1966), "The Hypothesis of a Hierarchy of Ef-fects: A Partial Evaluation," Journal of Marketing Re-search, 3 (February), 13-24.

Ray, M. (1973), "Marketing Communications and the Hier-archy of Effects," in New Models for Mass Communica-tions Research, Vol. 2, P. Clark, ed., Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Robicheaux, R. and A. El-Ansary (1975). "A General Modelfor Understanding Channel Member Behavior," Journal ofRetailing, 52 (Winter), 13-30, 90-94.

Rothschild, M. L. (1974), "The Effects of Political Advertis-ing on the Voting Behavior of a Low-Involvement Elec-torate," Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, GraduateSchool of Business.

Rudner, R. (1966), Philosophy of Social Science, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ryan, Michael and John O'Shaughnessy (1980). "Theory De-velopment: The Need to Distinguish Levels of Abstrac-tion," in Theoretical Developments in Marketing, CharlesW. Lamb, Jr. and Patrick M. Dunne, eds., Chicago: Amer-ican Marketing, 47-50.

Shoostari, Nader and Bruce Walker (1980), "In Search of aTheory of Channel Behavior," in Theoretical Develop-ments in Marketing, Charles W, Lamb, Jr. and Patrick M.Dunne, eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 100-103.

Slater. C. C (1968), "Marketing Processes in Developing LatinAmerican Societies," Journal of Marketing, 32 (July), 50-55.

Smith, R. E. and W. R. Swinyard (1982), "Information Re-sponse Models: An Integrated Approach," Journal of Mar-keting, 45 (Winter), 81-93.

Solomon, Paul (1979), "Marketing Theory and Metatheory,"in Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing,O. C. Ferrell, Stephen W. Brown, and Charles W. Lamb,Jr., eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 374-382.

Steiner, R. L. (1973), "Does Advertising Lower ConsumerPrices?," Journal of Marketing, 37 (October), 19-26.

Suppe, F. (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nded., Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Swinyard, W. R. and K. A. Coney (1978), "Promotional Ef-fects on a High- versus Low-Involvement Electorate,"Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (June). 41-48.

Wind, Y. and F. E, Webster (1972), "industrial Buying asOrganizational Behavior: A Guideline for Research Strat-egy," Journal of Purchasing, 8 (August), 5-16.

Zaltman, Gerald, Karen LeMasters, and Michael Heffring(1982), Theory Construction in Marketing, New York:Wiley.

, Christian R, A. Pinson, and Reinhard Angelmar(1973), Metatheory and Consumer Research, New York:Holt.

General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing / 17