The Decision-Oriented Interview (DOI) as a Marketing Instrument for Obtaining Information about Brands


  • Karl Westhoff Dresden Technical University
  • Axel Schmidt



Brands, checklist, decisions, in-depth interview, marketing.


The aim of our article is not to report an empirical study but to present a toolkit which can help to collect valid information about brands. The Decision-Oriented Interview, hereafter, DOI presents empirically proven behavior regularities in interviews as a collection of checklists. The DOI has shown its usefulness in different fields of interviewing e.g. as a selection interview, in forensic assessment or a method for oral examinations. The DOI collection of explicit rules for interview design, execution and summary is described as a toolkit for collecting information relevant in marketing. The purchase decisions are presented as a basis for describing brand-differentiating situations. The use of the rules collected in the DOI checklists has clear advantages over the conventional approach in which success depends on the experience of individual project managers.


Cannell, C. F., Kahn, R. L. (1968). Interviewing. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol. II, 2nd ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E. & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.

Hagemeister, C. & Westhoff, K. (2010). On objectivity and validity of oral examinations in psychology – A replication. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52 (3), 247-260.

Kici, G. & Westhoff, K. (2000). Anforderungen an psychologisch-diagnostische Interviews in der Praxis [Standards of Interviews in psychological assessment]. Report Psychologie, 25, 428-436.

Kici, G. & Westhoff, K. (2004). Evaluation of Requirements for the Assessment and Construction of Interview Guides in Psychological Assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20 (2), 83-98.

Kleinmuntz, B. (1990). Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 296-310.

Koch, A., Strobel, A., Kici, G. & Westhoff, K. (2009). Quality of the Critical Incident Technique in practice: Interrater reliability and users' acceptance under real conditions. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51, 3 – 15.

Meehl, P.E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 178-200.

Westhoff, K. (2014). The Decision-Oriented Interview (DOI) as an in-depth selection interview. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56 (2), 137-153.

Westhoff K. (Ed.) (2013). The Decision-Oriented Interview (DOI) as a Selection Interview. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. eBook:

Westhoff, K. (Hrsg.) (2009). Das Entscheidungsorientierte Gespräch (EOG) als Eignungsinterview [The Decision-Oriented Interview (DOI) as a Selection Interview]. Lengerich: Pabst.

Westhoff, K., Hagemeister, C. & Eckert, H. (2002). On the Objectivity of Oral Examinations in Psychology. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23, 149-157.

Westhoff, K., Kluck, M.-L. (1991). Psychologische Gutachten schreiben und beurteilen [ How to Write and Evaluate Psychological Reports]. Berlin: Springer.

Westhoff, K., Kluck, M.-L. (2012). How to Write and Evaluate Psychological Reports. Pabst: Lengerich. eBook:

Westhoff, K., Kluck, M.-L. (2014). Psychologische Gutachten schreiben und beurteilen. 6., vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage [How to Write and Evaluate Psychological Reports. Completely revised and enlarged edition] Heidelberg: Springer Also as eBook: www.