Marketing Letters

, Volume 18, Issue 1–2, pp 31–44

Strategy and response to purchase intention questions

  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • Leatta McLaughlin
  • Sara R. Jaeger
Article

Abstract

Purchase intention and willingness-to-pay (WTP) questions are often analyzed without considering that a respondent's utility maximizing answer need not correspond to a truthful answer. In this paper, we argue that individuals act, at least partially, in their own self-interest when answering survey questions. Consumers are conceptualized as thinking along two strategic dimensions when asked hypothetical purchase intention and WTP questions: (a) whether their response will influence the future price of a product and (b) whether their response will influence whether a product will actually be offered. Results provide initial evidence that strategic behavior may exist for some goods and some people.

Keywords

Strategic behavior Purchase intention Survey methods Willingness-to-pay (WTP) 

References

  1. Bemmaor, A. C. (1995). Predicting behavior from intention-to-buy measures: The parametric case. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carson, R., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173–210.Google Scholar
  3. Chardon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, L. D. (2001). What's wrong with conjoint analysis? Marketing Research, 16–19.Google Scholar
  10. Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D., Chakravarti, D., Field, R., & Whipple, G. (1993). Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: A case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Marketing Science, 12, 318–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jamieson, L., & Bass, F. (1989). Adjusting stated intention measures to predict trial of new products: A comparison of models and methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 336–345.Google Scholar
  13. Jedidi, K., Jagpal, S., & Manchanda, P. (2003). Measuring heterogeneous reservation prices for product bundles. Marketing Science, 22, 107–130.Google Scholar
  14. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loewenstein, G., & Adler, D. (1995). A bias in predictions of tastes. The Economic Journal, 105, 929–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86, 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lusk, J. L., & Shogren, J. F. (in press). Experimental auctions: Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Manski, C. F. (1990). The use of intentions data to predict behavior: A best-case analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 934–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mittal, B., & Lee, M. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monroe, K. K. (1990). Pricing: Making profitable decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Morrison, D. G. (1979). Purchase intentions and purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing, 43, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morwitz, V. G. (1997). Why consumers don't always accurately predict their own future behavior. Marketing Letters, 8, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morwitz, V. G. (2001). Methods for forecasting from intentions data. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 34–56). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.Google Scholar
  26. Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego involvement. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Sun, B., & Morwitz, V. G. (2005). Predicting purchase behavior from stated intentions: A unified model. Working paper, Department of Marketing, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  28. Urban, G. L., Hatch, G. E., & Silk, A. J. (1983). The ASSESSOR pre-test market evaluation system. Interfaces, 13, 38–59.Google Scholar
  29. Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23, 59–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayson L. Lusk
    • 1
  • Leatta McLaughlin
    • 2
  • Sara R. Jaeger
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue UniversityWest LafayettUSA
  3. 3.Department of MarketingUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations