Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 167–180 | Cite as

The effects of discussion and question wording on self and proxy reports of behavioral frequencies

  • Barbara A. BickartEmail author
  • Joan M. Phillips
  • Johnny Blair
Article

Abstract

Marketing research surveys often rely on one person to report about the consumption and purchase behavior of other household members. We report the results of an experiment examining how the level of discussion among household members and the wording of a recall question affect the accuracy of reports about the frequency of another household member’s behavior. The findings suggest two important implications. First, asking respondents for a count versus an estimate of the behavior affects both the level of reporting for others as well as the accuracy of such reports. Second, screening potential respondents on their level of discussion on a topic with their partner or family member may help reduce reporting error.

Keywords

Survey accuracy Proxy reports Behavioral frequencies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bickart, B., & Felcher, E.M. (1996). Expanding and enhancing the use of verbal protocols in survey research. In: Schwarz, N. & Sudman, S. (eds.), Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Bickart, B., Menon, G., Schwarz, N., & Blair, J. (1994). The use of anchoring strategies in constructing proxy reports of attitudes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 375–379.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, E., & Burton, S. (1987). Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brucks, M. (1988). Search Monitor: An approach for computer-controlled experiments involving consumer information search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, S., & Blair, E. (1991). Task conditions, response formulation processes, and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, F.G., Brown, N.R., & Cashman, E.R. (1998). Strategies for estimating behavioral frequency in survey interviews. Memory: Special Issue on Survey Research, 6, 339–366.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, H.L., Hoch, S.J., & Ragsdale, E.K.E. (1986). An anchoring and adjustment model of spousal predictions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kojetin, B.A., & Miller, L.A. (1993). The intrahousehold communications study: Estimating the accuracy of proxy responses at the dyadic level. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Charles, Illinois.Google Scholar
  9. Kojetin, B.A., & Mullin, P. (1995). The quality of proxy reports on the Current Population Survey (CPS). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.Google Scholar
  10. Kojetin, B.A., & Jerstad, S. (1997). The quality of proxy reports on the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Paper presented at the Society for Consumer Psychology Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. Means, B., & Loftus, E. (1991). When personal history repeats itself: Decomposing memories for recurring events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 297–318.Google Scholar
  12. Menon, G. (1993). The effects of accessibility of information in memory on judgments of behavioral frequencies. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Menon, G. (1997). Are the parts better than the whole? The effects of decompositional questions on judgments of frequent behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Menon, G., Bickart, B., Sudman, S., & Blair, J. (1995). How well do you know your partner? Strategies for formulating proxy-reports and their effects on the convergence to self-reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 75–84.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, J.C. (1988). Self/proxy response status and survey response quality: A review of the literature. Journal of Official Statistics, 4, 155–172.Google Scholar
  16. Schober, M.F., & Clark, H.H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwarz, N., & Wellens, T. (1997). Cognitive dynamics of proxy responding: The diverging perspectives of actors and observers. Journal of Official Statistics, 13, 159–179.Google Scholar
  18. Sirken, M.G., Herrmann, D.J., Schechter, S., Schwarz, N., Tanur, J.M., & Tourangeau, R. (eds.). (1999). Cognition and Survey Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Strube, G. (1987). Answering survey questions: The role of memory. In: Hippler, H.-J., Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology. New York: Spinger-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Sudman, S., Bickart, B., Blair, J., & Menon, G. (1994). A comparison of self and proxy reporting. In: Schwarz, N. & Sudman, S. (eds.), Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., & Schwarzn, N. (1996). Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Todorov, A. (2003). Cognitive procedures for correcting proxy-response biases in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uleman, J.S., Newman, L.S., & Moskowitz, G.B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In: Zanna, M. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28. Academic Press, (pp. 211–279).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara A. Bickart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joan M. Phillips
    • 2
  • Johnny Blair
    • 3
  1. 1.Rutgers University-CamdenCamden
  2. 2.Mendoza College of BusinessUniversity of Notre DameNotre Dame
  3. 3.Abt Associates, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations