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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Blair, E., & Burton, S. (1987). Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 280–288.
Brucks, M. (1988). Search Monitor: An approach for computer-controlled experiments involving consumer information search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 117–121.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Means, B., & Loftus, E. (1991). When personal history repeats itself: Decomposing memories for recurring events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 297–318.
Menon, G. (1993). The effects of accessibility of information in memory on judgments of behavioral frequencies. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 431–440.
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.
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.
Moore, J.C. (1988). Self/proxy response status and survey response quality: A review of the literature. Journal of Official Statistics, 4, 155–172.
Schober, M.F., & Clark, H.H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.
Schwarz, N., & Wellens, T. (1997). Cognitive dynamics of proxy responding: The diverging perspectives of actors and observers. Journal of Official Statistics, 13, 159–179.
Sirken, M.G., Herrmann, D.J., Schechter, S., Schwarz, N., Tanur, J.M., & Tourangeau, R. (eds.). (1999). Cognition and Survey Research. New York: Wiley.
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.
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.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., & Schwarzn, N. (1996). Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Todorov, A. (2003). Cognitive procedures for correcting proxy-response biases in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 215–224.
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bickart, B.A., Phillips, J.M. & Blair, J. The effects of discussion and question wording on self and proxy reports of behavioral frequencies. Market Lett 17, 167–180 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-5232-1
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-5232-1