Strategy and response to purchase intention questions
AbstractPurchase 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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Marketing Letters.
Volume (Year): 18 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100312
Strategic behavior; Purchase intention; Survey methods; Willingness-to-pay (WTP);
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series
qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
- Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne, 1985. " Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 341-52, December.
- Fisher, Robert J, 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-15, September.
- Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
- Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007.
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521855167, November.
- Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
- Mittal, Banwari & Lee, Myung-Soo, 1989. "A causal model of consumer involvement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 363-389, November.
- Koert Van Ittersum, 2012. "The effect of decision makers’ time perspective on intention–behavior consistency," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 263-277, March.
- Craig A. Bond & Dawn Thilmany & Jennifer Keeling Bond, 2008. "Understanding consumer interest in product and process-based attributes for fresh produce," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2), pages 231-252.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.