IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v18y2007i1p31-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategy and response to purchase intention questions

Author

Listed:
  • Jayson Lusk

    ()

  • Leatta McLaughlin

    ()

  • Sara Jaeger

    ()

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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Jayson Lusk & Leatta McLaughlin & Sara Jaeger, 2007. "Strategy and response to purchase intention questions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 31-44, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:18:y:2007:i:1:p:31-44
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-006-9005-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-006-9005-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007. "Experimental Auctions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521855167, December.
    4. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    6. Jean-Noël Kapferer & Gilles Laurent, 1985. "Measuring consumer involvement profiles," Post-Print hal-00786781, HAL.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    8. Glen L. Urban & Gerald M. Katz & Thomas E. Hatch & Alvin J. Silk, 1983. "The ASSESSOR Pre-Test Market Evaluation System," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 38-59, December.
    9. Mittal, Banwari & Lee, Myung-Soo, 1989. "A causal model of consumer involvement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 363-389, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
    12. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne, 1985. "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 341-352, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    2. Erik Maier & Robert Wilken & Helmut Schneider & Gülpınar Kelemci Schneider, 2012. "In the mood to buy? Understanding the interplay of mood regulation and congruence in an international context," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1005-1018, December.
    3. Suziana Hassan & Søren Bøye Olsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2018. "Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1053-1075, December.
    4. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Christian Kronborg & Morten Mørkbak, 2013. "Public preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland: estimating willingness-to-pay using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(5), pages 739-748, October.
    5. Atakan Yalcin & Lerzan Aksoy & Timothy L. Keiningham & Bart Larivière & Sunil Mithas & Forrest V. Morgeson III, 2012. "The Satisfaction, Repurchase Intention and Shareholder Value Linkage: A Longitudinal Examination of Fixed and Firm Specific Effects," EcoMod2012 4543, EcoMod.
    6. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    7. Norvell, Tim & Horky, Alisha, 2017. "Gift card program incrementality and cannibalization: The effect on revenue and profit," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 250-257.
    8. Stephane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Laurent Muller, 2019. "Strategic response: A key to understand how cheap talk works," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 75-83, March.
    9. Fabio Verneau & Francesco La Barbera & Teresa Del Giudice, 2017. "The Role of Implicit Associations in the Hypothetical Bias," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 312-328, July.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    13. Félix Muñoz-García & Tongzhe Li, 2018. "Explaining Hypothetical Bias Variations Using Income Elasticity of Demand," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 207-224, September.
    14. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    15. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    2. Lusk Jayson L & Alexander Corinne & Rousu Matthew C., 2007. "Designing Experimental Auctions for Marketing Research: The Effect of Values, Distributions, and Mechanisms on Incentives for Truthful Bidding," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, October.
    3. Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert, 2012. "Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 148-166.
    4. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    5. Svensson, Mikael, 2006. "The Value of a Statistical Life in Sweden Estimates from Two Studies using the "Certainty Approach" Calibration," Working Papers 2006:6, Örebro University, School of Business, revised 12 May 2009.
    6. Franziska Rumpel & Michael Knuth & Micheal Schaefer, 2008. "Neural correlates for price involvement in purchase decisions with regards to fast-moving-consumer-goods," FEMM Working Papers 08033, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    7. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Marine Le Gall-Ely, 2009. "Définition, mesure et déterminants du consentement à payer du consommateur : synthèse critique et voies de recherche," Post-Print hal-00522826, HAL.
    9. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    10. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    11. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    12. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Hoefkens, Christine & Verbeke, Wim, 2017. "Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 46-57.
    13. Odekerken-Schroder, Gaby & De Wulf, Kristof & Schumacher, Patrick, 2003. "Strengthening outcomes of retailer-consumer relationships: The dual impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer personality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 177-190, March.
    14. Xuemei Bian & Sadia Haque, 2020. "Counterfeit versus original patronage: Do emotional brand attachment, brand involvement, and past experience matter?," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(4), pages 438-451, July.
    15. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    16. Neuninger, Rosemarie & Mather, Damien & Duncan, Tara, 2017. "Consumer's scepticism of wine awards: A study of consumers’ use of wine awards," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 98-105.
    17. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Inwon Kang & Deokhee Cheon & Matthew Shin, 2011. "Advertising strategy for outbound travel services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 5(4), pages 361-380, December.
    20. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:18:y:2007:i:1:p:31-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.