Strategy and response to purchase intention questions
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
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
- 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.
- Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne, 1985. " Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University 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, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-15, September.
- 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.
- Jayson Lusk & Ted Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
- Mittal, Banwari & Lee, Myung-Soo, 1989. "A causal model of consumer involvement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 363-389, November.
- 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.
- 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.
- Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal & Puneet Manchanda, 2003. "Measuring Heterogeneous Reservation Prices for Product Bundles," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 107-130, July.
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 (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.