IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Perceived Purchase Risk in the Technological Goods Purchase Context: An Instrument Development and Validation


  • Salehudin, Imam


Each purchase decision is most likely to be a risky decision. Woodside and DeLozier (1976) proposed that consumer purchase-related behaviors correspond to the perceived level of risk in the purchase. Therefore, understanding consumer’s perceived purchase risk is paramount for marketers –especially marketers of high risk products. This study intends to develop a valid and reliable instrument in measuring consumer’s perceived purchase risk using the concept of perceived risk by Peter and Ryan (1976). This study does not intend to infer conclusions regarding the population of respondents used in the research, but only conclusions regarding the sample of items used in the instrument. The instrument was validated using two purchase context, smartphone and netbook purchase. An item is considered valid only if it tested valid in both contexts. The nomological validity of the instrument was tested using Confirmatory factor analysis as the primary method of analysis. Correlations between instruments were also tested to analyze convergent and concurrent validity of the instrument. This study employs LISREL for WINDOWS 8.51 Full Version (Jőreskog and Sőrbom, 2001) as software used for the analysis. The result of this study is that all instrument used in the study have good nomological validity. However, some item were found to be not valid in at least one purchase context, thus was excluded from the measurement model. The newly developed instrument has better convergent validity, even though with slightly weaker concurrent validity than existing instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Salehudin, Imam, 2010. "Perceived Purchase Risk in the Technological Goods Purchase Context: An Instrument Development and Validation," MPRA Paper 59867, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Sep 2011.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:59867

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    2. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    3. Doll, Monika & Seebauer, Michael & Tonn, Maren, 2017. "Bargaining over waiting time in gain and loss framed ultimatum games," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 15/2017, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    4. Heß, Moritz & Scheve, Christian von & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Aiko & Wagner, Gert G., 2018. "Are Political Representatives More Risk-Loving Than the Electorate? Evidence from German Federal and State Parliaments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 1-7.
    5. Beyer, Andrea R. & Fasolo, Barbara & de Graeff, P.A. & Hillege, H.L., 2015. "Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61210, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Khan, Mohammad Tariqul Islam & Tan, Siow-Hooi & Chong, Lee-Lee, 2017. "How past perceived portfolio returns affect financial behaviors—The underlying psychological mechanism," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1478-1488.
    7. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    8. Aloña Martiarena, 2013. "What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 27-39, January.
    9. Piotr Majer & Peter Mohr & Hauke Heekeren & Wolfgang Karl Härdle, 2014. "Portfolio Decisions and Brain Reactions via the CEAD method," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2014-036, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    10. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    11. Xaimarie Hernández-Cruz & Saylisse Dávila, 2020. "Quantifying adaptive capacity to floods: an assessment of Rincón, PR," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1537-1564, August.
    12. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    13. Katarzyna Kochaniak & Paweł Ulman, 2020. "Risk-Intolerant but Risk-Taking—Towards a Better Understanding of Inconsistent Survey Responses of the Euro Area Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-26, August.
    14. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    15. Qian, Qian & Feng, Hairong & Gu, Jing, 2021. "The influence of risk attitude on credit risk contagion—Perspective of information dissemination," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    16. Lambert, Jérôme & Bessière, Véronique & N’Goala, Gilles, 2012. "Does expertise influence the impact of overconfidence on judgment, valuation and investment decision?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1115-1128.
    17. Nosic, Alen & Weber, Martin, 2007. "Determinants of Risk Taking Behavior: The role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions and Beliefs," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-56, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    18. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    19. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Zhang, Ping, 2002. "Market behavior in the presence of divergent and imperfect private information: experimental evidence from Canada, China, and the United States," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 435-450, April.
    20. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.

    More about this item


    Instrument Validation; Perceived Purchase Risk; Technological Goods.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M39 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Other


    Access and download statistics


    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:pra:mprapa:59867. 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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.