IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/81697.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Brief vs. comprehensive descriptions in measuring intentions to purchase

Author

Listed:
  • Armstrong, J. Scott
  • Overton, Terry

Abstract

In forecasting demand for expensive consumer goods, direct questioning of potential consumers about their future purchasing plans has had considerable predictive success [1, 2, 4]. Any attempt to apply such "intention to purchase" methods to forecast demand for proposed products or services must determine some way to convey product information to the potential consumer [3]. Indeed, all the prospective consumer knows about the product or service is what he may infer from the information given to him by the researcher. This paper presents a study of the effect upon intention to purchase of this seemingly crucial element—the extent and type of description of the new service. How extensive must the description of the new service be in order to measure intention to purchase?

Suggested Citation

  • Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry, 1971. "Brief vs. comprehensive descriptions in measuring intentions to purchase," MPRA Paper 81697, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:81697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81697/1/MPRA_paper_81697.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2, March.
    2. James Tobin, 1957. "On the Predictive Value of Consumer Intentions and Attitudes," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 41, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    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. Handan ÇAM, 2016. "The Role of Information Technology in Patient Satisfaction," Turkish Economic Review, KSP Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 91-102, March.
    2. Kannan Srikanth & Anand Nandkumar & Deepa Mani & Prashant Kale, 2020. "How Firms Build Isolating Mechanisms for Knowledge: A Study in Offshore Research and Development Captives," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 98-116, June.
    3. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2015. "Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1678-1685.
    4. Armstrong, J. Scott, 1975. "Monetary incentives in mail surveys," MPRA Paper 81695, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Chenli Meng & Yuhui Ge & Eugene Abrokwah, 2020. "Developing Sustainable Decision Performance for Science and Technology Industries in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Armstrong, J. Scott & Brodie, Roderick J., 1999. "Forecasting for Marketing," MPRA Paper 81690, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Haiyang Li & Jun Li, 2009. "Top management team conflict and entrepreneurial strategy making in China," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 263-283, June.
    8. Pornpitakpan, Chanthika & Han, Jie Hui, 2013. "The effect of culture and salespersons’ retail service quality on impulse buying," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 85-93.

    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. J. Dominitz & C. F. Manski, "undated". "Perceptions of Economic Insecurity: Evidence from the Survey of Economic Expectations," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1105-96, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    2. Ralph Stinebrickner & Todd R. Stinebrickner, 2014. "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 426-472.
    3. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    4. Jos'e Raimundo Carvalho & Diego de Maria Andr'e & Yuri Costa, 2023. "Individual Updating of Subjective Probability of Homicide Victimization: a "Natural Experiment'' on Risk Communication," Papers 2312.08171, arXiv.org.
    5. Kirstin Lindloff & Nadine Pieper & Nils C. Bandelow & David M. Woisetschläger, 2014. "Drivers of carsharing diffusion in Germany: an actor-centred approach," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(3/4), pages 217-245.
    6. Tine Janžek & Petra Ziherl, 2013. "Overview of models and methods for measuring economic agent’s expectations," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth IFC Conference on "Statistical issues and activities in a changing environment", Basel, 28-29 August 2012., volume 36, pages 172-179, Bank for International Settlements.
    7. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    8. Das, J.W.M. & Dominitz, J. & van Soest, A.H.O., 1997. "Comparing Predictions and Outcomes : Theory and Application to Income Changes," Other publications TiSEM 6eef11dd-0ae4-4673-b8c0-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    10. Roper, Stuart & Parker, Cathy, 2013. "Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2262-2268.
    11. John R. Hauser & Guilherme (Gui) Liberali & Glen L. Urban, 2014. "Website Morphing 2.0: Switching Costs, Partial Exposure, Random Exit, and When to Morph," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1594-1616, June.
    12. Michael D. Hurd & Kathleen McGarry, 2002. "The Predictive Validity of Subjective Probabilities of Survival," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 966-985, October.
    13. Ozer, Muammer, 2007. "Reducing the demand uncertainties at the fuzzy-front-end of developing new online services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1372-1387, November.
    14. Asher A. Blass & Saul Lach & Charles F. Manski, 2010. "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities To Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences For Electricity Reliability," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(2), pages 421-440, May.
    15. Michael Hurd & Maarten Van Rooij & Joachim Winter, 2011. "Stock market expectations of Dutch households," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 416-436, April.
    16. Denis Darpy, 1997. "Une variable médiatrice du report d’achat : la procrastination," Post-Print hal-01518926, HAL.
    17. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Carman, K.G. & Kooreman, P., 2010. "Flu Shots, Mammogram, and the Perception of Probabilities," Other publications TiSEM fba970b8-6fc7-449b-acf9-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Colette Konietzny & Jirka Konietzny & Albert Caruana, 2024. "Drivers of Pro-Ecological Behaviour Norms among Environmentalists, Hunters and the General Public," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Kelvin Balcombe & Aurelia Samuel & Iain Fraser, 2009. "Estimating WTP With Uncertainty Choice Contingent Valuation," Studies in Economics 0921, School of Economics, University of Kent.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    consumer behavior; marketing;

    JEL classification:

    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pra:mprapa:81697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.