IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/59867.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Salehudin, Imam

Abstract

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
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/59867/8/MPRA_paper_59867.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. 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, vol. 4, pages 1-7.
    2. 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.
    3. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2014-036 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    13. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    14. Mankan M. Koné & Carl Gaigné & Lota Tamini, 2017. "Duopolistic Competition and Optimal Switching Time from Export to FDI in Uncertainty," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-23, CIRANO.
    15. Felix Holzmeister & Christoph Huber & Stefan Palan, 2022. "A critical perspective on the conceptualization of risk in behavioral and experimental finance," Chapters, in: Sascha Füllbrunn & Ernan Haruvy (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Finance, chapter 30, pages 408-413, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    17. repec:grz:wpsses:2017-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Renato Frey & Shannon M. Duncan & Elke U. Weber, 2023. "Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two-thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Willebrands, Daan & Lammers, Judith & Hartog, Joop, 2012. "A successful businessman is not a gambler. Risk attitude and business performance among small enterprises in Nigeria," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 342-354.
    20. Breaban, Adriana & Noussair, Charles N. & Popescu, Andreea Victoria, 2020. "Contests with money and time: Experimental evidence on overbidding in all-pay auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 391-405.
    21. Lado-Sestayo Rubén & Neira-Gómez Isabel & Chasco-Yrigoyen Coro, 2017. "Entrepreneurship at Regional Level: Temporary and Neighborhood Effects," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, October.
    22. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    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

    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:59867. 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.