The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Does Measuring Intent Change Behavior?
Open accessAbstract
Past research has established that, while self-reports of purchase intentions can predict behavior, various factors affect the strength of the intentions-behavior link. This article explores one such factor: the impact of merely measuring intent. Our specific question concerns the impact of measuring intent on subsequent purchase behavior. Prior research suggests a mere-measurement hypothesis: that merely measuring intent will increase subsequent purchase behavior. We also suggest a polarization hypothesis: that repeated intent questions will have a polarizing effect on behavior. The results reveal that the effect of merely asking intent to buy once is an increase in the subsequent purchase rate. The effect of repeatedly asking intent for those with low levels of intent is a decreased propensity to buy with repeated measurements. These two effects are reduced given prior experience with the product. The implications of these findings and opportunities for future research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338 · Cited by 2,319
Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164 · Cited by 1,812
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
Attitude construction: evaluation in context
Schwarz, N. (2007) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638 · Cited by 627
Voorhees, C. M., Fombelle, P. W., Gregoire, Y., Bone, S., Gustafsson, A., Sousa, R., & Walkowiak, T. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014 · Cited by 489
The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect
Liu, W., & Aaker, J. (2008) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/588699 · Cited by 411
The Hidden Cost of Personal Quantification
Etkin, J. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv095 · Cited by 274
Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., & Dhar, R. (2002) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/344431 · Cited by 237
Volunteer Decision Making By Older People: A Test of a Revised Theory of Planned Behavior
Warburton, J., & Terry, D. J. (2000) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2203_11 · Cited by 217
Mental Contamination and the Debiasing Problem
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., & Brekke, N. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.012 · Cited by 160
The calibration of expert judgment: heuristics and biases beyond the laboratory
Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.041 · Cited by 146
Simply asking questions about health behaviors increases both healthy and unhealthy behaviors
Williams, P., Block, L. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2006) · Social Influence · doi:10.1080/15534510600630850 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Morwitz, V. G., Johnson, E., & Schmittlein, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W1978125164
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
