A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S ______________ _____F OLIA OECONOMICA 85. 1988_____________________
Ahron J . Schw erd t*
A NEW WAY TO ANALYSE ATTRIBUTE R IS K S IN PREFERENCE MODELS
1. P e rc e iv e d R is k in Consumer B e h a v io r - A Review f c u u i w ж '.ш гг r e r . тяь а . д |В'ВЗ № а.ч .тг.да«ш ж гi— г г с » . .. т ~ г " д я и и = т а г т з г и д а
-The con cep t of p e rc e iv e d r i s k has s tim u la te d re& u afch s in c e i t was f i r s t in tro d u c e d by B a u e r in 1960 [ 3 ] . I h i s con cep t ta k e s in to c o n s id e r a t io n th a t consumer d e c is io n s - e s p e c i a l l y pur chase d e c is io n s - a re based m ostly on in ad eq u ate in fo r m a tio n . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , d e c is io n s o fte n in v o lv e r is k y outcom es. The po s s i b l e o c c u rre n c e of u n fa v o u ra b le p o st- p u rch a se consequences and the p re- p u rch ase consequences u n c e r t a in t y about those outcomes a re o b je c t o f the con cep t of p e rc e iv e d r i s k [ 7 ] .
B e fo re e v a lu a t in g p e rc e iv e d r i s k models on the background of p r e fe r e n c e models a s h o rt re v ie w of the main re s e a rc h a re a s in the f i e l d of p e rc e jv e d r i s k i s shown. F iy u r e 1 shows the most r e l e v a n t s tu d ie s in th a t area ex ce p t those from t r a d i t i o n a l d e c is io n
th e o ry [ 3 , 4 , 5 ] . In o rd e r to c a t e g o r iz e the d i f f e r e n t r i s k models we in tro d u c e the term s: g e n e ra l r i s k c a te g o ry models and p r o d u c t - - s p e c i f i c r is k c a te g o ry m odels:
1. G eneral r i s k c a te g o ry models aré tho se which a re i d e n t i c a l fo r a l l p ro d u c ts (and b r a n d s ); th ey a re based on g e n e ra l r i s k c a te g o r ie s such as u n c e r t a in t y and r is k y f e e l i n g .
2. P ro d u c t s p e c i f i c r i s k c a te g o ry models a re th o se w hich are p ro d u ct s p e c i f i c due to t h e i r p ro d u ct a t t r i b u t e - s p e c i f i c r i s k c a t e g o r ie s . Fo r a p ro d u ct l i k e e .g . any of the f o llo w in g a t t r i b u t e s p e c i f i c r i s k s may be found: u n c e r t a in gas m ile a g e , u n c e r t a in d u r a b i l i t y .
* D r , a s s is t a n t p r o fe s s o r , Regensburg U n iv e r s it y (F e d e r a l Re p u b lic of Germ any).
perceived risk models traditional perreived risk models perceived пак concerning the risk
of atnbufe value
perceived risk as aependend variable
product field j j brand field'
Z
qencra! risk category Cunmnq- Ham (6) Bettam ( » . . . 1 Cox and Rich (8) Jacoby and Kaplan (9) perceived risk as independent variable product ond brand field product specific risk category componeri dimension models VI МПИ perceived risk according to risk in tradicional decision theory preferences in brond field dimension specific risk reduction strategies Peter and Ryan (-10) Schweiqer et. ol. (11) Roselius(-
12)
risk reauction strategies os a function of perceived risk intensity Meyer(
1 4)
nsk of attribute value - in the case of uncorr.plefe or missing information risk of attribute value in the case of stochastic attribute values risk of a t t n bute value in the case of stochastic attribute values and u tility risk sX
Möller ( O ) F ig . 1. Review of main s tu d ie s in p e rc e iv e d r i s k 10 2 A hr on J. S c h w e rd tIn p e rc e iv e d r is k models " r i s k " is m ostly not c l e a r l y d e f i ned, but ju s t d e s c rib e d in a phenom enological way. Looking c a r e f u l l y a t r is k and p r e fe r e n c e models one may d is t in g u is h thu f o l low ing types of r i s k :
1. R is k due to u n c e r t a in t y of e n viro n m e n ta l c o n d it io n s . As a consequence, the d e c is io n a lte r n a tiv e s * o u tc o m e s a re random v a r i a b le s (outcome r i s k ) . Hie r is k is p r io r to any tra n s fo rm a tio n ot outcomes to u t i l i t i e s .
2. R is k due to vagueness of the u t i l i t y f u n c tio n . Even i f the outcome of a s p e c i f i c d e c is io n a l t e r n a t i v e is f ix e d , tho r e f e r e n t u t i l i t y of the outcome may be a random v a r i a b l e because ut a fuzzy u t i l i t y fu n c tio n caused by a vague goal systpm of the d e c is io n maker ( u t i l i t y r i s k ) .
G e n eral r is k ca te g o ry models a re u s u a lly b u i l t o f two compo n en ts such as ( C u n n i n g h a m ) [ б ] :
- the f i r s t component i s tho u n c e r t a in t y th a t an unknown brand of a p roduct works as w e ll as the p re s e n t brand;
- the second component b u ild s upon the consequences of the use of any unknown brand of a p ro d u c t.
ih u s , p e rc e iv c d r is k is d e fin e d as the r i s k a tta c h e d to the p ro d u ct as e n t i t y . H its type o f p e rc e iv e d r i s k models can be d i
f f e r e n t ia te d a c c o rd in g to the a rea of a p p lic a t io n : p ro d u c ts and brands w it h in one p ro d u c t. E .g . J a c o b y and K a p l a n
[9 ] developed the f i r s t typ e of p e rc e iv e d r is k s models and explai ned o v e r a ll p e rc e iv e d r is k by the " r i s k f a c e t s " .
E . g . P e t e r and R y a n [1 3] develop ed the second type of p e rc e iv e d r is k models as w e ll. R is k re d u c tio n s t r a t e g i e s based on the re a s o n a b le assum ption th a t the d e c is io n maker is in c lin e d to reduce p e rc e iv e d r is k a c c o rd in g to h is r is k t o le ia n c e by s e v e r a l s t r a t e g ie s were m a in ly d is c u s s e d by K o s e l i u s [1 5 ].
Ju s t r e c e n t ly the t r a d i t i o n a l p e rc e iv e d r is k models have been bound to p r e fe r e n c e th e o ry c o n s t r u c t s . Brand p r e fe r e n c e models have been in tro d u c e d . T r a d it io n a l p r e fe r e n c e m odels, e s p e c ia ll y the l i n e a r com pensatory m odel, were e n la rg e d enbodying outcome as w e ll аз u t i l i t y r i s k a s p e cts [8 ,1 1 ,1 2 ,1 4 ]. As re g a rd s the, o u t
come r i s k i t is normally supposed th a t a consumer has fo r each r e l e van t a t t r i b u t e a s u b j e c t iv e p r o b a b il it y d i s t r i b u t i o n which r e p r e s e n ts h is u n c e r t a in t y . S i m i l i a r approaches were made c o n c e rn in g u- t i l i t y r i s k . The t r a d i t i o n a l p e rc e iv e d r i s k models are d ir e c t e d
toward g e n e ric are demand. They a re not h e lp f u l to e x p la in brand c h o ic e .
P r e fe r e n c e models w ith r ie k y a t t r i b u t e s a re q u ite re a s o n a b le , however they a re o fte n not o p e r a tio n a l because of h a v in g to ask f o r s e v e r a l p r o b a b il it y d is t r i b u t i o n s which people u s u a lly c a n 't g iv e you, a t le a s t v a l i d ones. The p ro ced u re use-d I s m o stly too s tre n u o lis [1 8 ].
2. A New Approach
2.1 OJjJ e с ts of th e S tudy
In t r a d i t i o n a l m arket re s e a rc h when p erson s have to judge ob j e c t s th ey have to g iv e u n id im e n s io n a l r a t in g s o f a t t r i b u t e s of th e se o b je c t s no m a tte r how t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s p e c i f i c r i s k s a re . Q u a s i- n s k le s s a t t r i b u t e r a t e s are put in t o t r a d i t i o n a l p r e fe r e n c e m odels. S t a r t i n g w ith t h is p o in t you get the main q u e s tio n : "Does the e x p l i c i t c o n s id e r a t io n o f the outcome r is k in c re a s e in t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f p r e fe r e n c e m o d e ls?"
2 .2 . S e le c t io n of P r e fe r e n c e Mode ls
Tłjere are.m any form al p r e fe r e n c e models in c lu d in g r i s k a s p e c ts . B a s i c a l l y we a re r e l y i n g on the l i n e a r com pensatory model where we in c o r p o r a te r is k m odules. The b a s ic l i n e a r com pensatory model i s : M w ith s - o b je c t in d ex , m - a t t r i b u t e index (m = l, . . . , M ), ug - o v e r a l l u t i l i t y s c o re ( p r e f e r e n c e ) , usm " g t t r i b u t e s p e c i f i c u t i l i t y s c o re (" p a r t w o r t h u t i l i t y " ) . The f o llo w in g r i s k models have been fo rm a liz e d (~ ; in d ic a t e s a ran dom v a r i a b l e ) :
usm S aom + a lm^sm * £и ^sm
S
aom ♦ ct. Tm smк ♦ ^sm С OLom + Ч , и Im sm ♦ “ sin X a om ♦a lmu sm ♦ üsm s a om +“ lm ^m ♦ usm wi th s a om ♦ a , иIm sm(
2)
l 2mcam ♦
С
^ ^
l 2«>sm + 6 sm) + t (4 )a , T
♦ £
(5 )
^ iTl s i n d , A 2m sm + £ (6 )£
(7 )
xgm - p e rc e p tio n c o n c e rn in g the averag e outcome as re g a rd s a-t a-t r i b u a-t e m and c o n c e rn in g o b je c a-t s ,
с - p e rc e p tio n c o n c e rn in g the outcom e's v a r i a t i o n as re- Sffl
g ard s a t t r i b u t e m and c o n c e rn in g o b je c t s ,
д| - exp ected v a lu e of a t t r i b u t e m's outcomes as re g a rd s o-sm bject, s (wsn, =E ( i s m )), f> - v a r ia n c e of a t t r i b u t e m's outcomes аз re g a rd s o b je c t sm . s (C L , •- F ( i sm - wsm) 2 ) > I 1 - " n e g a tiv e v a r ia n c e " of a t t r i b u t e m as reg a rd s o b je c t Sffl 5 ( Г 2 . L C « , „ - /*s . ) 2p ( « s 0 ) i p p ( « » . ) ‘ 0 , X< /J X«. JJ •»5,0 - n0de ^Xsm) 1 -a o(n - p r o b a b i l i t y o i lo s s (Л I ’p( * S(n) ) . 2. 3._ E x p o rim e n ta l Design In o rd e r to a v o id the burden o f in t e r v ie w in g on p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s a new way of q u e s tio n in g has been d e v e lo p e d . The resp on d ents had to judge o b je c t s d e s c rib e d in terms o f a t t r i b u t e - s p e c i f i c p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r ib u L io n s ( F i g . ? ) . »
Fo r each o b je c t p re s e n te d in ( F i g . 3) the resp o n d en ts had to g iv e an u n id im e n s io n a l r a t in g per a t t r i b u t e , a q u a s i r i s k l e s s p e r c e p t io n . In a d d it io n , the resp o n d e n ts had to g iv e p r e fe r e n c e r a t in g s fo r a l l b ran d s. The o b je c t s were s y n t h e t i c a l l y put to g e th e r u sin g a f r a c t i o n a l f a c t o r i a l d e s ig n . Composed of two Greek-
- L a t in f a c t o r i a l d e s in g s . The fo u r f a c t o r s p r e s e n tin g the two a- t t r i b u t e s were:
a t t r i b u t e 1
A
I
in sufficient o u t' stand i nq su fficien t standing F ig . 2. O b je c t p r e s e n t a tio n (on c a r d s ) 1: expected v a lu e o f a t t r i b u t e 1 : 3 ( = s u f f i c i e n t ) , 4.5 t i s f y i n g ) , 6 (= good);2: type o f the p r o b a b ilit y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a t t r i b u t e s te e p r e c t a n g u la r , l e f t s te e p ; 3: expected v á lu e of a t t r i b u t e 2 : 3 ( ^ s u f f i c i e n t ) , 4.5 t i s f y i n g ) , 6 (= good); 4: typ e o f the p r o b a b il it y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a t t r i b u t e 2: s te e p r e c t a n g u la r , l e f t s te e p . In F ig . 3 d i f f e r e n t p r o b a b il it y d is t r i b u t i o n s a re shown. ( -sa- r ig h t (=sa- r ig h t
Ä
Ж
in
n
s h a p e 2
m ean
g. 3. The p r o b a b ilit y d i s t r i b u t i o n s , a l l d is t r i b u t i o n s have the same mean
In o rd e r to g e t an id ea o f the r e l i a b i l i t y o f d i f f e r e n t sca- ng p ro ce d u re s the p r o b a b ilit y d i s t r i b u t i o n was o f fe r e d in th re e f f e r e n t w ays, too ( F i g . 4 ) .
1i« persons said ,qood* three persons said, satisfying ♦hree person* »aid „sufficient’ one person said .poor’ block* v e rb a l lit t le m en diaqram
F ig . 4. D if f e r e n t modes to p re s e n t the p r o b a b ili t y d i s t r i b u t i o n
Each respondent had to judge th re e o b je c t c a t e g o r ie s w ith the p r o b a b ili t y d i s t r i b u t i o n made e v id e n t in d i f f e r e n t ways. The i n t e r v ie w d esign is g iv e n in F ig , 5.
product types of q u estio n n aire a t t r i butes
1
2-
5
12
used cars (A) little men
verbal
block-diaqrom gas milaqc susceptibility of repairs headache (ö ) rem edies block-diagram little men
verbal good nature speed of
aid colour (C) televisions verb al block-diagram little m en reproduction of colours-durability
A New Way to Analyse Attribute Risks 109 The sample o f resp on dents i s g iv e n in F ig . 6:
main group q u e s tio n n a ir e of type
1 2 3 sum stu d e n t non-student 12 (1 ) 12(11) 12(111) 12 (T V ) 1 ? (V ) 1 2 (V I ) 36 36 F ig . 6. Q u e s t io n n a ir e s / t e s t persons d esign
P r i o r to the a c t u a l in t e r v ie w the resp on dents got a chance to g e t used to the in t e r v ie w p ro ce d u re . The o v e r a ll in t e r v ie w s t r a tegy (45 to 90 m in u te s ) is g iv e n in F ig . 7.
2 . А. АпаДу$15 of P a ta
B e fo re any f u r t h e r a n a ly s is o f the d ata was c a r r ie d o u t, t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y was t e s t e d . Then th e f o llo w in g h y p o th e s is were t e s t e d : H I: The q u a s i- r is k le s s a t t r i b u t e s c o re i s i d e n t i c a l w ith the c o rre s p o n d in g mean.
H2: Why u sin g e x p l i c i t a t t r i b u t e r i s k d i s t r i b u t i o n s the exter n a l and in t e r n a l v a l i d i t y i s not h ig h e r than when u sin g j u s t the q u a s i- r is k le s s a t t r i b u t e s c o r e s .
HJ : The mode o f p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n has no im pact on the r e s u l t s .
HI was te s te d by an dependent-sam ple-test-m odel where the hypothe s i s t h a t Z I ( x cm - и 5м1 5П1) = 0 co u ld be r e je c t e d (p = 0 ,0 5 ).
T e s tin g i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y a c c o rd in g to H2 the p a ir w is e com parison o f the models took p la c e . The r e s u l t s are shown in Tab. 1.
T a b l e 1 R e s u lts o f the p a ir w is e comparison v a l i d i t y o f models - i n t e r n a l Groups Model • 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 12 0 1 5 10* 12 12 I 12 0 7 12 12 12 • : 12 0 4 . 10 12 12 12 0 5 11 12 12 I I 12 0 4 12 12 12 10 0 6 11 10 10 12 0 6 12 12 12 I I I 12 0 5 12 12 12 12 0 9 12 12 12 12 0 7 11 11 11 IV 12 0 11 12 12 12 12 0 10 . 12 12 12 *12 0 8 11 11 12 V 12 0 11 11 12 12 12 0 9 12 11 10 12 0 8 12 12 12 V I 12 0 8 12 12 12 12 0 11 12 12 11 * I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : model 1 le d in 10 o f 12 c a s e s to h ig h e r i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y than » o d e l 5 c o n c e rn in g p ro d u c t A i n t e r n a l v a l i d i
-The e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y was t e s t e d by e s t im a t in g p aram eters o n ly by the h a lv e ot the i n d i v i d u a l d ata which were as a lr e a d y m en tio ned, completé d e sig n s and f o r e c a s t i n g the so gained p r e f e r e n c e s . Table 2 shows the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s analogue to Tab. 1.
T a b l e 2 R e s u l t s of the p a i r w i s e comparison of v a l i d i t y models - e x t e r n a l Groups Model 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 Ü 7 12 12 10 I 9 В 5 11 10 11 11 в 3 11 11 10 12 6 8 12 12 12 I I 12 7 2 12 12 12 11 8 10 12 11 12 12 7 6 12 12 12 I I I 12 5 5 12 12 12 12 8 9 12 12 12 12 5 7 11 11 11 IV 12 8 11 12 12 12 12 7 10 12 12 12 11 7 8 11 12 11 V 12 2 5 12 12 11 10 8 7 11 10 12 12 1U 10 12 12 12 VI 12 6 8 12 12 12 12 5 8 12 12 12
Tab le 3 shows the r e s u l t s c o n c e rn in g H3 No s i g n i f i c a n t im-p a c t of the models of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n s was found.
T a b l e 3 R u b u lts of the comparisons of c o r r e l a t i o n s in vie w of the d i f f e r e n t methods of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p r o b a b i l i t y f u n c t i o n s Groups Model S t u d e n t s : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' A 5 6 6 6 8 8 7 I - I I !B 7 4 7 6 5 5 4 • С 6 4 5 8 7 4 5
Tab. 3 ( c o n t d . ) Groups Model A 4 5 4 6 В 7 6 I - I I I В 6 7 5 5 5 7 6 С 5 4 5 7 5 5 6 A 4 5* 5 6 7 3 5 I I - I I I В Ĺ 8 5 6 7 7 7 С 5 7 6 5 3 7 7 N o n - s tu d e n ts : A é 6 6 9 В 6 8 IV-V В 6 7 6 4 4 6 6 С 6 В 6 6 8 7 8 А 5 6 5 7 9 5 7 IV - V I В 5 7 6 4 5 6 6 С 4 7 4 4 6 %7 7 А 5 5 5 4 7 6 6 V-VI В 5 6 5 6 6 6 ' 6 С 5 4 4 4 4 7 5
► I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : when p o o lin g the r e s u l t s of group I I and I I I c o n c e rn in g model 2, 5 r e s u l t s of group I I belonged to the h ig h e r h a l f 5 of 12; t o t a l - 12 ♦ 12 * 24
2 .5 . C o n c lu s io n s
The mam r e s u l t of t h i s study i s t h a t assuming the used mo d e l s i t i s not n e c e s s a r y nor adequate to q u e s tio n whole p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s to p r e d i c t p r e f e r e n c e s i f people have a t t r i bute s p e c i f i c r i s k s in the assumed form. The use of q u a s i - r i s k l e s s a t t r i b u t e r a t i n g s , in o t h e r words n e g l e c t i n g e x p l i c i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s typ e of r i s k , i s not harm ful to the r e s u l t s . S e c o n d l y , t h e r e c o u ld be shown a new way of a n a l y s i n g a t t r i b u t e r i s k s by a c o n j o i n t measurement approach and the use of re a s o n a b le manners of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the a t t r i b u t e s in a form of p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
B ł bl_loąraphy [1] B a m b e r g G. , C o e n e n b e r g A . G . , B e t r i e b s w i r t s c h a f t l i c h e E n t s c h e i d u n g s l e h r e , München 19U1. [2] B a m b e r g G. , S p r e m a n n K . , Im p l i k a t i o n e n kon s t a n t e r R i s i k o a v e r s i n r i , A r b e i t s p a p i e r , U n i v e r s i t ä t Augsburg, 1980 .
[3] B a u e r R. A . , Consumer B e h a v io r as R i s k Tak ing , [ i n : ] R i s k Taking and I n f o r m a t i o n H and ling in Consumer B e h a v i o r , ed. D .F . C o x , Boston 1969, p. 23-33.
[4] B e t t n a n J . R . , P e r c e i v e d R i s k and i t s Components, "Jour n al of M a rk e tin g R e s e a r c h " 1 '>>3, V o l. 10, p. 184-190.
[5] С o' x D . F . , R i c h S .. P e r c e i v e d R is k in Consumer D e c i s i o n s , " J o u r n a l of M a rk e tin g Research 1964, p. 32-39.
[6] C u n n i n g h a m S . M . , Ihe Major Dimensions of P e r c e i v e d R i s k , [ i n : ] R is k Taking and In f o r m a t io n H and ling in Consumer B e h a v i o r , ed. D. F . * C o x Boston 1967, p. 82.
[7] 0 e e r i n g B . J . , J a c o b y J . , R is k Enhancement and R i s k R e d u c tio n as S t r a t e g i e s f o r H a n d lin g P e r c e i v e d R i s k , fin :] P ro c e e d in g s of the 3rd Annual C o n fe re n c e , ed. M. V e n к a- t e s a n, A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Consumer R e s e a rc h , 1972, p. 404- -416.
[8] H a u s e r J . R . , U r b a n G . L . , Design and M a rk e tin g of New P r o d u c t s , New J e r s e y 1980.
[9] J a c o b y J . , K a p l a n L . B . , The Components of P e r c e i v e d R i s k , [ i n : ] P ro c e e d in g s f o r the 3rd Annual C o n fe re n c e , ed. M. V e n k a t e s a n , A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Consumer Research, 1972, p. 382-393.
[10] L a u x H . , E n t s c h e i d u n g s t h e o r i e - G rundlagen, Ber 1 in-Heklel-berg 1982.
[11] M e y e r J . R . , A Model of M u l t i a t t r i b u t e Judgements Under A t t r i b u t e U n c e r t a i n t y and I n f o r m a t i o n C o n s t r a i n t , " J o u r n a l of M a r k e tin g R e s e a r c h " 1981, V o l. 18, p. 428-441.
■[1 2] M ö l l e r K . , P e r c e i v e d U n c e r t a i n t y and Consumer C ha rak te - r i s t i c in Brand C h o ic e , H e l s i n k i 1979.
R i s k at the Brand l e v e l , " J o u r n a l of M a rke tin g R e s e a r c h " 1976 V o l. 13, p. 1B4-18B.
[14] P r a s В. , S u m m e r s J . Q . , P c r c e i v e d R i s k and Compo s i t i o n Models f o r M u l t i a t t r i b u t e Q e c i s i o n s , " J o u r n a l of Mar k e t in g R e s e a r c h " 1976, V o l. 15, p. 429-437.
I l 5 j R o s e l i u s T . , Consumer Ran kin gs of R iyk R e d u ctio n Me thods, " J o u r n a l of M a rk e tin g R e s e a r c h " 1971, V o l. 35, p. 56- -61.
1.16] S c h w e i g e r G. , M a z a n e c J . , W i e g e l e O ., Das Modell des " e r l e b t e r R i s i k o s " ( " p e r c e i v e d r i s k " ) . S t r u k t u r und O p e r a t io n a lis ie r u n g s k o n z e p t e , "Oer M a r k t" 1977., H. 60, p. 93-102.
[ l / J S h e t h J . N . , V e n k a t e s a n M., R i s k R e d u ctio n P r o c e s s e s ln R e p e t i t i v e Consumer B a h a v io r , " J o u r n a l of Marke t i n g R e s e a r c h " I960, V o l. 5, p. 307-310.
[10] W o o d r u f f R . B . , Measurement of Consumer's P r i o r Brand In f o r m a t io n , " J o u r n a l o f M a rk e tin g R e s e a r c h " 1972, V o l. 9, p. 258-263.
Ahron J . Schwerdt
NOWY SPOSÓB' ANALIZY RYZYKA W MODELACH PREFERENC JI
Koncepcja p e r c e p c j i ryzyka, wynika z f a k t u , iż p raw ie każda d e c y z ja w ż y c i u z a w ie ra ry z y k o . Koncepcja ryz yk a z o s t a ł a też od niedawna wprowadzona do t r a d y c y j n e j a n a l i z y p r e f e r e n c j i . Rozszerze n i e t e j a n a l i z y spowodowało pow stanie szeregu studiów empirycznych w d z i e d z i n i e badania rynku. W i e le z t y c h stu d iów empirycznych n i e j e s t jednak wiarygodne z uwagi na problemy gromadzenia danych za pośrednictwem wywiadów.
Powyższe b adanie stanow i odpowiedź na p y t a n i e czy b e zp o śred n ie wprowadzenie ro z k ła d u ryz y ka do modeli p r e f e r e n c j i wyw iera wpływ na wewnętrzną i zewnętrzną w a rto ś ć t y c h m o d e li. Okazuje s i ę iż d la celów przewidywań, przy badaniu p r e f e r e n c j i respondentów, n i e j e s t ko n ie cz n e przyporządkowywanie poszczególnym cechom s p e c y f ic z n e g o ro z k ła d u ry z y k a .
