This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (15) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Conchar, M. P. Articles by Olavarrieta, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An Integrated Framework for the Conceptualization of Consumers’ Perceived-Risk Processing

East Carolina University, concharm{at}mail.ecu.edu

George M. Zinkhan

University of Georgia, gzinkhan{at}terry.uga.edu

Cara Peters

Winthrop University, petersc{at}winthrop.edu

Sergio Olavarrieta

Universidad de Chile, solavar{at}negocios.uchile.cl

Research on risk is built on a complex array of diverse and sometimes inconsistent definitions, constructs, models, and outcomes. This study examines various literatures to formulate an integrated framework for the conceptualization of perceived-risk processing. The framework specifies three phases (framing, assessment, and evaluation) and their accompanying outcomes of risk attention, perceived risk, and risk-taking propensity. Explicit linkages are specified between situational and individual characteristics. Perceived-risk evaluation is identified as conceptually distinct from assessment of perceived risk, and the construct of risk-taking propensity is separated from those of risk affinity and perceived risk. The framework further presents points of intersection between the literatures on perceived risk and the literatures on consumer decision-making, information search, and satisfaction. Finally, it serves as an anchor for framing future research to promote conceptual and methodological consistency, and to guide progress in directions that are consistent with some leading edge paradigms outside of marketing.

Key Words: consumer behavior • perceived risk • risk processing • risk affinity • inherent risk • risk attention • risk framing • risk assessment • risk evaluation • risk-taking propensity

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32, No. 4, 418-436 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0092070304267551


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. de Chernatony Towards the holy grail of defining `brand' Marketing Theory, March 1, 2009; 9(1): 101 - 105. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. C. Harris and E. Ogbonna Service Sabotage: A Study of Antecedents and Consequences Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, October 1, 2006; 34(4): 543 - 558. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Hennig-Thurau, M. B. Houston, and G. Walsh The Differing Roles of Success Drivers Across Sequential Channels: An Application to the Motion Picture Industry Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, October 1, 2006; 34(4): 559 - 575. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Harris and E. A. Blair Functional Compatibility Risk and Consumer Preference for Product Bundles Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, January 1, 2006; 34(1): 19 - 26. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. DelVecchio and D. C. Smith Brand-Extension Price Premiums: The Effects of Perceived Fit and Extension Product Category Risk Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, April 1, 2005; 33(2): 184 - 196. [Abstract] [PDF]