08 183

Perceived risk on goods

and service purchases

Pérez-Cabañero, Carmen (2007). “Perceived risk on goods and service purchases”. EsicMar-
ket, 129, pp. 183-199.

Abstract
The variable perceived risk has been studied since the 1960s, mainly for
its influence on consumer behaviour in the decision making process. The
extension of marketing to the service arena has led researchers to analyse
this variable which is assumed in the literature to exert a higher influence
on service purchases due to the inherent features of service. However,
results from this empirical research do not confirm this premise. A consu-
mer may consider the purchase of certain goods as riskier than certain ser-
vices, so there are other aspects in addition to the different nature of ser-
vices that can play an important role on risk perception in the purchase of
both goods and services.

Keywords: Consumer behaviour, services marketing, perceived risk.

JEL Code: M31.

Carmen Pérez Cabañero

Departamento de Comercialización e Investigación de Mercados, Facultad de Economía, edificio dep. oriental, Av.
Los naranjos s/n, 46022 Valencia, carmen.perez-cabanero@uv.es

january · april 2008 · esic market [183]

184 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

1. Introduction
Much theoretical and empirical research has been done on the variable
perceived risk since the original proposal by Bauer (1960). Among the rea-
sons justifying this transcendence is its wide capacity to explain consumer
purchase behaviour, often more motivated by the goal of avoiding mista-
kes rather than maximizing purchase utility (Mitchell, 1999). This varia-
ble can influence marketing decision making concerning efficient resour-
ces location (towards marketing strategies considering the impact of
products’ perceived risk), segmentation strategies can be designed accor-
ding to risk reduction strategies employed by customers (Mitchell and
McGoldrick, 1996; Mitchell, 1999), perceived risk can be considered to
develop the image and positioning of a brand and it can even help to gene-
rate ideas for new products (Mitchell and Boustani, 1993).
The extension of marketing to the service arena has led researchers to
analyse this variable. It is assumed in the literature that services are riskier
mainly because of their inherent properties, i.e. heterogeneity, perishabi-
lity, inseparability and intangibility, (Guseman, 1981; Murray and Schlac-
ter, 1990; Mitchell and Greatorex, 1993; Mitchel, 1999). However, this
premise has not always been empirically corroborated (George et al.,
1985), severely questioned in a recent study by Laroche et al. (2003).
Thus, we want to analyse consumers’ risk perception when they pur-
chase certain proposed goods and services, with the aim of comparing
results from both product categories and shed light on the above discus-
sion.

2. The perceived risk

Bauer (1960) was the first to introduce the concept of risk in marketing
with the idea of drawing the attention of a few researchers, however it has
been more than 30 years since then and research has not stopped.
The concept was developed later on by Cunningham (1967) producing
one of the first but still valid definitions which states that consumer’s pre-
purchase perceived risk has two components: the individual’s subjective

[184] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 185

feeling of certainty that the consequences will be unfavourable and the

amount that would be lost if the consequences of an act were not favou-
rable (Bauer, 1960; Cunningham, 1967). These consequences relate to
financial loss, time wasted, social and other damage which would be incu-
rred if the purchase result was not favourable.
Although nowadays most researchers accept this original definition
some criticisms have been raised given that sometimes risk relates only to
the probability of occurrence of negative events or just with the negative
consequences and not with the combination of both aspects (Sjoberg,
1980).
Other later definitions resulted from the proposal of more complex
models among which the following three are highlighted. Stone and Win-
ter (1987) view risk as an expectation of loss in that the greater this expec-
tation, the greater the risk for the individual. Greatorex and Mitchell
(1993) propose a multiattribute model (not empirically tested) which rela-
tes risk to the imbalance between the required amount and the obtained
amount of a certain attribute. Finally, Dowling and Staelin (1994) divide
perceived risk in two components: product class risk (related to a category
of product) and product specific risk (related to a specific brand or pro-
duct). These concepts are similar to Bettman’s (1973) inherent risk and
handling risk.
The study of risk on goods and service purchases offers a variety of
results. Most authors conclude that service decision making perceived risk
is higher than for goods (Guseman, 1981; George et al., 1985; Garner,
1986; Murray and Schlacter, 1990; Mitchell and Greatorex, 1993), due
mainly to the implications of intangibility and heterogeneity (Garner,
1986; Mitchell and Greatorex, 1993) which cause uncertainty in the con-
sumer (Mitra et al., 1999) and makes it more difficult to assess the servi-
ce (Zeithaml, 1981; Bateson and Hoffman, 1999).
On the contrary, the empirical study by George et al. (1985) showed
no significant differences for perceived risk between a certain goods cate-
gory and their substitutive services. Recently, Laroche et al. (2003) has sta-

january · april 2008 · esic market [185]

186 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

ted that services are not always perceived as riskier than goods. Although
they confirm that intangibility increases risk perception they postulate that
the cause is not physical intangibility but mental intangibility. Conse-
quently you can find mental intangible goods (such as music software)
which can be riskier than certain mental tangible services (such as those
provided by an electronic bank).
Several factors influence the type and level of perceived risk on diffe-
rent goods and services: product attributes (Dowling and Staelin, 1994;
Mitra et al., 1999), customer personality (Garner, 1986; Zinkham and
Kirande, 1991), demographical (Mitchell and Boustani, 1993), cultural
(Verhage et al., 1990 a; Verhage et al., 1990 b) and social characteristics
(Hugstad et al., 1987). Occasionally other studies have analysed the rela-
tionship of risk to involvement (Dholakia, 2001) and previous knowledge
(Murray and Schlacter, 1991). Additionally, there is agreement around
some attributes such as high price, complexity, visibility and durability
which can increase risk perception (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985).

3. Methodology
Research objective
As mentioned above, most empirical studies show that perceived risk for
service purchase is higher than for goods (Guseman, 1981; George et al.,
1985; Garner, 1986; Murray and Schlacter, 1990; Mitchell and Greatorex,
1993). This may be justified by the different characteristics of both pro-
duct categories, especially intangibility and heterogeneity because they
cause greater uncertainty in the consumer (Garner, 1986; Mitchell and
Greatorex, 1993; Mitra et al., 1999). Additionally, less information is
available on services and what there is, is more difficult to obtain (Bate-
son and Hoffman, 1999) thus, service risk perception may be increased.
However, a recent study by Laroche et al. (2003) disputes the statement
that consumers always consider services as more intangible than goods
(and consequently riskier) and offers some examples of the contrary. Thus,
the objective of the present research is to analyse risk perception for a cer-

[186] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 187

tain set of goods and services in order to discover where that perception is
greater.
Following Mitchell’s (1999) recommendation to assess perceived risk
in high value goods and services, several products were selected because
they are expected to entail greater effort in decision making and higher
perceived risk. The proposed goods were a house, a car or motorbike, a
vacuum cleaner, a dishwasher or washing machine, a tv or hi-fi set, and a
personal computer. The proposed services were those provided by a den-
tist, a lawyer or tax adviser, an academy or nursery, household repair, and
a travel agency.
Different goods and services are proposed for two reasons. Firstly, to
increase the possibilities of answering the questionnaire. If the interviewee
had recently acquired more than one product in the same category, he was
asked to remember the newest because he would remember his behaviour
more easily. Secondly, because we were aiming at the generalization of
results and did not want to limit them to a certain goods item or service,
as previous researchers have done (Murray, 1991).

Perceived risk assessment

After reviewing the literature we followed the recommendation made by
Mitchell (1999) and used Cunningham’s (1967) measure to assess perceived
risk from its two components: the probability of an event occurring and its
importance, on a five-point Likert. These two items are presented for seve-
ral types of risk and aggregated to assess the general perception of risk.
We assessed the subjective risk, that is, the risk felt by a consumer
when making a decision, independently of the real risk or objective risk
involved (Boze, 1987). In the literature, this approach is observed becau-
se from the relativist paradigm the existence of an objective risk is ques-
tioned (Stone and Winter, 1987) and positivist recognise the difficulty of
assessing it (Mitchell, 1999).
We use Cunningham’s (1967) scale in its additive version, that is, par-
tial results of both risk components are added to obtain a general measu-

january · april 2008 · esic market [187]

188 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

re of perceived risk. Despite its simplicity, several authors claim that this
linear model offers good and even better results than the multiplicative
model (Bettman, 1973) and it is specially recommended for assessing ser-
vice perceived risk (Mitchell and Greatorex, 1990, 1993).
This basic scale has been used by many researchers to date (Cunning-
ham, 1967; Lutz and Reilly, 1973; Brown and Gentry, 1975; Peter and
Ryan, 1976; Bearden and Manson, 1978; Guseman, 1981; Dunn et al.,
1986; Boze, 1987; Verhage et al., 1990 a and b), despite criticism. Firstly,
the independence of the two components of perceived risk has been ques-
tioned because some empirical works have found a correlation (Bettman,
1973; Laurent and Kapferer, 1985). Secondly, the equal importance of
both components is discussed. Several authors suggest that the “conse-
quences” component should weigh less in the formulation of perceived
risk (Peter and Ryan, 1976; Bearden and Mason, 1978) whereas others
suggest the contrary (Mitchell, 1999). However, this model is recommen-
ded because it is simple and easily understood by interviewees (Mitchell,
1999). Additionally, it has a certain degree of convergent and discriminant
validity (Lumpkin and Massey, 1983).
Consequently, we want to prove the scale’s reliability and external vali-
dity. The reliability of a measure relates to the extent that it is free of ran-
dom error and so gives consistent results (Sánchez and Sarabia, 1999). In
this research, reliability is assessed by Cronbach ‘s alpha as a measure of
the scale’s internal consistency obtaining a score of 0.69 and 0.65 for the
proposed goods and services, respectively. Therefore, reliability is accep-
table, given the exploratory character of this work and the low number of
items on the scale used (Sánchez and Sarabia, 1999).
Content validity is justified by the fact that it comes from previous
research. Construct validity is partially proved by the convergent and dis-
criminant validity of the risk measure used in this work.
In order to assess convergent validity, a confirmatory factor analysis
was done by the statistical software EQS (Bentler, 1995), and the results
are shown in Table 1.

[188] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 189

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results for the perceived risk

scale in goods and services
RISK
RESULTS
GOODS SERVICIES
Chi square 1.851 2.229
P = 0.173 P = 0.135
Bentler-Bonett normalized index 0.990 0.985
Bentler-Bonett non normalized index 0.971 0.995
Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.995 0.998
Bollen index (IFI) 0.995 0.998
Mcdonald index (MFI) 0.999 1.000
LISREL GFI 0.999 0.996
LISREL AGFI 0.992 0.982
Residual squared mean root (RMR) 0.012 0.014
Standardized RMR 0.022 0.024
Square mean error approach (RMSEA) 0.000 0.020
T statistic value of 2 4.113 5.536
T statistic value of 3 4.121 5.742
T statistic value of 4 4.300 5.665
Standardized 1 0.603 0.506
Standardized 2 0.509 0.548
Standardized 3 0.677 0.623
Standardized 4 0.596 0.585

Table 1 shows a good fit derived from the Chi square analysis given
that the associated probability allowed us to reject the null hypothesis that
the model is not significant. Similarly, the indexes obtained are favourable
because they are close to one except for those related to the residues which
are favourably close to zero. Additionally, all T values are significant with
a probability below 0.001, as the t value for each λ exceeds 3.291. In other
words, the items are good indicators of the latent variable analyzed.
Lastly, note that most standardized λ scores are higher or close to 0.6, alt-
hough better results were expected in the services context.
Discriminant validity is proved by the Chi square difference test done
by EQS statistical software (Bentler, 1995) between the variables of per-
ceived risk and involvement. Involvement is included simply to test the dis-
criminant validity of perceived risk and is measured according to Mittal’s

january · april 2008 · esic market [189]

190 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

(1995) recommendation after his comparative study of several scales such

as Zaichkowsky’s (1985) and McQuarrie and Munson’s (1986). He also
tests the convergent and discriminant validity of his proposal.
Results for discriminant validity of the scale used for assessing percei-
ved risk are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that the unconstrained model
(which assumes that both variables are different) is better, not only becau-
se the calculated difference is always higher than the critical value of 6.63
but also because of the GFI index.

Table 2. Discriminant validity results for the “perceived risk”

scale in goods and services

GOODS
2
Constrained 2 Unconstrained Difference
model model

INVOLVEMENT - RISK 2
= 257.00 2
= 97.34 159.66
d.f.= 27 d.f.= 26 d.f.= 1
Fit index: L Fit index:
GFI= 0.813 L GFI= 0.932

SERVICES
2
Constrained 2 Unconstrained Difference
model model
INVOLVEMENT - RISK 2
= 222.61 2
= 83.91 138.70
d.f.= 27 d.f.= 26 d.f.= 1
Fit index: Fit index:
L GFI= 0.831 L GFI= 0.944
2
1% (1 d.f.) = 6.63

Survey characteristics
The sample universe comprised the total number of inhabitants living in
Valencia city, between the ages of 18 to 79, according to the latest publis-

[190] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 191

hed report at the moment of the study. Table 3 offers a summary of the
main features of the field work.

Table 3. Sample characteristics

Inhabitantsover 18, living in Valencia city

UNIVERSE
(Spain)

METHOD FOR GATHERING

INFORMATION Personal structured survey

SAMPLE SIZE 300 people

CONFIDENCE LEVEL 95%; Z = 2; p = q = 0.5

SAMPLE ERROR ±0.0577
Random route, with prior double sampling by
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
age and sex according to population quotas.

4. Results
In order to achieve the goal of comparing perceived risk on the proposed
goods and services, firstly main statistical descriptives are obtained as
shown for both product categories aggregately in Table 4.

Table 4. Perceived risk descriptives on goods and services

Mean Standard Min. Max. N
deviation
GOODS 3.66 0.64 1 4.75 300
SERVICES 3.62 0.60 1 4.75 300

Table 4 shows a higher perceived risk mean value for goods than ser-
vices, thus inviting further in-depth analysis of previous comparative rese-
arch which stated the contrary. With this aim Table 5 is presented. It con-

january · april 2008 · esic market [191]

192 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

tains some of the goods and services compared in three of the most rele-
vant studies from the literature review which report a higher service per-
ceived risk. The high heterogeneity of goods and services compared is
notable given that for a consumer the importance and cost of some swe-
ets have nothing to do with renting a flat, for instance. Therefore, the pre-
mise of higher service purchase perceived risk seems to be founded on rese-
arch done on questionable samples. This leads us to call for new
comparative studies to discover whether there really is a riskier product
category (goods or services).

Table 5. Goods and services compared in previous research

on perceived risk
GOODS SERVICES
Guseman (1981) Butter Motels
Cough sweets Banks
Cassette recorder Doctors
Mattress Flat renting
Murray and Schlacter Jacket Teeth cleaning
(1990) Tennis racquet Eye check up
Barbeque grill Tax advice
Photograph camera Indoor decorating
Mitchell and Greatorex Portable television set Hairdresser
(1993) Tennis racquet Hotels
Coat Banks
Jeans Sports centre

The results that consumers have a higher perceived risk when purcha-
sing the proposed goods rather than services can be explained by the inci-
dence of the variable’s antecedents. If we divide these antecedents into two
wide groups: those related to the product and those related to the consu-
mer, the former are the most relevant in the current research (given that
the same interviewee answered questions about the purchase of a goods
item and a service). Therefore, the particular characteristics of the propo-
sed goods have increased risk perception more than the differential natu-
re of services.

[192] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 193

In order to observe possible differences for each proposed product,

mean values and standard deviations were obtained and are shown in
Table 6.

Table 6. Perceived risk for every product

GOODS Mean Standard N SERVICES Mean Standard N
deviation deviation
HOUSE 3.98 0.59 26 DENTIST 3.57 0.68 83
CAR/MOTORBIKE 3.73 0.64 85 LAWYER/TAX ADV. 3.62 0.51 35
VACUUM/... 3.56 0.58 64 ACADEMY/NURSERY 3.65 0.53 49
TELEVISION SET 3.64 0.63 73 HOUSE REPAIR 3.57 0.62 78
COMPUTER 3.56 0.68 52 TRAVEL AGENCY 3.76 0.55 55

In Table 6 a house purchase is highlighted as the one with the highest

perceived risk, followed by the service provided by a travel agency. For
goods, in second place for a high risk is the purchase of a car or motorbi-
ke and in third a television set. For services, in second place is the acqui-
sition of services offered by an academy or nursery closely followed by
those provided by a lawyer or tax adviser.

5. Conclusions
In this paper consumer risk perception on the purchase of certain goods
and services has been compared. Although there are many studies which
report that purchase risk is higher for services rather than goods, the
results obtained in our research contradict that premise. We therefore
conclude that it is not possible to state that purchase risk is always hig-
her for services than for goods. Results from previous research showing
a higher risk related to service acquisitions were obtained by comparing
a certain sample of goods and services. Reported results are valid for tho-
se samples but should not be generalised for any combination of goods
and services given that, as this research proves, depending on the type of
product compared, that perception can be higher or lower. In this sense,

january · april 2008 · esic market [193]

194 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

a house purchase is riskier than services provided by a dentist or a law-

yer, for instance.
Consequently and, although it is true that the implicit characteristics of
service (intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability of production and con-
sumption, and customer participation) probably increase service risk,
other factors exert a greater influence on that perception. Several authors
have pointed out that some personal features can influence perceived risk
(Zinkham and Kirande, 1991). However, in this study the same consumer
considered a recent acquisition of a goods item and a service thus reducing
the influence of personal features. With reference to the compared goods
and services, it seems that certain attributes such as the implicit financial
expenditure for the purchase, its social visibility and durability among
others are the ones which most influenced the related risk, as several aut-
hors have noted in the literature (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985).
However, other antecedents for perceived risk have been proposed,
such as involvement (Dholakia, 2001), previous product knowledge
(Murray and Schlacter, 1990) and, recently, mental intangibility associa-
ted to the product (Laroche et al., 2003) and it would be interesting to
study them in greater depth.
Nevertheless, for marketing executives, knowing that the purchase of
certain goods can be considered very risky by consumers should encoura-
ge them to study the perception of the products they sell as well as the stra-
tegies applied by customers to make such a risky purchase, so that appro-
priate policies adapted to that behaviour can be developed. For instance,
if, as a way of reducing risk, consumers mainly search for information
before making their purchase decision, companies should diffuse informa-
tion on key attributes considered by consumers in order to diminish that
risk perception and facilitate purchase of the product or brand they sell.
Lastly we mention as limitations of this study the fact that it is based
on consumers’ remembrance, a method not always considered convenient
or reliable (Varela, 1993) and the particular combination of goods and
services compared.

[194] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 195

References
BAUER, R.A. (1960): “Consumer behavior as risk taking”, en Dynamic
marketing for a changing world, Proceedings of the 43rd conference of
the American Marketing Association, editado por R.S. Hancock, pp.
389-398.
BATESON, J.E.G. and HOFFMAN, K.D. (1999): Managing services mar-
keting. Texts and readings, The Dryden Press, 4ª edición.
BEARDEN, W.O. and MASON, J.B. (1978): “Consumer perceived risk
and attitudes towards generically prescribed drugs”, Journal of applied
psychology, vol. 63, nº 6, pp. 741-746.
BENTLER, P.M. (1995): EQS Structural equations program manual.
Multivariate software incl., California (USA).
BETTMAN, J.R. (1973): “Perceived risk and its components: a model and
empirical test”, Journal of marketing research, vol. 10, mayo, pp. 184-190.
BOZE, B.V. (1987): “Selection of legal services: an investigation of per-
ceived risk”, Journal of professional services marketing, vol. 3, nº 2,
pp. 287-297.
BROWN, T.L. and GENTRY, J.W. (1975): “Analysis of risk and risk-
reduction strategies. A multiple product case”, Journal of the academy
of marketing science, vol. 3, nº 2, primavera, pp. 148-160.
CLAXTON, J.D., FRY, J.N. and PORTIS, B. (1974): “A taxonomy of pre-
purchase information gathering patterns”, Journal of consumer rese-
arch, vol. 1, diciembre, pp. 35-42.
CUNNINGHAM, S.M. (1967): “The major dimensions of perceived risk”,
en Risk taking and information handling on consumer behaviour, edita-
do por D.F. Cox, Harvard University Press, Boston, pp. 82-108.
DOWLING, G.R. and STAELIN, R. (1994): “A model of perceived risk
and intended risk-handling activity”, Journal of consumer research,
vol. 21, junio, pp. 119-134.
DUNN, M.G., MURPHY, P.E. and SKELLY, G.U. (1986): “Research note:
the influence of perceived risk on brand preference for supermarket
products”, Journal of retailing, vol. 62, nº 2, verano, pp. 204-217.

january · april 2008 · esic market [195]

196 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

EIGLIER, P. and LANGEARD, E. (1989): Servucción. El marketing de

servicios. Editorial McGraw-Hill Interamericana de España, S.A.U.,
Madrid.
GARNER, S.J. (1986): “Perceived risk and information sources in services
purchasing”, The mid-Atlantic journal of business, vol. 24, nº 2, vera-
no, pp. 49-58.
GEORGE, W.R., WEINBERGER, M.G. and KELLY, J.P. (1985): “Consu-
mer risk perceptions: managerial tool for the service encounter”, en
The service encounter: managing employee/customer interaction in ser-
vice businesses, editado por J.A. Czepiel, M.R. Solomon and C.F. Sur-
prenant, Lexington (MA), Lexington Books, pp. 83-100.
GREATOREX, M. and MITCHELL, V.W. (1993): “Developing the per-
ceived risk concept”, en Procedings, Marketing Education Group Con-
ference, editado por M. Davies et al., Loughborough, vol. 1, pp. 405-
415.
GUSEMAN, D.S. (1981): “Risk perception and risk reduction in consu-
mer services”, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association,
editado por J.H. Donelly and W.R. George, Chicago (IL), pp. 200-204.
HUGSTAD, P., TAYLOR, J.W. and BRUCE, G.D. (1987): “The effects of
social class and perceived risk on consumer information search”, Jour-
nal of services marketing, vol. 1, nº 1, verano, pp. 47-52.
LAURENT, G. and KAPFERER, J.N. (1985): “Measuring consumer
involvement profiles”, Journal of marketing research, vol. 22, nº 1,
febrero, pp. 41-53.
LUMPKIN, J.R. and MASSEY, T.K. (1983): “Convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of alternative perceived risk scales”, Proceedings, Sout-
hern marketing association, pp. 257-260.
LUTZ, R.J. and REILLY, P.J. (1973): “An exploration of the effects of per-
ceived social and performance risk on consumer information acquisi-
tion”, Advances in consumer research, editado por S.Ward and P.
Wright, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor (MI), pp. 393-
405.

[196] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 197

MCQUARRIE, E.F. and MUNSON, J.M. (1987): “The Zaichkowsky per-

sonal involvement inventory: modification and extension”, en Advan-
ces in consumer research, vol. 14, editado por M. Wallendorf and P.
Anderson, Provo (UT), Association for consumer research, pp. 36-40.
MITCHELL, V.W. (1999): “Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations
and models”, European journal of marketing, vol. 33, nº 1/2, pp. 163-
195.
MITCHELL, V.W. and BOUSTANI, P. (1993): “Market development
using new products and new customers: a role for perceived risk”,
European journal of marketing, vol. 27, nº 2, pp. 18-33.
MITCHELL, V.W. and GREATOREX, M. (1993): “Risk perception and
reduction in the purchase of consumer services”, The service Industry
Journal, vol. 13, nº 4, octubre, pp. 179-200.
– (1990): “Perceived risk and risk reducing strategies across product
classification”, Proceedings of 23rd MEG Conference, vol. 2, junio,
Oxford, pp. 940-955.
MITCHELL, V.W. and MCGOLDRICK, P.J. (1996): “Consumers’risk-
reduction strategies: a review and synthesis”, The international review
of retail, distribution and consumer research, vol. 6, nº 1, enero, pp.
1-33.
MITRA, K., REISS, M.C. and CAPELLA, L.M. (1999): “An examination
of perceived risk, information search and behavioral intentions in
search, experience and credence services”, The journal of services mar-
keting, vol. 13, nº 3, pp. 208-228.
MITTAL, B. (1995): A comparative analysis of four scales of consumer
involvement”, Psychology & marketing, vol. 12, nº 7, octubre, pp.
663-682.
MURRAY, K.B. (1991): “A test of services marketing theory: consumer
information acquisition activities”, Journal of marketing, vol. 55, pp.
10-25.
MURRAY, K.B. and SCHLACTER, J.L. (1990): “The impact of services
versus goods on consumers´ assessment of perceived risk and variabi-

january · april 2008 · esic market [197]

198 08 perceived risk on goods and service purchases

lity”, Journal of the academy of marketing science, vol. 18, nº 1, invier-

no, pp. 51-65.
PETER, J.P. and RYAN, M.J. (1976): “An investigation of perceived risk at
the brand level”, Journal of marketing research, vol. 13, pp. 184-188.
PRAS, B. and SUMMERS, J.O. (1978): “Perceived risk and composition
models for multi-attribute decisions”, Journal of marketing research,
vol. 15, nº 3, agosto, pp. 429-437.
SÁNCHEZ PÉREZ, M. and SARABIA SÁNCHEZ, F.J. (1999): “Validez and
fiabilidad de escalas”, en Metodología para la investigación en marketing
and dirección de empresas, editorial Pirámide, cap. 14, pp. 363-393.
SJOBER, L. (1980): “The risks of risk analysis”, Acta psychologica, vol.
45, agosto, pp. 301-321.
SRINIVASAN, N. and RACHTFORD, B.T. (1991): “An empirical test of
a model of external search for automóviles”, Journal of consumer rese-
arch, vol. 18, septiembre, pp. 233-242.
STONE, R.N. and WINTER, F.W. (1987): “Risk: is it still uncertainty
times consequences?” en Proceeding of the American Marketing Asso-
ciation, editado por R.W. Belk, Chicago, (IL), pp. 261-265.
VARELA GONZÁLEZ, J.A. (1993): “La adquisición de información
sobre los productos por los consumidores”, Revista europea de direc-
ción and economía de la empresa, vol. 2, nº 3, pp. 167-187.
VERHAGE, B.J., YAVAS, U. and GREEN, R.T. (1990 a): “Perceived risk:
a cross-cultural phenomenon?”, International journal of research in
marketing, vol. 7, pp. 297-303.
VERHAGE, B.J., YAVAS, U., GREEN, R.T. and BORAK, E. (1990 b):
“The perceived risk-brand loyalty relationship: an international pers-
pective”, Journal of global marketing, vol. 3, nº 3, pp. 7-22.
ZAICHKOWSKY, J.L., (1985): “Measuring the involvement construct”,
Journal of consumer research, vol. 12, diciembre, pp. 341-352.
ZEITHAML, V.A. (1981): “How consumer evaluation processes differ
between goods and services”, en Marketing of services, American Mar-
keting Association, Chicago (IL), pp. 186-190.

[198] january · april 2008 · esic market

 perceived risk on goods and service purchases 08 199

ZIKMUND, W.G. and SCOTT, J.E. (1977): “An investigation of the role
of product characteristics in risk perception”, Review of business and
economic research, vol. 13, pp. 19-34.
ZINKHAM, G. and KIRANDE, P. (1991): “Cultural and gender differen-
ces in risk-taking behavior among American and Spanish decision
makers”, Journal of social psychology, vol. 131, nº 5, pp. 741-742.

january · april 2008 · esic market [199]