fort, prestige, and exterior styling attributes calculated using the answers in the market research study were 0.13, 0.22, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.20. The relative attractiveness of the same five attributes calculated using the real behavior in the marketplace were 0.24, 0.2One of the most common objectives of market research is to find the customers wants and wishes, or their hot buttons. But what if traditional market research identifies the wrong hot buttons? What if conventional market research singles out hot buttons that freeze your fingers? What if standard market research uses malfunctioning thermometers? A recent scientific study by Professors Dan Horsky, Paul Nelson, and Steven S. Posavac published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology examined this possibility.

The study (Horsky D., Nelson P., Posavac SS. Stating Preference for the Ethereal but Choosing the Concrete: How the Tangibility of Attributes Affects Attribute Weighting in Value Elicitation and Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004, Vol. 14, No. 1&2, Pages 132-140) compared the attractiveness of five sporty car attributes calculated using answers provided in a market research study (what people say), and the attractiveness of the same five attributes derived from the actual buying behavior of the car buyers (what people do). The five attributes were Performance, Dependability, Comfort, Prestige, and Exterior Styling.

The relative attractiveness of the performance, dependability, comfort, prestige, and exterior styling attributes calculated using the answers in the market research study were 0.13, 0.22, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.20. The relative attractiveness of the same five attributes calculated using the real behavior in the marketplace were 0.24, 0.21

research uses malfunctioning thermometers? A recent scientific study by Professors Dan Horsky, Paul Nelson, and Steven S. Posavac published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology examined this possibility.

The study (Horsky D., Nelson P., Posavac SS. Stating Preference for the Ethereal but Choosing the Concrete: How the Tangibility of Attributes Affects Attribute Weighting in Value Elicitation and Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004, Vol. 14, No. 1&2, Pages 132-140) compared the attractiveness of five sporty car attributes calculated using answers provided in a market research study (what people say), and the attractiveness of the same five attributes derived from the actual buying behavior of the car buyers (what people do). The five attributes were Performance, Dependability, Comfort, Prestige, and Exterior Styling.

The relative attractiveness of the performance, dependability, comfort, prestige, and exterior styling attributes calculated using the answers in the market research study were 0.13, 0.22, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.20. The relative attractiveness of the same five attributes calculated using the real behavior in the marketplace were 0.24, 0.2

the Concrete: How the Tangibility of Attributes Affects Attribute Weighting in Value Elicitation and Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004, Vol. 14, No. 1&2, Pages 132-140) compared the attractiveness of five sporty car attributes calculated using answers provided in a market research study (what people say), and the attractiveness of the same five attributes derived from the actual buying behavior of the car buyers (what people do). The five attributes were Performance, Dependability, Comfort, Prestige, and Exterior Styling.

The relative attractiveness of the performance, dependability, comfort, prestige, and exterior styling attributes calculated using the answers in the market research study were 0.13, 0.22, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.20. The relative attractiveness of the same five attributes calculated using the real behavior in the marketplace were 0.24, 0.2

eople say), and the attractiveness of the same five attributes derived from the actual buying behavior of the car buyers (what people do). The five attributes were Performance, Dependability, Comfort, Prestige, and Exterior Styling.

The relative attractiveness of the performance, dependability, comfort, prestige, and exterior styling attributes calculated using the answers in the market research study were 0.13, 0.22, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.20. The relative attractiveness of the same five attributes calculated using the real behavior in the marketplace were 0.24, 0.2

fort, prestige, and exterior styling attributes calculated using the answers in the market research study were 0.13, 0.22, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.20. The relative attractiveness of the same five attributes calculated using the real behavior in the marketplace were 0.24, 0.21, 0.13, 0.00, and 0.19 (note the change in the bold and underline numbers).

According to the authors: “a rather dramatic change in the ordering of the average weights occurs ... Specifically, the tangible attribute Performance, previously one of the least important attributes on average, is now the most important to sporty sedan buyers. … In contrast, the weight of Prestige, an intangible attribute, falls dramatically and becomes the least important attribute. The remaining attributes change little.”

This “dramatic change” has dramatic implications. “The implication of our findings is that stated preferences may not be highly predictive of actual consumer decisions because the relative importance of attributes differs in value elicitation and choice. This finding is troubling because of the reliance of marketing practitioners on research data pertaining to attitudes, purchase intentions, and attribute importance rankings. If predictions based on stated preferences are markedly different from reality, marketers’ decisions (e.g., product positioning, advertising emphasis) made based on the stated preference data may be suboptimal.” In other words, “forecasts of choice based on st