T01-An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement-NEW INVOLVEMENT PROFILE

8/10/2019 T01-An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement-NEW INVOLVEMENT PROFILE

1/10

An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement

Kapil Jain University of Rhode Island

Narasimhan Srinivasan University of Connecticut

ABSTRACT

Involvement

is an

important

an d

much

debated topic

in

co nsumer research. Rigorous

measurements of theconstruct by Laurentand

Kapferer

and

2^chkow sky have

led to

scales which

are Hnding increasing acceptance

by

several

researchers. Building

on

recent studies, this paper

makes an empirical comparison of the various

scales

in the

literature ilnvolvement ProHle (Laurent

and Kapferer); Foote, Cone

&

Belding Planning

Grid's involvement sub-scale (Vaughn); Personal

Involvement Inventory (Zaichkowsky); an d

modifications

of

Zaichkowsky's scale.

In so

doing,

the study brings further clarification

an d

refinement

to

th e

involvement construct.

A New

Involvement

Profile isdistilled an doffered for future research.

INTRODUCTION

Involvement

has

been

the

focus

of a

large

number

of

studies

in the

consumer research area

in

the past decade (Houston

an d

Rothschild

1977,

1978; Kapferer an d Laurent 1985, 1985/86; Laurent

and Kapferer

1985;

Richins

and

Bloch

1986;

Vaughn

1980,

1986;

Zaichkow sky 1985).

A

multitude

of

conceptualizations

ar e

available

in the

literature:

product/brand involvement, enduring / situational

involvement, cognitive

/

affective involvement,

instrument

/

response involvement

and so on and so

forth. This diversity

of

views provides

a

very rich

perspective of theconstruct. However, th e

development

in

conceptualization

has far

outpaced

the developments

in

operationalizations, leading

to

a call

for

better measuring instruments

and

empirical

testing (Rothschild

1984) and

simpler middle-range

theories that

ar e

parsimonious (Kassarjian 1978).

Toward this end, Zaichkowsky (1985)an d

Laurent

and

Kapferer (1985; Kapferer

and

Laurent

1985) have concentrated their efforts

on

rigorous

scale developm ent. This study seeks

to

build

on

their work an d others' in the direction of further

refinement

of

measures

in

capturing

th e

complexity

of

th e

involvement construct.

CKGROUND

Much

of the

diversity

in

definitions adopted

by researchers

in the

involvement area begins

at the

concep tual level. Starting from Sherif

an d

C antril's

(1947) ego-involvement

to

Beatty

an d

Smith's

(1987) consideration

of the

interactive nature

of

involvement,

th e

complexity

of the

involvement

domain hasincreased. In Ms study, w e focuson

just

tw o

parallel streams

of

theory development:

Zaichkowsky's Personal Involvement Inventory (PII)

and

its

modifications/extensions

on one

hand,

an d

Laurent andKapferer's Invo lvement Profile (IP) on

the other

- the

remarkable similarity

of the

conceptual domains tested in these studies cries out

for empirical validation.

Zaichkowsky (1985) defined involvement

as

a person's perceived relevance

of the

object based

on inherent needs, values an d interests. Ratchford

(1987) adopts

a

comparable perspective:

involvement implies attention

to

something because

it

is

somehow relevant

o r

impor tant

However, a unidimensional approach to

involvement

is not

sufficient

to

capture

its

com plexity. Rothschild (1984) provided

a

broader

conceptualization: Involvement is an unobservable

state of motivation, arousal or interest. It is evoked

by

a

particular stimulus

or

situation

and has

drive

properties.

It's

consequences

ar e

types

of

searching,

information processing and decision making. T he

above definition has gained wide acceptance (Laurent

and Kapferer 1985; M cQuairie

an d

Munson 1987).

Laurent

and

Kapferer (1985) strongly urge

that involvement should

be

thought

of as a

profile

of several facets. They offered

a

19-item profile

of

five dimensions: Impo rtance, Pleasure, Sign-value ,

Risk Probability

and

Risk Importance. However,

the five dimensions collapsed into four factors

during empirical testing, with Importance

an d

Risk

Importance loading on the same dimension. In a

revised 16-item profile, Kapferer

and

Laurent (1985,

1985/86) tapped five dimensions again,

but

replaced

Importance with Interest.

The

five factor structure

was confirmed, although only tw o scale items were

available

for

assessing risk probability.

In the

latest update

of the

scale (Laurent

and

Kapferer

1989),

th e

same five factor structure

is

retained,

but

with achangein thenumber of items ineachsub-

scale (Interest

- 3

items; Sign

- 3

items; Pleasure

- 3

items; Riskimp

- 3

items

an d

RiskPro

- 4

items).

It

is important

to

note that

th e

five distinct

dimensions of involvement ar e non-orthogonal.

Strong correlational relationships were found

for the

following pairs

of

factors: Interest-Pleasure (0.55),

Interest-Riskimp (0.50),

an d

Pleasure-Sign (0.47).

The empirical evidence supporting this multi-faceted

conceptualization comes from large numbers

of non-

student subjects

in

France, over

a

number

of

years

and spanning num erous products. How ever, since

the scale was developed using French items and has

not been published

in its

entirety,

th e

po tential

for

it's usage

in the U .S. has

been limited (Mittal

an d

Lee 1988).

Coming to the other research streamof

interest

for

this study, Zaichkowsky's empirical

validation

of the

20-item

PII

also covered numerous

products.

The PII

appeared

to

capture

one

major

factor - Relevance -across al l product categories,

and some minor factors, which were

no t

considered

further.

The

major factor accoimted

for

approximately

70% of the

variance.

The PII is

appealing in its simple structure (2 0pairs of

adjecdves)

and the

single score used

to

represent

th e

degree

of

involvement

is

useful

for

easy comparison

of products along

a

continuum.

In

this fashion,

it

5 9 4 Advances in Consumer Research

Volume 17 1990


2/10

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17 I595

has been tisedby other researchers (Celsi and Olson

1 9 8 8 ) .

The scopeofthePII wasexpandedby

McQuarrie and Munson (1987), who concurred with

Laurent

and

Kapferer's emphasis

on a

multi-

dimensional involvem ent profile. McC^arrieand

Munson felt thatthe PIIrefiected twodimensionsof

the Involvement Profile, thoughtto beImportance

and Pleasure.

So, in

their revision

of the PII

(RPII

hereafter), they sought to incorporate Sign andRisk

components anddropped certain items that were

considered causes of attitudinal contaminationand

redundancy. Their revised version

did not

distinguish between Risk Importance andRisk

Probability as two separate dimensions but hadonly

a single dimension tocapture theRisk a spect

However, their attempt

to

capture

the

Sign sub-scale

was notsuccessful. They too found significant

correlations among thesub-sc ales: Importance-

Pleasure (0.60), Pleasure-Risk (0.49)and

Importance-Risk (0.41).

Higie and Feick (1989) in measuring enduring

involvement borrowed items from Zaichkowsky's

Pn and Mcquarrie and Munson's RPII

for

their

Hedonic (Pleasure) sub-scaleand developedareliable

sub-scale for their Self-Expression (Sign) dimension.

Therefore,

the

pool

of

items from these Aree studies

(Zaichkowsky, McQuarrie and Munson,andHigie

and Feick) collectively taps the same facetsof

involvement as does the involvement profile(IP)

proposed

by

Laurent and Kapferer.

In summary,wehavetwostreamsofmeasure

development that appearto share thesame

conceptual fram eworkof a multi-faceted involvement

construct

Or, are we

really comparing apples with

oranges? Speculations have been made about the

overlap/congruency of thedimensionsof

involvement asusedby earlier researchers (Ratchford

1987 ). How ever, empirical support

for

such

inferences is notpresentiy available. Hence,we

decided to test thecom parabilityof the twosetsof

items for domain congruency, potential differences

in sub-scale reliabilities

and

relationship with

the

consequences of involvement

STUDY DESIGN

The objectivesof thepresent study included

the following:

i) translate LaurentandKapferer's

Involvement Profile (French items into

Engl ish) ,

ii ) replicate scale structures (IP,

PII and

modifications),

iii) compare

the

factor structures

of

the

two

setsof items, which conceptuallycan

be expectedto besimilar,

iv ) assess correspondence/domain overlap

between the various pooled items.

v) abstractasubsetof items (threeineach

sub-scale) that best captures

the

various

aspects of involvement as apotential

refinement of either set, and

vi) test

the

performance

of the

abstracted

scale.

Sour c e s

of

scale i tem s

We are gratefultoLaurent and Kapfererfor

providing us withthe original French items for the

latest revision

of

their Involvement Profile, along

witha tentative English translation. Weused four

other translators (twoAmericansand twoEuropeans)

for independent translations andarrivedatitems1-

16 shown

in

Table

2. The

other major sources were

the published items of Zaichkowsky's PII, and

McQuarrie and Munson's RPII,and HigieandFeick's

study (items 20-49 inTable2). Lastiy,the

published involvement items (items

17-19 in

Table

2) usedin theFCB grid were addedto the pool

(Ratchford 1987). Themeasureof involvementin

die FCB gridhadonly three items. Itsparsimony

and

the

advertising industry's acceptance made

it

attractive forinclusion. Besides , Aerewas aneed

for som e better risk meas ures. Thu s, there were49

items intotal, halfofwhich were reverse coded.

It is significant to note two possible sources

of bias: one involving translation and theother

methodological. Responses to the English items

ma y

not

necessarily yield

a

pattem similar

to

that

of

the original French items,not only because of the

translation (differing usage of idioms andexpressive

aspectsof thelanguage),butalso becauseof the

differences

in the

marketplace settings

-

product

offerings, consumer tastes, andculture, ll ie

methodological issue concems the reformulation

from the original likert-type format to a semantic-

differential format

The

change

in

format

was

necessitatedby therequirements for conformity with

the restof theitems usedin thestudy. Inthis

respect Jaccard, Weber,andLundmark (1975) have

shown that

the two

types

of

scales yield similar

results,andhence thismay not be a serious

limitation.

D ata C o l l e c t ion

Ten products were selected after areviewof

previous studies. Mu ltiple products were chosen to

retain the generalizability across product classes,

similar

to

other researchers.

The ten

products were:

alarm clock, batteries, calculator, chocolate,

cologne^erfume, detergents, haircut/styled, music

tapesA ecords, newspaper and radio. The se products

were chosen

to

refiect

a

spectrum

of

involvement

profiles and in lightof students' familiarity withthe

products. Toreduce tediousnessof thetaskand

respondent fatigue andboredom, five pairsof

proiducts were established

at the

outset and each

respondent completed thescales foronly onepairof

products.

A convenience sample

of 375

student

respondents, almostall of whom were

undergraduates,wasdrawn fromtwomajor north-


3/10

596 /

n Emptrtcal ssessment of Multiple Operattonaltzattons of Involvement

TABLE 1

Ctonbach Alphas

of the

Various Involvemen t Scales

A l p h a

S c a l e s

Pr e v i o u s l y

Repor t ed

0.76

0.54

0.83

0.81

0.72

P r e s e n t

S tudy

0.76

0.57

0.72

0.82

0.78

L a ur en t a nd Ka p f e r e r's I n v o l v e m e n t Pro f il e :

- I n t e r e s t

- R i sk Probab i l i ty

- Plea sure

- S i g n

- Risk Impor tance

Za ichkowsky's PII:

McQuarr i e an d Mun son' s RPII:

- Impo r t a n c e

- R i s k

- Plea sure

- S i g n V a l u e

Hig ie and Fe ick's EI:

- Hedonic

- Se l f -Expre ss ion

FCB Gr id S c a l e :

0.95-0.97

0.95

0.77

0.92

0.93

0.92

0 77

0.94

0.87

0.67

0.88

0.58

0.90

0.90

0.81

e a s t e r n un i v e r s i t i e s . E a ch r e spo nde n t r e c e i v e d t w o

ra ndo m o rde r s o f t h e po o l o f 49 s e m a n t i c -d if f e r e n t ia l

i t e m s , o n e f o r e a ch p r o duc t i n t h e pa i r . T he p r o duc t

o rde r i n t h e pa ir w a s a l s o r a ndo m ize d . A t o t a l o f

735 u sa b l e r e spo n s e s , p o o l e d a c r o s s a l l p r o duc t s ,

w e r e a v a i l a b l e f o r a na ly s i s .

A N A L Y S I S A N D R E S U L T S

R e p l i c a t i o n o f P r e v i o u s S c a l e S t r u c t u r e s

R e s p o n s e s w e r e p o o l e d a c r o s s a l l t h e t e n

p r o duc t s f o r t h e a na ly s i s , a nd o b l ique f a c t o r a n a ly s is

w a s u s e d . T he r e p l i c a t i o n a na ly s i s o f t h e v a r i o u s

s c a l e s y i e ld e d c o n s i s t e n t a nd e n c o ur a g i ng r e su l t s ,

b o t h i n t h e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e s a nd Cro nba ch a l pha

v a l u e s o f t h e s u b - s c a l e s .

T he IP i t e ms y i e ld e d fo u r f a c t o r s : I n t e r e s t a nd

P l e a su r e l o a d i ng o n t h e s a m e d im e n s i o n . S i gn , R isk

Pro ba b i l i t y a nd R i sk Im po r t a n c e . T o ge t h e r , t h e

e x t r a c t e d f a c t o r s e xp l a i n e d 61 o f th e v a r i a n c e

(Re p l i c a t i o n o f t h e IP i s di s c u s s e d l a te r ) . T he PI I

i t e m s y i e ld e d t w o f a c t o r s , a c c o un t i ng f o r 61 o f t h e

var ianc e (major f a c t o r = 48 ; m inor fa c t o r - 13 ) .

T he f i r s t fa c t o r r e f l e c t e d R e le v a n c e / Im po r t a n c e a nd

t h e s e c o nd f a c t o r r e f l e c t e d P l e a su r e , a s w a s e xpe c t e d .

The in t e r - f a c t o r co rre la t i on was 0 .46 . Three f a c t o r s

were r e covered f o r McQuarr i e and Munson' s RPII ,

t h a t t o g e th e r e xp l u n e d 66 o f t h e v a r i a n c e (46 ,

11 a nd 9 f o r t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s r e sp e c t i v e l y ) . T h e

t h r e e f a c t o r s w e r e P l e a su r e , Impo r t a n c e a nd R i sk .

T he i n t e r f a c t o r c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e a s f o l l o w s :

Plea sure -Im por tance = 0 .59 , Plea su re -Risk = 0 .35 ,

and Im por tan ce -Risk = 0 .29. The s t ruc ture o f the

f a c t o r ana lys i s r epor t ed by Hig ie and Fe ick was a l so

r e c o v e r e d (77 o f t h e v a r i a n c e w a s e xp l a i n e d ) . T he

c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o dim e n s i o n s . P l e a su r e

a nd S ign , w a s 0 .56 . T he t h r e e FCB i t e m s y i e lde d a

s i ng l e f a c t o r , r e c o v e r i ng 72 o f t h e v a r i a n c e .

T a b l e 1 s h o w s t h e C r o n b a c h a l p h a v a l u e s

o b t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t udy a s w e l l a s t h o s e

r e po r t e d i n t h e U te r a tu r e . I t c a n b e s e e n t h a t th e r e i s

a gr e a t d e a l o f c o n s i s t e n c y . S im i l a r t o t h e f i nd i ng

by Ka p f e r e r a nd L a ur e n t (1985 ), t h e i n t e m a l

c o n s i s t e n cy o f t h e R i sk Pro ba b i l i t y sub - s c a l e w a s

no t h igh (0 .54 v s 0 .57) . McQuarr i e and Mun son' s

R i sk i t e m s y i e lde d a s l i g h t l y h ighe r a l pha v a l u e o f

0 .67 . T he i n c l u s i o n o f t h e FCB s c a l e t o b o l s t e r t h e

a s s e s sm e n t o f R i sk i s , t h e r e f o r e , s e e n t o b e

ju s t i fi e d , a nd i t s a l pha v a l u e w a s 0 .81 . A l l t h e o t h e r

sub - s c a l e s h a d a l pha v a l u e s i n t h e r a ng e o f 0 .67 t o

0 . 9 4 .

C o m p a r i s o n o f Th e T w o S e t s o f

I n v o l v e m e n t P r o f i l e I t e m s

T he t w o s e t s o f i t e ms w e r e (1 ) th e E ng l i s h

t rans la t i on o f Laurent and Kapf e re r ' s (1989) la t e s t

r ev i s i on o f the IP (s tudy 1: i t em s 1-16 in Table 2) ,

a nd (2 ) t h e c o m b ina t i o n o f i t e m s f r o m t h e PI I a nd

i t s m odi f i ca t i ons ( s tudie s 3 , 4 and 5: i t em s 20 - 49

i n T a b l e 2 ) . E a ch s e t o f i t e ms w a s f a c t o r a na lyze d

s e pa r a t e l y wi t h da ta po o l e d a c r o s s a l l t h e p r o duc t s .


4/10

Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 17) I 597

T A B L E

2

Rotated FactcH' Loa dings of I tems From Various S ca le s

(Poo led A c ro s s T en Produc ts )

S t udy ' F a c t o r

1 2

3 4 5

I t e m s

1 2 3 4 5

* 1 . I a m n o t a t a l linteres ted in it /

I am very intere s ted

in i t 0 . 66

* 2. I

attach grea t importance

t o it /

I a t tach

n o

importance

to i t 0 .29 0 .38

* 3 . I am

indi f f erent

t o i t /

I am n o tindi f f erent t o i t 0 . 40

* 4 .

Choo s i ng

i t

i sn ' t c omp l i c a t ed /

Choo s i ng i t i scom pl ic a t ed 0 .42 0 .43

* 5.

IN

PURCHASING

IT ,

I

AM

CERTAIN

O F MY

CHOICE/IN PURCHASING

Tr,IAM

UNCERTAIN

O F

M Y

CHOICE

0.71

* 6 .

I

NEVER

K N O WIF IAM

MAKING

TH E

RIGHT

PURCHASE/I

K N O W

FOR

SURE

THAT

I AM

MAKING

THE RIGHT PURCHASE

0.80

* 7 . I

FEEL

A

B IT

AT A LOS S IN

CHOOSING

m

IDONT

FEEL

AT A

LOSS

IN

CHOOSING

IT

0.48

* 8. I

enjoy buying

i t f o rm ys e lf /

I

d o n o t

enjoy buying

i t f o r

m y s e lf

0.71

* 9. I

D O N O T

FIND

IT PLEASURABl^

I FIND

T T

PLEASURAB LE

0 . 8 4

* 10. B uy i n g it fe e l s l i ke g i v i ng m yse l f a gi f t /

B uy i n g

it

doe sn 't f e e l l i k e g i v ing m yse l f

a g i f t 0 .54

* 11 . WhatI b u ysay s s om e th ing abou tm e /

What

I

buy do esn' t say anything about m e

0 .60

* 12 . WhatI buy doesn' t re f l e c t th ekindo f

person

I

ain / What

I buy

ref i ec ts the k ind

o f pe r s on I a m 0 . 66

* 1 3. I t

te l l s s om e th ing abou t

a

per son /

I t doesn' t te l l anything about

a

person

0 .83

*

14 . I t i s n o t a b i g

dea l

i f I

m a ke

a

m i s take

i n choo s i ng

i t / I t i s a b ig

dea l

if

I m a k e am i s take inchoo s i ng i t 0 .76

* 15. rr

IS

REALLY ANNOY ING

TO

MAKE

AN

UNSUITABLE

PURCHASE/mS NOT

ANNOYING

T O

MAKE

AN

UNSUITABLE PURCHASE

0.78

* 1 6 .

APOORCHOICEW O U L D N 'T B EUPSETTING

A POOR CHO ICE

W O U L D

B E

UPSETTING 0.88

* 17 .

Dec i s i o n r equ i r e s

a l o t o f

thought/

Dec i s i on require s l i t t l e thought

0 .57

* 18 .

LITTLETOLOSEB YCHOOSING POO RLY/

A LOT T O

LOSE

B Y

CHOOSING

POORLY

0 .83

* 1 9 .

Very impor tan t de c i s i o n /

Ve ry un impor tan t de c i s i o n

0 .54

* 20 .

TELLS OTHERS

A B O U T

M E/

DOESNT

TELL OTHERS

A B O U T M E

0.88

* 2 1 . OTHERS

U S E T O J U D G E M E /

OTHERS

W O N T USE T O JU D G E M E

0.81

* 2 2 .

DOES NOT PO RTRAY AN

IMAGE

O F M E T O

OTHERS/

PORTRAYS

AN

IMAGE

O F M E T O

OTHERS 0 .80

* 2 3 .

Part

o f m y

s e l f - im a g e /

Not par t

o f

my s e l f - im ag e

0 . 7 4

* 2 4 .

ESSENTIAL/NON-ESSENTIAL

0.86

* 2 5 .

Undesirable/Desirable

0.35 0 .59

26 . B ENEFICIAUNOT BEN EFICIAL 0 .82

27.

Vi ta l /Super f iuous

0.79


5/10

598 /

An Em pirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement

TABLE 2 CONTINUED)

Study*

1 2 3 4 5 Item s

* *

* It

*

* *

28 . Uninterested/Interested

2 9 .

Mundane^ascinating

30 . Useless/Useful

3 1 . WantedAJnwanted

32 . Valuable/WorOiIess

33 . Trivial/Fundamental

34 .

NOT

NEE E INEE E

3 5 . Significant/Insignificant

* 3 6. Important/Unimportant

* 37 . Means a lot to me/Means nothing to me

38 . Boring/Interesting

* 39 . Appealing/Unappealing

* 4 0 . Of no concemA3f concem to me

* 4 1 . Irrelevant/Relevant

42 .

UNEXCTTING/EXCITING

43. Matters to me/Doesn't matter to me

* 4 4 . Says something about me/

Says nothing about me

* 4 5 . Tells me about a person/Shows nothing

46 . FUN/NOT FUN

47. Easy to go wrong/Hard to go wrong

* 48 . No risk/Risky

'* 49 . Hard to pick/Easy to choose

1

0.80

0.64

0.72

0.63

0.85

0.61

0.54

0.41

0.52

0.58

0.51

Factor

2 3

0.70

0.76

0.79

0.69

0 .82

0.77

0.79

0.89

4 5

0.37 0.40

0.48 0.36

0.35 0.52

NOTES: (i) Loadings below 0.30 have been omitted.

(ii) Reverse coded Items: 2,6,7,8,10,11,13,15,17,19,20,21,23,24,26,27,31,

32,35,36,37,39,43,44,45,46,47,49

* Study 1: Laurent and Kapferer (1989 ) (English translation)

Study 2: Ratchford (1987)

Study 3: Higie and Feick (1988)

Study 4: Zaichkowsky (1985)

Study 5: McQuarrie and Munson (1987)

Items 1-16, which formed the first set (taken from

the Involvement Profile), yielded four factors (using

the scree test and the eigenvalue criteria) that

together explained 61 of the total variance (the

varimax version showed the variance explained by

Interest/Pleasure, Riskimp, Sign and RiskPro factors

to be 36 , 12 , 7 and 6 respectively). Oblique

rotation of the factors was used for interpretation.

The Sign, RiskPro and Riskimp sub-scales were

recovered as distinct dimensions. However, the sub-

scales for Interest and Pleasure loaded on the same

factor. One may recall that factors corresponding to

these two sub-scales had the highest correlation

amongst all the factors in the Kapferer and Laurent

(1985) study. The inter-factor correlations of

Interest/Pleasure with the Sign, RiskPro and

Riskimp dimensions were 0.47, -0.08 and 0.46

respectively. Sign was correlated 0.02 and 0.45

with RiskPro and Riskimp respectively. Th e two

dimensions of risk were correlated 0.11.

Items 20-49, which formed the second set

were also factor analyzed. Again, using the scree

test and eigenvalue criteria, four oblique factors were

recovered, accounting for 64 of the varian ce. The

dimensions which emerged were: Relevance,

Pleasure, Sign and Risk (these accounted for 40 ,

14 , 6 and 4 respectively in the varimax

version). Relevance had a correlation of 0.44, 0.32

and 0.15 with Pleasure, Sign and Risk respectively.

Pleasure was correlated 0.56 and 0.33 with Sign and

Risk respectively. Sign and Risk had a correlation

of 0.47.

It may be observed that the two sets, which

were thought to be parallel versions,did not yield

similar factor dimensions. Only Pleasure and Sign

were common facets. Relevance emerged as a

dominant dimension in the second set, but was

absent from the first. The first set showed the two

facets of risk, Riskimp and RiskPro, to be distinct,

while all items related to risk loaded on the same

factor in the second set. Hence, it may be expected.


6/10

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17) I 599

that were both sets to be combined and factor

analyzed, five dimensions would result (Relevance,

Interest/Pleasure, Riskimp, Sign and RiskPro).

T e st ing D omain Ove r lap

Stewart (1981) recommends that a useful

application of factor analysis is for testing the

domain of various items which relate to the same

cons truct The present setting provides such an

opportunity. Items 1-49 (S et 1, Set 2 and the FCB

items) were subjected to an oblique factor analysis.

As observed earlier, there is no theoretical

justification for orthogonal dimensions. The scree

test and eigenvalue criteria revealed five dimensions,

as hypothesized. The emergence of the five

dimensions from the increased set of variables

indicates that the factors are robust

Table 2 shows the factor loadings of the

comp lete set of 49 items. The five factors are

Relevance/Importance, Pleasure/Interest

Sign/Symbolic, Risk Importance and Risk

Probability, explaining 59% of the total variance

(in the varimax version, the factors accounted for

36%,

10%, 6%, 4% and 3% resp.). The pattem of

the item loadings revealed that there were

overlapping dimensions from the various scales.

The first factor was the unique Relevance aspect of

the p n . The second factor. Pleasure showe d high

loadings of items from the Pleasure/Interest sub-

scale of Ihe IP, and the Pleasure sub-scale of the

RP n. The Sign factor had high loadings of items

belonging to the Sign sub-scale of the IP, and the

Self-Expression component of Higie and Feick's

Enduring Involvem ent scale . The Riskimp factor

had high loadings from items in the Riskimp sub-

scale of the IP, the Risk sub-scale of the RPII, and

all the three items from the FCB scale . Finally, the

RiskPro factor refiected the RiskPro sub-scale items

from the IP and the Risk items from the RPII.

Two salient findings emerge from Table 2.

First, the Relevance component of involvement is

totally untapped in the current battery of IP items.

Interestingly, in Laurent and Kapferer's study

reported in JMR (1985), the Importance items had

loaded with Risk Importance and were replaced with

Interest items in their later ACR and JAR studies

(Kapferer and Laurent 1985, 1 985/8 6). Perhaps, a

different set of Importance items in the JMR study

might have led to a distinct dimension, since

2 aichkowsky's Relevance factor does have

Importance related adjective pairs, such as

"important/unimportant" "needed/not needed," and

"essentialAion-essential." Als o noteworthy is that

the Riskimp sub-scale remained as a distinct{&-.tOT

and did not load on the Relevance factor in the

domain analysis.

The second salient finding relates to the

mq>ping of Risk in the RPII on the Risk-related

dimen sions of IP. The three items of Risk load

about equally on Riskimp and RiskPro factors.

Hence, an argument can be made for retaining the

two components of risk as distinct facets of IP, if

more information is considered desirable. A counter

argument using a parsimony criterion, could be that

the Risk sub-scale of the RPII may be substituted for

&e two facets of risk in the IP, since the

significance of Riskimp may have been boosted by

the inclusion of the FCB items in this analysis.

However, dropping the three FCB items still yielded

the same five factors as in Table 2, with Riskimp

and RiskPro remaining distinct

Table 3 show s the inter-factor correlations of

the five dime nsions. The correlations of Sign with

Pleasure and Riskimp were both 0.58, which is the

highest value in the table. Relevance correlated

moderately with Pleasure (0.42), Sign (0.33) and

Riskim p (0.3 5). Pleasure correlated strongly with

Riskimp (0.49), but not with RiskPro (0.05) . The

remaining conelations for RiskPro were also low -

0.21 with Sign and 0.23 with Riskimp. While

Relevance, Pleasure, Sign and Riskimp appear to be

related among themselves, RiskPro stands apart as a

unique dimension by itself

A bstr ac te d I te ms for Sub-Sc a le s and

P e r f o r m a n c e T e s t i n g

Capitalizing on the strengths of different sub-

scales offered by earlier researchers, we would now

like to offer for further testing a concise set of

items, refiecting a multi-faceted operationalization

of involveme nt The objectives of the pruning

phase were the same as those of Laurent and Kapferer

(1985/86): short scales (for convenience),

multiproduct applicability (for generalizability) and

single factored, reliable sub-scales (for psychometric

purposes). The three items loading highest on each

factor in Table 2 were chosen to yield a smaller set

of 15 items for the New Involvement Profile

(capitalized in Table 2) . Particulars are shown

below:

Dimension

1.

Relevance

2. Pleasure

3.

Sign

4 . Risk Im]x>rtance

5. Risk Probability

Items

(From

Items

Items

Items

Items

Items

Table 2)

24,

26 ,3 4

9, 42, 46

20 .

15,

5,

21,

22

16, 18

6, 7

Cronbach

Alpha

0.80

0.84

0.84

0;80

0 .56

The performance of the New Involvement

Profile was compared to the other available scales in

terms of ability to predict some of the consequences

of involvement used in previous studies: greater

information search, perception of differences among

brands, and preference for a particular brand

(Zaichkowslqr 1985, McQuarrie and Munson 1987).

Three items were used to capture the first

proposition : "I would be interested in reading

about this product,"

I

would pay attention to an ad

for this product" and "I would compare product

characteristics among brands for this product" The

last two consequences were assessed using one item

for each: "I think there are great differenc es a mong

brands of this product" and "I have a most preferred

brand of this product" respectively. All five

statements were rated on a five-point scale from

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The


7/10

600 /

n Emp irical ssessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement

T A B L E 3

IntCT-Factor Correlations

Factor 2:

Pleasure

Factor 3:

Sign

Factor 4:

Riskimp

Factor 5:

Riskpro

Factor 1

Relevance

0.42

0.33

0.35

-0.02

Factor 2

Pleasure

1.00

0.58

0.49

0.05

Factor 3

Sign

1.00

0.58

0.21

Factor 4

Riskimp

1.00

0.23

Factor 5

Riskpro

1.00

TABLE 4

Regression Analysis Various Scales Regressed on Consequences of Involvement

Consequence

Standardized Coefficients

Adjusted R-Sa.

Re lv. Hed. Sign R-Imp R-Pro New

IP

IP FCB

1. Information

search

2. Perception

of brand

differences

3. Preference

for a brand

0 .17* ** 0 .36*** 0 .06 0 .23* ** -0 .03 0 .35

0 .07 0 .17*** 0 .12** 0 .20*** -0 .02 0 .16

0 . 0 8 * 0 . 2 0 * * * 0 . 1 1 * * * 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 1 2 * * * 0 . 1 3

0.35 0 .28 0 .25

0.16 0.09 0.13

0.13 0 .09 0 .06

p < 0.05

p < 0.01

p < 0.001

three statements for greater information search were

highly inter-correlated (alpha = 0.78) and were

therefore combined into a single scale.

The results are summarized in Table 4. The

predictive ability (adjusted R-squared) of the New

Involvement Profile is seen to match the best of the

earlier scales. The individual standardized regression

coefficients for the five dimensions vary in

significance across the five consequences of

involvem ent used as the criterion variables. Every

dimension of the New Involvement Profile has a

significant impact on at least one consequence,

thereby justifying retention of the five dimensions.

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

A multidimensional approach to measuring

involvement was followed in this study. An English

translation o f Laurent and Kapferer s bivolvem ent

Profile and an alternative measure, derived from

Zaichkowsky s Personal Involvem ent Inventory and

its modifications, were tested empirically using

multiple products. As s hown in Table 5, the range

of products studied captured a spectrum of

involvem ent scores as measured by Z iaichkowsky s

p n (1985 ) and Laurent and Kapferer s latest

Involvement Profile (1989).


8/10

Advances tn Consumer Research Volume 17) I 6 1

T A B L E 5

InvolvementSccves of Products on PII and IP

(Mean has been standardized to 100 for each column)

Product

Alarm clock

Batteries

Calculator

Chocolate

Cologne/Perfume

Detergents

Haircut/Styled

MusictapesA'ecords

ficwspapa

Radio

pn

103

88

97

81

100

88

111

110

108

115

Interest

92

77

92

92

108

77

123

115

100

123

Pleasure

83

68

91

121

114

68

114

129

91

121

IP

Sign

89

74

96

89

119

74

126

119

104

111

Riskimp

98

83

106

83

114

83

129

106

68

129

RiskPro

94

86

109

86

109

102

125

94

86

109

Empirical domain testing shows that

2 aichkowsky's PII and Laurent and Kapferer's IP have

unique components. A concise 15 item New

Involvement Profile is abstracted from the sub-scales

tested in this study, drawing on Zaichkowsky's PII

measurement of the Relevance/Importance

dimension, and the latest IP's contribution to the

other four dimensions: Pleasure, Sign, Risk

Impo rtance, and Risk Probabili ty. Obviously, this

refinement process needs to be carried still ftirther

for understanding the intricacies of the Involvement

construct. Specifically, the RiskPro subscale needs

to be strengthened and the New Involvement Profile

needs further validation on a fresh sample.

R F R N S

Beatty, S. E. and Scott M. Smith (1987), "Extemal

Search Effort: An Investigation Across Several

Product Categories,"

Jourrud of Consumer

Research, Vol. 14, (June), 83-95.

Bloch, P. H. (1983), "Involvement Beyond the

Purchase Ftocess: ConceptUal Issues and

Empirical Investigation," in

Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. ^, A. A. Mitchell , ed.,

4 1 3 - 4 1 7 .

Bloch, P. H. and M. L. Richiiis (1983), "A

Theoretical Model for the Study of Product

Importance Perceptions," Journal of Marketing,

47 , 3 (Summer), 69-81.

Cohen, J. B . (1983), "Involvement: Separating the

State fi-om Its Cau ses and Effects," Wo rking

Paper # 33, Center for Consumer Research,

University of Florida.

Higie, R. A. and L. F. Feick (1989), "Enduring

Involvement: Conceptual and Measurem ent

Issues," in Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 16 (forthcoming).

Houston, M. J. and M. L. Rothschild (1977), "A

Paradigm for Research on Consumer

Involveme nt," Working Paper # 11-77-46,

University of Wisconsin-Madison.

and (1978) , "Conceptual and

Methodological Perspectives on Involvement,"

in Proceedings of the 1978 Educators

Conference, S. C. Jain, ed., American Marketing

Associat ion , 184-187 .

Jaccard, J, J. Weber and J. Lundniark (1975), "A

Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis of Four Attitude

Assessment Procedures,Journal of E xperimental

and Social Psychology, 11 , 149-154 .

Kapferer, J. N. and G. Laurent (1985), "Consumers'

Involvement Profile: New Em pirical Results," in

Advances in Consumer Research^ Vol. 12, E. C.

Hirschman and M. B. Holbrook, eds..

Association for Consumer Research, 290-295.

and (1985/1986 ) , "Consumer

Involvement Profiles: A New Practical Approach

to Constuner Involvement," Journal of

Advertising Research,

Vol. 25, 6 (December), 48-

56.

Kassarjian, H. (1978), "Anthropomorphism And

Parsimony," Presidential Address to the

Association for Consumer Research, in Advances

in Consumer Research, H. K. Hunt, ed.. Vol. 5.

Laurent, G. and J. N. Kapferer (1985), "Measuring

Consumer Involvement Profiles,"

Journal of

Marketing Research, XXII (February),

41-53.

and (1989) , Personal

Communication, (Fax), Feb.

McQuarrie, E. F. and J. M. Munson (1987), "The

Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory:

Modification and Extension," in Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 14, P. Anderson and

M .

Wallendorf

eds.. Association for C onsumer

Research . 36-40 .

Mitchell , A. (1979), "Involvement: A Potentially

Important Mediator of Consumer Behavior," in

Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 6, W. L.

Wilkie, Ed., Association for Consumer Research,

1 9 1 -1 9 6 .


9/10

602 /

An Empirical A ssessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement

Mittal, B . and M. S. Lee (1988 ), Separating Brand-

Choice Involvement from Product Involvement

Via Consum er Involvem ent Profiles, in

Advances in Consumer Research, V ol. 15, M.

Houston, ed.. Association for Consumer

Research, 43-49.

Muncy, J. A. and S. D. Hunt, Consum e

Involvem ent: Definitional Issues and Research

Directions, inAdvances in Consumer R esearch,

Vol. 11, T. C. Kinnear, Ed., Association for

Consumer Research, 193-196.

Ratchford, B. T. (1987), New Insights About The

FCB Grid, Journal ^Advertising Research,

August/Septembbr, 24-38.

Richins, M. L. and P. H. Block (1986 ), After the

Ne w Wears Off: The Temporal Context of

Product Involvement, Journal of Consumer

Research,

Vol. 13, (September), 280-2 85.

Rothschild. M. L. (198 4), Perspectives on

Involvemen t: Current Problems and Future

Directions, in

Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 11, T. C. Kinnear, ed.. Association for

Consumer Research, 216-217.

herif M. and H. CantrU (1947), The Psychology of

Ego-Involvement. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Stewart, D. W. (19 81). The Application and

Misapplication of Factor Analysis in Marketing

Research,

Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol.

X V m (February), 51-61.

Vaughn, R. (1980 ), How Advertising Works: A

Planning Model.

Journal of Advertising

Research, 20 (October), 27- 33.

(198 6), How Advertising Works: A

Planning Model Revisited, Journal of

Advertising Research, February/March, 57-66.

Zaichkowsky, J. L (1985 ), Measuring the

Involvement Construct, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 12 (December), 341-3 52.


10/10

T01-An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement-NEW INVOLVEMENT PROFILE

Documents

Transcript of T01-An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement-NEW INVOLVEMENT PROFILE