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