Upload
cordelia-armstrong
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Formation of attitudes (MAAM) Belief about a brand = Attribute x strength of its association with brand Importance of attribute moderates belief strength Sum of moderated beliefs = attitude to brand Interpret the figure according to the direction of the scale Interpret the figure relative to attitude measures for competing brands Multi Attribute Attitude Modeling (MAAM)
Citation preview
Chapter Nine
Attitude MeasurementAttitude Measurement
What is an Attitude• A mental state used by individuals to
structure the way they perceive the environment and guide the way they respond to it
• Essence of the ‘human change agent’ – influencing attitudes can influence how you behave
• Great diagnostic / explanatory value – why consumers buy / don’t buy
• Overwhelming amount of primary research in marketing deals in measuring attitudes
Formation of attitudes (MAAM)• Belief about a brand = Attribute x strength of
its association with brand• Importance of attribute moderates belief
strength• Sum of moderated beliefs = attitude to brand• Interpret the figure according to the direction
of the scale• Interpret the figure relative to attitude
measures for competing brands• Multi Attribute Attitude Modeling (MAAM)
Multi-Attribute Attitude Models n
Ab = bi ei
i = 1
Ab = attitude toward brand
bi = belief about the relationship
between brand and attribute i
ei = attribute importance weight i
n = number of salient attributes
Multi-Attribute Attitude ModelsExample
Value Store Store Store Attribute (ei) X Y Z
Wide Selection 0.3 +2 +3 +3
Low Price 0.2 +3 -2 -1
High Quality 0.3 -1 +3 +1
Convenient 0.2 +2 +2 +3 location
biei for Store X: (0.3)(+2) + (+3)(0.2) + (-1)(0.3) + (+2)(0.2) = 1.3
biei for Store Y: (+3)(0.3) + (-2)(0.2) + (+3)(0.3) + (+2)(0.2) = 1.8
biei for Store Z: (+3)(0.3) + (-1)(0.2) + (+1)(0.3) + (+3)(0.2) = 1.6
Attitude Research
Attitude Action/Behavior
Three Components of Attitude
Affective Component
Cognitive Component
Action Component
Attitude components• Cognitive component
– Awareness of object– Knowledge of attributes of object– Judgments of
• importance of attributes of object• Satisfaction• Etc.
• Affective component– Feelings and emotions
• Conative component– ‘drive’ to act / behave – motivation– Desire
• Attitude is a three – dimensional construct
Ideas, Concepts, Constructs and Variables• E.g. “I want to make advertising that is
“cool”, “hip” and “edgy”• Can you lay down clear boundaries
between “cool”, “hip” and “edgy”?
Ideas, Concepts, Constructs and Variables• E.g. “I want to make advertising that is
“contemporary” and “effective”• Can you lay down clear boundaries
between the two?
Ideas, Concepts, Constructs and Variables• 1. E.g. “Did you feel that you identified
yourself with the characters / situation in the ad?”
• Not in the least 1 2 3 4 5 Completely
• Variable: • E.g. “Did you buy the product when you
last went to the store?” Y/N• Variable:
Construct vs. Variable• Construct
– An idea / concept which stands on its own
– In the conceptual / abstract domain
– E.g. attitude, satisfaction, love, romance, commitment, motivation, etc.
– May have several dimensions e.g. dimensions of attitude, etc.
• Variable– The operationalization
of the construct– A variable can be
measured– E.g. the
operationalization of attitude is “liking”; of romance could be “attraction” etc.
– If a construct has several dimensions, its variable has several factors e.g. factors of attitude, etc.
Measurement and Scaling• Measurement – standardized process of
assigning numbers / symbols to characteristics of objects according to pre-specified rules– One-to-one correspondence between the number /
symbol and the characteristic– Assignment to be invariant over time and objects
• Scaling – process of creating a continuum on which objects are located according to the amount of the measured characteristic they possess
Classification of attitude scales
Attitude Scales
Single-Item Scales
Continuous Scales
Itemized Category Scales
Comparative Scales
Paired Comparison Scales
Rank-Order Scales
Constant Sum
Scales
Pictorial Scales
Multi-Item Scales
Stapel Scales
Likert Scales
Semantic Differential
Scales
Continuous ScalesHow would you rate Sears as a department
store?Version 1:Probably the worst --------------------------------------------
Probably the bestVersion 2:Probably the worst --------------------------------------------
Probably the best
Problems: Unreliable in interpretation hence not widely used
Typical Attitude Rating Scales• Single item scales – Only one item to
measure the construct• Comparative• Rank order• Pictorial• Constant sum
• Multi-item rating scales – More than one item to measure the construct
• Likert• Semantic Differential• Stapel
Single Item rating scales• Advantages
– Relatively quick, uncomplicated measurement– Relatively simple to analyze
• Problems– Can one item measure all the dimensions of the
construct?
Single item scales• Itemized-category scales
– Labels each category on the scale• Example:• What is your overall satisfaction with
McDonald’s Hamburgers– Very satisfied– Quite satisfied– Somewhat satisfied– Not at all satisfied
What are the problems with this scale
Single item scales• Comparative Scales – forces respondent to
evaluate the object w.r.t. another, on the same attribute
• Example:• Compared to other fast food restaurants,
how would you rate McDonald’s Hamburgers on taste– Very superior– Superior– Neither superior or inferior– Inferior– Very inferior
What are the problems with this scale
• How will you overcome this problem?
Single item scales• Rank-order scales –
– requires respondents to arrange a set of objects with regard to a common criterion e.g. interest in an ad, brand preferences, etc.
• Closely corresponds with the choice process since buyers make direct comparisons amongst competing alternatives
Rank Order Scales
Brand A _____Brand B _____Brand C _____Brand D _____Brand E _____Brand F _____Brand G _____Brand H _____Brand I _____
Please rank the following in order of your preference where 1 = your most preferred and 9 = your least preferred.
What are the problems with this scale
• How will you improve this scale?
Single item scales• Constant sum scaling
– Allocate a fixed number of rating points amongst several objects / attributes to reflect relative preference for the objects / importance of the attributes
– Multi-attribute model importance weights
Constant Sum Scale• Divide 100 points among the following attributes
of a PC in terms of how important they are to you in making a purchase decision.
Clock Speed: 30Hard drive size:20RAM size: 10Price: 40
TOTAL 100
Possible problems with this scale?
Single item scales• Pictorial Scales
– Various levels of the scale are depicted pictorially
– Generally used when surveying children / illiterate samples
Pictorial Scales•
Interviewer says: Eating Honey Munch Cereal makes me feel:
Designing Scales• Number of Scale Categories
• 2 to infinity (Problems?)• 5 – 7 preferred
• Strength of the Anchors• colorful vs. very colorful vs. extremely colorful• Strong anchors are less likely to be used
• Balance of a Scale• balanced vs. unbalanced (problems with
unbalanced scales?)• Equal number of categories on both sides
Designing Scales• Types of poles used in the scale
• Sweet and not-sweet vs. sweet and bitter• Problems?
• Labeling of the Categories• no labels vs. some labels vs. all labels• Labeling reduces ambiguity• Labeling also causes cracks
Designing scales• Number of response alternatives
– Five to seven is a good number– Two to three generally stifle responses and
frustrate respondents– More than nine is superfluous– An odd number is preferred since a neutral
position can be legitimately adopted• “Don’t Know” option
– Use it when there is a distinct possibility– Overuse may attract fence-sitters’ responses
Multiple Item Scales• Attitudes to complex objects like cars,
insurance, credit cards, etc. may have many facets
• Unrealistic to expect just one item to capture all these facets
• Here we use multi-item scales• Example: Attitudes to Winthrop University
Likert Scale• Require respondents to indicate their
degree of agreement / disagreement with a variety of statements related to the attribute or object
• Also called summated scales because scores on individual items are summed to obtain scores for respondents
Likert scale example – Satisfaction survey of Bank
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Courteous service
1 2 3 4 5Convenient locations
1 2 3 4 5
Convenient hours 1 2 3 4 5Low interest loans
1 2 3 4 5
Semantic Differential Scale• Used to describe a set of beliefs that
comprise a person’s image of an object• Each scale item is bounded at each end by
a polar adjective or phrase / bipolar adjectives or phrases
• Can be spatially represented on profile maps to a clearer understanding
Semantic Differential Scale
Low Price
Bitter
SmoothTangy
ConsistentQuality
SpottyQuality
High Price
Not Bitter
1 1
Stapel Scale
Heavy TangyConsistent Quality
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
-3
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3 +3
Exercise – Identify the scale
Exercise – Identify the scale
Accuracy of Attitude Measurements• Reliability
– Does the scale perform consistently over time and over different sets of respondents?
– Test-Retest reliability: administering the same scale at two different points in time to the same / different sample
– Absence of reliability induces random error in the measurement
– Reliability of 0.7 and above is generally good
Reliability of Attitude to Brand scale from Marketing Literature• On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate your feelings
about Pantene:Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good Dislike very 1 2 3 4 5 Like very
much muchUnpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 PleasantPoor quality 1 2 3 4 5 High quality
Reliability: 0.88Source: Mitchell Andrew A. & J. C. Olsen (1981), “Are Product Attribute
Beliefs the only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), (August) 318-32
Accuracy of Attitude Measurements• Validity
– Does the scale measure what it is intended to measure?
– Absence of validity induces systematic error in the measurement i.e. the scale is measuring something else over and above the construct in question (e.g. attitudes)
– A valid measure is one that reflects the true score
Accuracy of attitude measurements• Observed score = true score + systematic
error + random error• Hence a valid measure has both zero
systematic and random errors• If random error is zero (i.e. the scale is
perfectly reliable) it may still not be valid– The scale may be consistently measuring
something else• Hence reliability is a necessary but not
sufficient pre-condition of validity
Types of validity• Face validity – a knowledgeable conclusion
about the scale validity• Convergent validity
– Criterion validity – does the variable predict another variable satisfactorily• Does attitude to brand predict purchase intentions,
both measured at the same time?– Predictive validity – if the DV is measured in the
future• Does college GPA predict the amount of salary you
earn in the future?• Does attitude to brand predict future buying behavior?
Types of validity• Discriminant validity
– Is your construct different from another construct
– Are attitude to brand and purchase intentions two different constructs, or the same construct with two different labels?
– Effect of attitude to brand and purchase intentions on purchase behavior
• Construct validity– Conclusion about the measure after testing
reliability, convergent and discriminant validity
Accuracy of Attitude Measurements• Sensitivity
– Ability of the scale to capture meaningful differences in attitudes
– Can be achieved by increasing the levels but the greater the levels the lower the reliability
– Generally 5 to 7 levels are good• Generalizability
– Ease of scale administration and interpretation in different research settings
• Relevance– Validity x Reliability (between 0 to 1)– Meaningfulness to measure a construct
Accuracy of Attitude Measurements• Dimensionality
– Does the construct consist of only one dimension or more than one dimensions
– E.g. Attitudes – 1,2 or 3 dimensions?– Measured through a factor analysis