Measuring the Affective Response

8/3/2019 Measuring the Affective Response

1/7

3: MEASURING THE AFFECTIVE RESPONSE 1

3MEASURIN G THE AFFECTIVE RESPONSE

The content of this supplementary note links with the following chapters9 (page 211), 16 (page 374)

What is t he a f fect ive response?

The affective response is evaluative; it is no longer based only on simple knowledge. It includes:

Feelings

Preferences

Intentions

Favourable or unfavourable judgements.

Several operational measures are also available to market analysts, with attitude as a central

concept.

The evoked and cons idera t ion sets

The brands that become alternatives to the buyer's choice decision are generally a small

number, collectively called the evoked set. The size of the evoked set is at best a fraction of the

brands that the buyer is aware of and a still smaller fraction of the total number of brands that

are actually available in the market.

Market-Driven Management: Supplementary web resource material Jean-Jacques Lambin, 2007Published by Palgrave Macmillan


2/7


The consideration set is the sub-set of brands known and/or tried, which have a non-zero

probability to be selected by the buyer. The composition of the consideration set varies over

time and as a function of the consumption situation.

The consideration set is the sub-set of brands known and/or tried, which have a non-zero

probability to be selected by the buyer. The composition of the consideration set varies over

time and as a function of the consumption situation.

Figure Web 3.1Figure Web 3.1

The Evoked and the Consideration SetsThe Evoked and the Consideration Sets

ExistingsBrands

KnownBrands

UnknownBrands

TriedBrands

( ex postevaluation )

UntriedBrands(ex ante

evaluation)

Considered

Neutral

Rejected

Unfitted

Neutral

Repeatpurchase

Occasionalpurchase

One

Several

(Evoked set)

Considered

The consideration set is more restrictive than the evoked set. As illustrated in Figure Web 3.1, a

buyer can be familiar with a brand and even have experienced the brand, and at the same time

have no intention to buy or to repurchase. To identify the consideration set, one has to know the

brands considered as valid alternatives for the next purchase occasion.

The consideration set is more restrictive than the evoked set. As illustrated in Figure Web 3.1, a

buyer can be familiar with a brand and even have experienced the brand, and at the same time

have no intention to buy or to repurchase. To identify the consideration set, one has to know the

brands considered as valid alternatives for the next purchase occasion.

In the consumer goods sector, it is believed that the average number of known brands may vary

between ten and twenty according to the class of products, whereas the average size of the

consideration set is three to five brands (Jarvis and Wilcox, 1977). The notion of the

consideration set is important; there is little chance that a brand will get adopted if it is not part

of this set. It is in the producer's interest to know which brands or suppliers are on the short list

of potential customers.

In the consumer goods sector, it is believed that the average number of known brands may vary

between ten and twenty according to the class of products, whereas the average size of the

consideration set is three to five brands (Jarvis and Wilcox, 1977). The notion of the

consideration set is important; there is little chance that a brand will get adopted if it is not part

of this set. It is in the producer's interest to know which brands or suppliers are on the short list

of potential customers.

What is a t t i t ude ?What is a t t i t ude ?

A central notion in affective response is the concept of attitude.A classical definition of attitude

is the one given by Allport (1935):

The mental process by which an individual on the basis of past experience and stored

information organises his perceptions, beliefs and feelings about a particular object and

orientates his future behaviour.

In this definition, we find the three levels or components of market response:



3/7


Attitude is based on a series of informationabout the object being evaluated, which is

progressively stored by the individual (cognitive component).

Attitude is oriented and reflects feelings, positive or negative, or evaluationregarding the

object (affective component).

Attitude is dynamic and is a predisposition to respond; as such, it has predictive value

(behavioural component).

Psycho-sociologists (see Fishbein, 1967) also consider that attitude is persistent, although it

can be modified; that it isstructured, in the sense that it has internal consistency and is based

on evaluative criteria; and that its intensitymay vary widely or retain a state of neutrality.

Experimental studies in this area have shown that although measures of attitude are not

infallible, they predict actual behaviours reasonably well. To be more precise, the following facts

are generally accepted:

When buyers' attitudes towards a brand become more favourable, its use tends to grow and,

conversely, an unfavourable attitude heralds its decline. Consumers' attitudes help explain market shares held by different brands (Assael and Day,

1968).

As the number of competing products and brands increases, the firm needs to intervene to

maintain and to reinforce favourable attitudes.

Since measures of attitude are likely to be taken before a purchasing decision, they are of great

importance for market analysis because they enable diagnosis, control and prediction.

Diagnosis: knowledge of a brand's strengths and weaknesses helps identify opportunities

and/or threats facing a brand.

Control: measures of attitudes taken before and after help evaluate the effectiveness ofstrategies aimed at changing the attitude towards the brand.

Prediction: knowledge of attitudes helps predict the market response to a new or modified

product, without having to rely on ex-post observations.

Given the importance of this notion, considerable attention has been given during the last

twenty years to attitude measurement issues, not only in psycho-sociology research

(Rosenberg, 1956 and Fishbein, 1967), but also in marketing research (Wilkie and Pessemier,

1973).

The multi-attribute product concept defined in the Note 2: Measuring the cognitive response

serves as the conceptual basis for modelling attitude. Two estimation procedures can be usedfor measuring a multi-attribute model: the compositional approach or the decompositional or

non-compensatory approach. These two approaches will be examined successively.

The composi t iona l mul t i -at t r ibu te model

The multi-attribute product concept is defined in Note 2. Let us briefly review the basic ideas of

this notion:



4/7


Individuals perceive a brand or a product as bundle of attributes. Individuals perceive a brand or a product as bundle of attributes.

Each individual does not necessarily attach the same importance to attributes. Each individual does not necessarily attach the same importance to attributes.

Individuals hold certain beliefs about the degree of presence of attributes in each brand that

is evaluated.

Individuals hold certain beliefs about the degree of presence of attributes in each brand that

is evaluated.

Individuals have a utility function for each attribute, associating the degree of expected

satisfaction or utility with the degree of presence of the attribute in the object.

Individuals have a utility function for each attribute, associating the degree of expected

satisfaction or utility with the degree of presence of the attribute in the object. Individuals' attitude is structured, i.e. based on processing the stored information. Individuals' attitude is structured, i.e. based on processing the stored information.

The most widely used multi-attribute model is the model developed by Fishbein (1967) and by

Bass and Tarlarzyk (1969) which can be formalised as follows:

The most widely used multi-attribute model is the model developed by Fishbein (1967) and by

Bass and Tarlarzyk (1969) which can be formalised as follows:

Where:Where:

Aij = attitude of individualjabout brand iAwjk

= relative importance to individualjof attribute kw

xijk = perceived degree of presence of attribute kin brand iby individualj(score)x

n = number of determinant attributes (k=1 to n)n = number of determinant attributes (k=1 to n)

This formula is a weighted average of evaluation scores. To estimate this model, the market

analyst needs an importance score for each attribute and an evaluation (or performance) score

of the brand with respect to each attribute. A numerical example is given in Table Web 3.1.,

where six brands of laptop computer are evaluated according to five determinant attributes.

This formula is a weighted average of evaluation scores. To estimate this model, the market

analyst needs an importance score for each attribute and an evaluation (or performance) score

of the brand with respect to each attribute. A numerical example is given in Table Web 3.1.,

where six brands of laptop computer are evaluated according to five determinant attributes.

Table Web 3.1Table Web 3.1

A Compositional Multi-attribute ModelA Compositional Multi-attribute Model

ij = attitude of individualjabout brand ijk

= relative importance to individualjof attribute k

ijk = perceived degree of presence of attribute kin brand iby individualj(score)

Attributes Overall score***Brands of

laptop

computer

Compact-

Ness

Auto-

nomy

Power Keyboard Screen Mean Adjusted

Brand A

Brand B

Brand C

Brand D

Brand E

Brand F

6

7

5

7

8

9

8

8

9

8

8

2

9

7

9

9

5

5

8

8

8

7

6

6

7

9

8

9

7

7

7.50

7.60

7.55

7.85

7.00

5.80

7.68

7.58

7.86

7.95

7.08

5.07

Importance

Differentiation*

Determinance**

0.30

1.41

0.25

0.25

2.56

0.38

0.20

1.97

0.23

0.15

0.98

0.09

0.10

0.98

0.06

1.00

-

1.00

1.00

-

1.00

* Differentiation of a particular attribute is measured by the standard deviation of the scores on that attribute.

** Determinance is obtained by multiplying the importance score by the differentiation score and by standardising

those products to have a sum equal to 1.

*** The mean score is calculated using the importance scores, while the adjusted mean score is determined using the

determinance scores.

=

=n

ijkjkij

1k

xwA



5/7


If the potential buyer evaluates brands in a linearly additive fashion, the selected laptop

computer will not necessarily be the most compact nor the one with the most readable screen,

the most powerful, the most convenient keyboard, etc. The selected computer, however, will be

that which is globally best for this buyer, taking into account all of the relevant attributes and

their relative importance. In this example, the model suggests that brand D will be preferred by

the market.

Non-com pensatory models o f a t t i t ude

In the previous example, we can verify that the Fishbein's model is compensatory, i.e. low

points on an attribute are compensated by high points obtained for other attributes. In this

model, the multiplicative relations between importance and performance, the summation over all

attributes and the nature of the scores show that it is a linear compensatory attitude model. This

fact allows high scores in some attributes to compensate for low ratings in others.

This way of evaluating brands is not necessarily the most effective one can imagine, for

example, that an individual may face an absolute constraint on a price level. In this kind ofsituation, evaluation is no longer compensatory because one criterion dominates.

In Exhibit Web 3.1 the major non-compensatory models of attitude are defined. The most

common observation is a two stage choice procedure. At the first stage, the potential buyer

adopts a conjunctive model allowing him to eliminate products not satisfying his minimal

requirements. At the second stage, the remaining products are subjected to compensatory

evaluation or lexicographic ordering.

Exhibit Web 3.1

Non-compensatory Decision and Attitude Models

DISJUNCTIVE MODEL

Instead of setting minimum standards on different attributes and rejecting alternatives that do not

meet all those minima, the buyer sets a high standard for one or few attributes and then considers

buying only those brands meeting or exceeding the standards on these attributes only.

CONJUNCTIVE MODEL

The buyer has someminimum cut-off level in mind for each important attribute. He or she rejects

alternatives that fall below the minimum on any one of those attributes. The buyer will favour the

brand(s) that exceed the minimum requirements on all-important criteria. A high score on one

attribute will not compensate for a below minimum level on another.

LEXICOGRAPHIC MODEL

In a lexicographic model, the buyer first ranks criteria or attributes in order of importance. Next, all

brands or choice alternatives are compared on the most important attribute. If one brand scores

higher on the most important criterion than any other brands, then it is chosen. If not (for example, if

there is a tie between several brands), then the inferior brands are eliminated and comparisons are

made among the tied brands using the second most important attribute. The procedure is continued

until a final superior brand remains to be chosen or until no further brands can be eliminated.



6/7


Measur ing a t t r ibu t e determ inance

To empirically measure attitude, the attributes used as choice criteria by the target group must

be identified. A distinction must be made between attribute salience, importance and

determinance:

Salience corresponds to the fact that the attribute is in the respondent's mind at a given

moment.

Importance reflects the value system of the individual.

Determinancereflects the ability of a particular attribute to discriminate among alternative

brands.

Thus, determinance refers to important attributes, which help differentiate among objects being

evaluated. If an important attribute is equally represented in all competing brands, it clearly

doesn't allow discrimination among them, and is not a determinant in the choice.

So measuring determinance implies not only a measure of importance, but also adifferentiation score, which is a measure of perceived difference between brands with respect

to each attribute. Determinance is obtained by multiplying scores of importance and

differentiation.

Differentiation may be measured by a direct question about perceived differences between

brands for each attribute using, for example, a scale of 1 (no difference) to 5 (great difference).

A simpler method would be a measure of dispersion for differentiation score (such as standard

deviation of evaluation scores), as illustrated in Table Web 3.1, above. This method would

prevent rendering the task of respondents too demanding.

Clearly, it is with respect to determinant attributes that it is interesting to situate differentcompeting brands in the market. In the example of Table Web 3.1 global attitude scores are

calculated first with the importance scores and then with the determinance scores. The model

predicts that individualjwill prefer computer D. But the ranking of computers B and C is

modified when the determinance scores are used.

Bibl iography

1. Allport G.W. (1935), Attitudes, in Murchison C.A. (ed.), A Handbook of SocialPsychology, Clark University Press,

Worcester, Ma., p.798-844.

2. Assael H. and Day G.S. (1968), Attitudes and Awareness, Predictors of Market Shares, Journal of Advertising Research,

Vol.8, December, pp.10-17.

3. Bass F.M. and Tarlarzyck W.W. (1969), A Study of Attitude Theory and Brand Preferences, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol.9, pp.93-95.

4. Fishbein M. (1967), Attitudes and Prediction of Behavior, in : Fishbein M. (ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and

Measurement, New York, John Wiley and Sons, p.477-492.

5. Jarvis L.P. and Wilcox J.B. (1977), Evoked Set, Some Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evidence, in : Howard

J.A., Consumer Behavior Applications of Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company



7/7


6. Rosenberg M.J. (1956), Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect, Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.53,

pp.367-372.

7. Wilkie W.L. and Pessemier E.A. (1973), Issues in Marketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol.10, November, pp.428-441.

Market-Driven Management: Supplementary web resource material Jean-Jacques Lambin, 2007P blished b Palgra e Macmillan

Documents

Measuring the Affective Response