Sentiment toward marketing: Should we care about consumer alienation and readiness to use technology?

Sentiment toward marketing: Should we care about consumer alienation andreadiness to use technology?

TAREK T. MADY*

Department ofMarketing andMarketing Communications, AmericanUniversity in Dubai, P.O. Box 28282, Dubai,UnitedArab Emirates

ABSTRACT

Consumer sentiment toward marketing has been extensively addressed in the marketing literature. However, while most existing studiesprovide contributions regarding the levels of consumer perceptions of the marketing function, most fall short of providing significantinsights into the antecedents of these sentiment levels. That is to say, little is offered to help marketers understand why consumers perceivethe marketing function the way they do. In this study, a conceptual framework is developed in an attempt to explore consumer sentimenttoward marketing in light of the increasing technological tendencies of today’s marketplace. Alienation from the marketplace is assumed tobe an exogenous variable that affects the degree to which individuals are ready to embrace new technologies in everyday life. The model isempirically tested using structural equation modeling. Alienation from the marketplace is found to be negatively associated with sentimenttoward marketing and the drivers of technology readiness, but positively associated with the inhibitors of technology readiness. Moresignificantly, readiness to embrace technology is found to exhibit a strong and consistent relationship with sentiment toward marketing.Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Both the academic and professional marketing communities,

as the major proponents of the marketing function, are often

required to justify their existence. In fact, the notion of market-

ing as a separate and sovereign entity which contributes to

society as a whole is often in question (Wilkie and Moore,

1999). Therefore, any effort to counter potential criticism of

the marketing function rests on the ability to address how the

very entity toward which we gearmost of our research believes

we are doing. An assessment of marketing is thus an

assessment of the firm by the stakeholder that often holds the

key to its success or failure. In other words, if the core of the

marketing concept is to satisfy needs and wants, we must

constantly gauge how the function as a whole is doing in the

eyes of our major target, namely the consumer.

As a construct, Consumer Sentiment toward Marketing

(CSM) refers to the general feelings that consumers have for

marketing and the marketplace (Lawson et al., 2001). More

specifically, the construct measures consumer global opinions

of the marketing function based on the combined marketing-

mix components (product, price, promotion, and retail/

distribution) traditionally attributed to marketing’s impact on

consumers and individuals-at-large (Gaski and Etzel, 1986).

According to Gaski and Etzel (2005), consumer attitudes

toward, and satisfaction with, the marketing function is one

of the most fundamental aspects that defines the relationship

between consumers and the marketing system. Such a

measurement not only provides a general (societal) gauge of

marketing managers with regards to their own customers but

may also give policymakers insights into analyzing macro-

marketing problems and future market performance (Lawson

et al., 2001; Chan and Cui, 2004). For example, consumer

attitudes toward the marketing function have been found to

affect several key macroeconomic variables such as personal

disposable income and interest rates (Chopin and Darrat,

2000), inflation (Gaski and Etzel, 2005), and have been

found useful for economic forecasting (Huth et al., 1994). As

such, the importance of determining consumer sentiment

levels cannot be overlooked from either a theoretical or

managerial standpoint. However, measuring consumer

sentiment toward marketing should not be an end in itself.

Efforts to measure consumer sentiment levels are

extensive (e.g., Didow et al., 1983; Gaski and Etzel,

1986). What is surprising is that very few attempts have been

made to address what affects these levels. Previous studies

have relied on simple demographic interpretations of

sentiment scores or replication of the measures within a

particular, often international, perspective or location (e.g.,

Barksdale et al., 1982; Wee and Chan, 1989; Chan et al.,

1990; Varadarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990; Uray and

Menguc, 1996; Lysonski et al., 2003; Chan and Cui, 2004).

Furthermore, most of these demographic explanations of

sentiment levels have been generally weak and inconsistent.

While these studies provide significant contributions

regarding the levels of consumer perceptions of the

marketing function at a given time or in a given context,

most fall short of providing insights into the antecedents of

these sentiment levels. Despite extensive research, little is

offered to help marketers understand why consumers

perceive the marketing function the way they do.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A growing dissatisfaction with marketing?One often overlooked area of research which may shed light

on why sentiment toward marketing figures are at certain

levels may lie in consumers’ perceptions of their roles within

the expanded business environment they navigate on a

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 192–204 (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.329

*Correspondence to: Tarek T. Mady, Department of Marketing and Market-ing Communications, American University in Dubai, P.O. Box 28282,Dubai, United Arab Emirates.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

day-to-day basis. Previous research has noted that an individual’s

attitude toward the overall marketplace plays a major role in

whether or not he or she is inclined to participate and engage

in typical consumption activities (e.g., Pruden et al., 1974;

Shuptrine et al., 1977; Allison, 1978; Johnson, 1996). This

notion of general alienation is certainly not a new concept

and its effects on consumption habits have been extensively

addressed in the past. However, there is a renewed relevance

of alienation given the growing evidence suggesting the

emergence of an alternative culture resistant to the traditional

consumerism culture where the marketing function dom-

inates, permeates every aspect of society, and materialism or

the notion of ‘‘more is better’’ is accepted by individuals

(Handelman and Arnold, 1999). This alternative culture is

growing and becoming more vocal (Iyer and Muncy, 2009).

Traditionally, the counter consumer culture is viewed within

the context of the degree to which individuals believe they

can impact the current state of materialism.

Voluntary simplicity is a conscious effort on the part of

individuals to limit materialistic consumption habits in an

attempt to free their monetary and time resources (Etzioni,

1998). In essence, voluntary simplicity constitutes a belief

system and practice designed to allow individuals to seek

satisfaction from nonmaterial aspects of life. Its aim is to

maximize individual control over daily life and minimize

dependence on institutions (Leonard-Barton, 1981). The

notion of voluntary simplicity itself can be characterized

based on various, often overlapping, contrasts such as

commercial simplicity, compassionate simplicity, frugal

simplicity, and ecological simplicity (Elgin, 2000). None-

theless, all types of voluntary simplicity shun materialism

but do not actively attempt to alter the current consumer

environment. On the other hand, anti-consumption move-

ments are actively involved in attempts to alter current

business practices and consumer behavior. Such movements

can be viewed on a continuum with ends ranging from

promoting ethical consumption/marketing practices (Cher-

rier, 2007) to more extreme and active consumer movements

such as ‘‘cultural jamming’’ (e.g., Adbusters, Buy Nothing

Day, Reverend Billy’s Church of Stop Shopping), which are

designed to break down the current cycle of materialism and

overbearing control of businesses on individual lives

(Sandlin and Milam, 2008). There is no doubt that both

voluntary simplicity and anti-consumerism are on the rise

and can no longer be ignored (Kozinets and Handelman,

2004; Huneke, 2005). Both researchers and practitioners

need to acknowledge that such negative feelings are mostly

targeted at the marketing function.

A growing reliance on technologyAny level of consumer participation in today’s marketplace

will certainly be governed, at least in part, by a seemingly

never-ending reliance of firms on technology-facilitated

transactions or processes (e.g., ATMs, airport check-in

kiosks, computer-based call centers, internet-based pur-

chases, RFID technology). Rapid advances in information

technology along with decreasing costs of implementation

have presented firms with opportunities to become more

efficient and effective at reaching their goals (Curran and

Meuter, 2005). New technologies are being used extensively

in marketing today as part of market orientation strategies

and customer relationship management (CRM) processes

(Meuter et al., 2000; Pikkarainen et al., 2004; Lin and Hsieh,

2006; Weijters et al., 2007). Firms traditionally operate

under the assumption that increasing these technology-based

(often service-related) encounters will improve customer

satisfaction via standardization of the consumption process.

While there is general merit to this argument and significant

findings in previous research have illustrated such a

relationship does exist (Bitner et al., 2000), there is, in fact,

evidence to the contrary. Consumers have often expressed

increasing frustration with technology and/or process failure

(Meuter et al., 2000; Parasuraman, 2000). For example, a

typical consumer may express dissatisfaction with a

particular service provider when he or she must now

navigate a host of self-service technology-based activities

that, while originally erected to improve service consistency

and quality, may be the very reason for the dissatisfaction. Of

significant concern though is the fact that most consumers

(satisfied or not) will attribute the existence of these new

innovations to the marketing function (Pruden and Leonardi,

1976).

Therefore, the focus of research should be shifted from

the potential benefits arising from using technology, as

perceived by the marketer, to whether or not the consumer

wants to use the technology in the first place. Understanding

the antecedents of technology acceptance is essential in order

to understand whether or not added technology-based

interactions will be successful (Fisk et al., 1993). If, as

Lambert (1981) suggested, alienated consumers believe they

have no control over any aspect they face in dealing with the

situations presented to them in themarketplace, the argument

can be made (Figure 1) that they will be less likely to

embrace consumption activities involving new technology

processes and subsequently exhibit negative sentiment

toward the main reason for this now mandatory technology,

the marketing function.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Consumer sentiment toward marketingEarly manifestations of the consumer sentiment toward

marketing construct revolved around the concept of

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 10: 192–204 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/cb

Sentiment toward marketing, alienation from the marketplace, technology readiness 193

consumer confidence and focused on determining consumer

propensities toward future spending (e.g., Katona, 1963).

However, such measures were inherently limited due to their

focus on only one aspect of marketing, namely the price

element and how it relates to perceptions of future economic

outlooks. It was the prevailing marketing practices in the

1950s and 1960s such as misleading advertisements,

predatory pricing, general disregard for consumer safety,

and the subsequent rise of public criticism of these practices

which led to a need to monitor social perceptions of

marketing.

Most of the literature regarding consumer attitudes toward

the marketing function is based on the early work of

Barksdale and Darden (1972) and later Barksdale et al.

(1976). These researchers measured consumer attitudes

toward consumerism, government regulations, consumer

responsibility, and marketing activities. They found that US

consumers had fairly negative attitudes toward marketing

practices. This was consistent with the work of Hustad and

Pessemier (1973) and Lundstrom and Lamont (1976), who

also found generally negative perceptions of the marketing

field. Gaski and Etzel (1986) later modified Barksdale and

Darden’s measures and developed an index designed to

measure composite opinions regarding marketing. Their

construct corresponded to the four typical elements of the

marketing mix: (1) products/quality, (2) prices, (3) advertis-

ing, and (4) retailing/selling. They labeled their measure the

Index of Consumer Sentiment toward Marketing. According

to the authors, the scale provides a continuing ‘‘barometer of

how marketing is doing in the eyes of the consumer public’’

(Gaski and Etzel, 1986: p. 72). They argued that the

measurement of consumer sentiment toward marketing (1)

sensitizes marketers to consumers’ perceptions, (2) serves to

identify the nature of public relations tasks facing marketing,

(3) assists in gauging whatever progress is or is not being

made, and (4) demonstrates marketer concerns for public

opinion. As with previous research, they again found

relatively negative views toward marketing but also found

some improvement in consumer perceptions. Gaski and Etzel

specifically found female consumers’ perceptions of market-

ing to be slightly more positive than male consumers. More

recently, several researchers have attempted to shed light on

variations in consumer sentiment levels based on a range of

demographic variables. For example, Webster (1991) found

consumer differences in consumer attitudes toward market-

ing based on social class and income levels while Lawson

et al. (2001) found a strong positive relationship between

standards of living, measured in material terms, and

sentiment levels.

Consumer alienation from the marketplaceExtensive research has addressed the construct of consumer

alienation from the marketplace (e.g., Pruden et al., 1974;

Pruden and Leonardi, 1976; Shuptrine et al., 1977; Allison,

1978; Balasubramanian and Kamakura, 1989; Johnson,

1996). In essence, the construct is defined as consumer

feelings of separation from the norms and values that

characterize the typical marketplace. The marketplace is

conceptualized as the entire spectrum of institutions involved

in the offering of goods and/or services and the practices or

activities conducted by these institutions (Johnson, 1996).

The consensus from previous research is that alienated

individuals tend to lack any acceptance of or identification

with the existing market institutions, practices, and outputs

they must deal with as they assume their roles as consumers

(Pruden et al., 1974; Shuptrine et al., 1977). Specifically,

such individuals do not embrace the roles expected of them

as they engage in the exchange process and navigate the

marketplace. As a result, they become more and more

isolated socially. As a construct, alienation from the

marketplace has been found to be a conceptual aggregate

of more detailed dimensions (rather than discrete measurable

sub-scales). Seeman (1959) systematically identified five

variants or ways in which alienation has been conceptualized

in the literature: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normless-

ness, social isolation, and self-estrangement.

Powerlessness is the expectancy held by individuals that

their own behavior cannot determine the outcome or

reinforcement that they seek (Seeman, 1959). Johnson

(1996) identified this notion as a state in which consumers

feel that they cannot influence business behavior in an effort

to make those behaviors more consistent with their own

needs. As such, an alienated consumer believes he or she has

no control over any aspect faced in the marketplace.

Meaninglessness is a state in which the individual is unclear

as to what should be believed. This situation includes a lack

of clarity regarding standards set and used during individual

buyer behavior. That is, consumers do not feel that new

products or the whole process of consumerism is worth the

effort (Pruden et al., 1974). Consumer normlessness is a

situation in which social norms regulating behavior are no

longer effective rules for individual behavior. Johnson (1996)

defined it as a state in which consumers believe that

marketers will behave in ways that are unethical, unjust, or

undesirable in order to meet selfish goals (i.e., marketers

cannot be trusted). Social Isolation is a sense of isolation or

estrangement from the general marketing-based society

including its institutions, practices, and outputs (Seeman,

1959; Middleton, 1963). Self-Estrangement, a notion very

similar to social isolation, is when a person views him/herself

as an alien and can relate more easily to others than to him/

herself. Allison (1978) argued that self-estrangement is

dominated by a general lack of ability for an individual to

identify with behavior traditionally associated with his/her

role as a consumer. That is, consumption patterns are

associated with satisfying other peoples’ expectations rather

than one’s own.

Readiness to embrace new technologyRogers (1995: p. 5) defines the innovation-adoption process

as the ‘‘process through which an individual (or other

decision-making unit such as a group, society, economy, or

country) passes through the innovation-decision process.’’

Accordingly, five stages make up the process: (1) knowledge

of innovation, (2) forming an attitude toward the innovation,

(3) deciding to adopt or reject the innovation, (4)

implementation of the innovation, and (5) confirmation of

the decision. This decision-making process, however, views


DOI: 10.1002/cb

194 T. T. Mady

innovation–adoption as a series of phases but does little to

address the speed of adoption. The propensity or readiness of

a consumer to adopt a certain technology or technological

process is a matter rooted in that consumer’s perception of

technology and innovation. It is not an end in itself, but rather

as a means or tool necessary to perform as a consumer.

Ultimately, encouraging consumers to use new technologies,

especially in the case of service encounters, is not an easy

task (Curran and Meuter, 2005).

As mentioned previously, the use of technology by

marketers to shape consumer exchange processes is

particularly evident in the service sector. Increases in

labor-based costs and significant innovations in technology,

along with the constant need for standardization of service

quality have fueled this growing reliance on technologies in

the service delivery process (Dabholkar, 1996). Self-service

technologies (SSTs) are exchange processes based in

technological interfaces that enable the consumer to take

advantage of a service without any service employee

involvement (Meuter et al., 2000). There is little doubt that

the trend for self-service technologies will continue as more

and more firms seek competitive advantages and consumers

becomemore technology-savvy (Meuter et al., 2000; Lin and

Hsieh, 2006). However, despite consumers becoming

generally more comfortable and sophisticated in their

technology interactions, some might avoid certain SSTs,

even when the benefits of such interactions, such as increased

flexibility and/or efficiency, are obvious (Meuter et al.,

2003). There is a growing body of literature in the field,

which has shifted the discussion from investigating the

characteristics and importance of SSTs in service delivery

(e.g., Bitner et al., 2000; Meuter et al., 2000) to whether or

not consumers are willing to embrace new technologies in

service exchanges in the first place (e.g., Parasuraman, 2000;

Ho and Ko, 2008). Consumers are seen to have a general

‘‘state of mind’’ that determines their predisposition toward

technology.

Technology Readiness, therefore, can be defined as

‘‘people’s propensity to embrace and use new technologies

for accomplishing goals in home and at work’’ (Parasura-

man, 2000: p. 308). The construct can be viewed as an overall

state of mind resulting from a summation of mental enablers

and inhibitors that collectively determine a person’s

predisposition to use technologies. These enablers and/or

inhibitors are essentially formed before the typical inno-

vation decision process defined by Rogers (1995). The

existing literature pertaining to adoption of new technologies

and people–technology interactions suggests that customers

simultaneously harbor both favorable and unfavorable views

about technology-based processes and services (e.g., Mick

and Fournier, 1998). Also, although positive and negative

feelings about technology may coexist, the relative domi-

nance of one of the two types of feelings is likely to vary

across individuals. As a result, consumers will not be equally

enthusiastic about the use of technology for exchange

processes. Consequently, people lie along a hypothetical

technology-belief continuum anchored by strongly positive

at one end and strongly negative at the other (Davis et al.,

1989). According to Parasuraman (2000), positive feelings

stem from two distinct dimensions: (1) Optimism, defined as

a positive view of technology and a belief that it offers people

increased control, flexibility, and efficiency in their lives and

(2) Innovativeness, defined as an individual’s tendency to be

a technology pioneer and thought leader. On the other hand,

negative feelings toward technology stem from (1) Dis-

comfort, defined as a perceived lack of control over

technology and a feeling of being overwhelmed by it and,

(2) Insecurity, defined as a genuine distrust of technology

and skepticism about its ability to work properly.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The basic premise of the proposed framework is the belief

that an individual’s propensity to accept new technology is a

function of his/her previous attitudes or beliefs already

entrenched in their mind regarding the institutions and

practices of the typical marketplace itself. That is, as

individuals develop an overall perception toward the

marketplace, the degree to which they do or do not accept

anything new, including technology-based exchange from

that marketplace, differs. Consumers will be less intent on

trying a new technology as part of their consumption

activities if they do not believe that the original forms of

consumption are acceptable. For this reason, it is proposed

that consumer alienation has a direct impact on readiness to

embrace new technologies. In turn, as the degree of readiness

to embrace new technologies (as a whole) increases, it can be

expected that there will be a positive impact on how that

individual views the marketing function, which is the entity

believed to be responsible for these new technology

processes. Moreover, if the assumption that alienation from

the marketplace has some effect on readiness to embrace new

technology holds, it can then be asserted that the nature of the

relationship will differ depending on which facet of

technology readiness is in question. As mentioned Parasura-

man (2000) argued that technology readiness is made up of

two drivers (optimism and innovativeness) and two inhibitors

(discomfort and insecurity). Alienation is assumed to be

negatively related to the drivers of readiness, while it is

assumed to be positively related with the inhibitors of

readiness. For this reason, the following hypotheses are

proposed:

H1a: Consumer alienation from the marketplace is nega-

tively associated with consumer views of technology

(Optimism).

H1b: Consumer alienation from the marketplace is nega-

tively associated with consumer tendencies to be technol-

ogy pioneers and thought leaders (Innovativeness).

H2a: Consumer alienation from the marketplace is posi-

tively associated with consumer perceived lack of control

over technology (Discomfort).

H2b: Consumer alienation from the marketplace is posi-

tively associated with consumer distrust and skepticism

toward technology (Insecurity).

A consumer’s readiness to embrace new technologies is

an important facet of understanding sentiment toward


DOI: 10.1002/cb


marketing because, given the increasing tendency to develop

and market technology-based products, marketing may be

‘‘preaching to the converted.’’ In other words, a consumer’s

view of marketing in today’s day and age depends on that

particular consumer’s propensity to accept new technologies

which marketers are pushing as customer-relationship

builders. If consumers are not willing to embrace new

technologies, they will most probably have unfavorable

sentiments toward marketing because by its very nature,

marketing is trying to impose these new technologies on

them. Based on this rational, the following is proposed:

H3a: Consumer views of technology (Optimism) are posi-

tively associated with consumer sentiment toward market-

ing.

H3b: Consumer tendencies to be technology pioneers and

thought leaders (Innovativeness) are positively associated

with consumer sentiment toward marketing.

H4a: Consumer perceived lack of control over technology

(Discomfort) is negatively associated consumer sentiment

toward marketing.

H4b: Consumer distrust and skepticism toward technology

(Insecurity) is negatively associated with consumer senti-

ment toward marketing.

Greyser and Diamond (1974) warned that there exists a

loss of consumer confidence in the marketplace. Jones and

Gardner (1976) attributed the causes of consumer discontent

to two reasons: (1) the increasing income and sociological

forces which have prompted higher expectations of a better

lifestyle, thus leading to high consumer discontent and

alienation, and (2) the generally negative attitudes toward

business and government. These lead to the assumption that

consumers can be categorized into one of two distinct

groups: pro- or anti-business groups. Along the same lines,

Andreasen and Best (1977) found that consumer discontent

came from marketers’ incompetence or their reluctance to

handle complaints, while Barksdale and Darden (1972)

discovered a lack of confidence in advertising and other

marketing activities such as pricing. In general, the

government was blamed for the rise of consumer discontent

since consumers had not been protected adequately because

most laws or ordinances were founded on the grounds of

caveat emptor (Chan et al., 1990). Based on this information,

it can be inferred that there exists a direct negative

relationship between consumer alienation from the market-

place and sentiment toward marketing. For this reason, the

following final hypothesis is proposed:

H5: Consumer alienation from the marketplace is negatively

associated with consumer sentiment toward marketing.

Figure 2 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework

and the corresponding hypotheses.

METHOD

SampleBecause the three main constructs in this study were beyond

the control of the researcher, a non-experimental research

methodology was deemed appropriate to test the proposed

model and hypotheses. Given the retroactive nature of

consumer alienation, readiness, and sentiment levels, a

survey questionnaire was employed to elicit information

from participants after the fact (Graziano and Raulin, 1989).

A review of the literature reveals that most studies

addressing consumer alienation and sentiment toward

marketing were conducted on housewives and students

(e.g., Pruden et al., 1974). The use of college student samples

in behavioral research has been often criticized (e.g., Lamb

and Stem, 1979; Wells, 1993) due to the inability of students

to represent true consumers. However, more recent research

indicates that MBA and non-traditional (mature) under-

graduate student samples seem to be acceptable proxies

for real consumers (e.g., James and Sonner, 2001). The

term ‘‘non-traditional’’ is used to refer to students who are

older than typical undergraduate students, who usually

commute to school, and who have jobs and/or family

responsibilities in addition to their studies. James and

Sonner (2001) suggest that mature and non-traditional

students are, in fact, ‘‘real’’ consumers with regards to

assessing behavioral processes or psychological states.

Based on this rational, an initial sample of 212 MBA and

Figure 2. Framework and research hypotheses.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

196 T. T. Mady

non-traditional student respondents were utilized from a

mid-sized regional university in the United States. The

university actively seeks out non-traditional students (i.e.,

commuter and older working adults registered for evening

classes) and has a well-developed distant learning and

evening program designed for working adults.

Measures and survey designConsumer Alienation from theMarketplacewas measured on

the scale developed by Pruden et al. (1974). The 10-item

scale, while intended to measure five distinct dimensions,

was used to measure an overall summated scale measure-

ment of the alienation construct. Interpretable factor loadings

were not found beyond a one-factor solution. Nevertheless,

the intent was to obtain an overall measure of consumer

alienation from the marketplace; an objective met by the

chosen scale. Readiness to Embrace New Technologies was

measured using the Technology Readiness Index (TRI)

developed by Parasuraman (2000). This 36-item scale was

tested with the intention of obtaining four distinct dimen-

sions of technology readiness (two drivers: optimism and

innovativeness and two inhibitors: discomfort and insecur-

ity). Consumer Sentiment Toward Marketing was measured

using the scale developed by Gaski and Etzel (1986). Their

measure remains the most accepted approach to consumer

sentiment and has been extensively tested to ensure

satisfactory levels of both reliability and validity. Based

on the objectives of this study, an overall measurement of the

construct was needed, which was allowed with the Gaski and

Etzel measurement.

Respondents were not told the purpose of the study but a

brief introduction about confidentiality and scoring anchors

was given. Because the questionnaire was administered in

person, response rate and non-response bias were impossible

to assess. The three major constructs, as indicated by the

original scale developers, were measured on a five-point

Likert-type scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

For all the constructs, items that were negatively worded

were re-coded so that higher scores reflected more positive

beliefs.

Preliminary analyses and examination of reliabilityand validityPrior to the data analysis, an inspection of the responses was

conducted to check for missing data. Of the 212 responses

obtained, 11 questionnaires were discarded because of

excessive missing data. Thus, the results of this present study

were based on 201 responses. Respondent characteristics of

the final sample are provided in Table 1. Common

procedures were employed to assess the reliability and

validity of the various multi-item scales (e.g., Churchill,

1979). Construct validity was assessed by submitting sets of

items to an exploratory factor analysis procedure. In deciding

which items to poll for inclusion in a particular factor model,

consideration was given to items that were expected a priori

to share common variance. The factor analysis was

implemented by using a systematic four-step procedure.

First, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity and KMO were

inspected for each factor analysis to determinewhether items

shared a common core. For each analysis, it was possible to

reject the Bartlett hypothesis and obtain acceptable KMO

values (ranging from 0.56 to 0.86). Therefore, it was proper

to infer that variables included in the factor analysis shared a

common core and that statistical assumptions were not

violated. Second, a range of factor solutions were obtained

for each set in order to evaluate the hypothesis structure. For

example, consumer sentiment presented a five-factor

solution but was hypothesized to include four. A ‘‘forced’’

factor solution was completed and any significant changes in

the solution were observed. Also, in the case of technology

readiness and consumer sentiment, the hypothesized

structures (four factor solutions each) were obtained with

minimal loss of validity. Third, factor loadings for each

solution were inspected by examining rotated pattern

matrices. As suggested by Hair et al. (2006), a cutoff value

of 0.30 was adapted for deciding which variables to retain for

further analysis. Items that did not exhibit significant

loadings or exhibited cross-loading were deleted. Fourth,

Cronbach’s alpha values for the final scales were computed.

Based on the recommendations of Peterson (1994), items

that exhibited item-to-total correlations of less than 0.6 were

deleted. Deleted items were inspected to ensure that original

meanings of the construct remained unchanged. Steps three

and four were repeated until the factor solutions for each

group of variables appeared clean, and the scales exhibited

acceptable reliability. The resulting scales were aggregated

for subsequent use. Final scales and corresponding reliability

assessments are provided in Table 2.

RESULTS

Given the primary focus of the study is to determine the

existence of a relationship between the constructs, the final

single-item aggregations of scales were deemed acceptable

to determine model fit. The application of composites in

academic and applied managerial research has been well

Table 1. Demographics data of sample

n (%)

N 201GenderFemale 112 (56%)Male 89 (44%)

Age:Mean 31.03Median 28.00Std. Deviation 9.818Minimum 22Maximum 58

Marital Status:Married 113 (56%)

Degree Program:Graduate 84 (42%)Undergraduate 117 (58%)

Employment:Fulltime 159 (79%)Part-time 30 (15%)Not Employed 12 (6%)


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Table 2. Scale items and reliability

Construct Scale Items a

Consumer Alienation From the Marketplace (Pruden et al., 1974) 0.75alien1 There is little use in writing complaint letters to company officials because they usually won’t do anything to

satisfy an individual consumeralien2 There is little that people like myself can do to improve the quality of the product they sellalien3 Any satisfaction I get from trying new products vanishes a shorttime after they are purchasedalien4 Sometimes, when I look at new products, I wonder if any of them are worthwhilealien5 Many people with fine homes, new cars and other nice things get them only by going over their heads in debtalien6 I sometimes buy products that I really shouldn’t buyalien7 The whole idea of fashion and the creation of new styles is not for mealien8 I really like to own things that have well-known brand namesb

alien9 The products and services I buy and use (for example eating, dressing, entertaining, furnishing my house andso) allow me to really be myself

alien10 The way the world is, I have to buy things that other people expect me to rather than to satisfy myselfTechnology Readiness Index (Parasuraman, 2000)Optimism 0.98opt1 Technology gives people more control over their livesopt2 Products and services that use the newest technologies are much more convenient to useopt3 You like the idea of doing business via computers because you are not limited to regular business hoursopt4 You prefer to use the most advanced technology availableopt5 You like computer programs that allow you to tailor things to fit your own needsopt6 Technology makes you more efficient in your occupationopt7 You find technologies to be mentally stimulatingopt8 Technology gives you more freedom of mobilityopt9 Learning about technology can be as rewarding as the technology itselfopt10 You feel confident that machines will follow through with what you instructed them to doInnovativeness 0.74inn1 Other people come to you for advice on new technologiesinn2 It seems your friends are learning more about the newest technologies than you areb

inn3 In general, you are among the first in your circle of friends to acquire new technology when it appearsinn4 You can usually figure out new high-tech products and services without help from othersinn5 You keep up with the latest technological developments in your areas of interestinn6 You enjoy the challenge of figuring out high-tech gadgetsa

inn7 You find you have fewer problems than other people in making technology work for youDiscomfort 0.87dis1 Technical support lines are not helpful because they don’t explain things in terms you understanddis2 Sometimes, you think that technology systems are not designed for use by ordinary peopledis3 There is no such thing as a manual for a high-tech product or service that’s written in plain languagedis4 When you get technical support from a provider of a high-tech product or services, you sometimes feel as if you

are being taken advantage of by someone who knows more than you dodis5 If you buy a high-tech product or service, you prefer to have the basic model over onewith a lot of extra featuresdis6 It is embarrassing when you have trouble with a high-tech gadget while people are watchingdis7 There should be caution in replacing important people-tasks with technology because new technology can

breakdown or get disconnecteda

dis8 Many new technologies have health or safety risks that are not discovered until people have used themdis9 New technology makes it too easy for governments and companies to spy on peoplea

dis10 Technology always seems to fail at the worst possible timea

Insecurity 0.69ins1 You do not consider it safe giving out a credit card number over a computerins2 You do not consider it safe to do any kind of financial business onlineins3 You worry that information you send over the Internet will be seen by other peopleins4 You do not feel confident doing business with a place that can only be reached onlineins5 Any business transaction you do electronically should be confirmed later with something in writinga

ins6 Whenever something gets automated, you need to check carefully that the machine or computer is not makingmistakes

ins7 The human touch is very important when doing business with a companya

ins8 When you call a business, you prefer to talk to a person rather than a machinea

ins9 If you provide information to a machine or over the Internet, you can never be sure it really gets to the rightplace

Consumer Sentiment Toward Marketing (Gaski and Etzel, 1986)Product 0.82product1 I am satisfied with most of the products I buyproduct2 Most products I buy wear out too quicklyb

product3 Too many of the products I buy are defective in some wayb

product4 The companies that make products I buy don’t care enough about how well they performb

product5 The quality of products I buy has consistently improved over the years

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/cb

198 T. T. Mady

accepted (Kumar et al., 1992; Kelloway, 1998; Hair et al.,

2006; von der Heidt and Scott, 2007). This approach to

model assessment provides less distraction from accumu-

lated errors and, thus greater reliability (Loehlin, 1998). This

is of particular interest within this study’s context, given the

complexity of the combined measurement and path model.

Therefore, for purposes of testing the hypotheses, the

proposed path model was tested via AMOS Structural

Equation Modeling (SEM) software using the single-item

aggregations (with measurement error incorporated). This

allowed for a more rigorous testing of the model (Kelloway,

1998). As input to the SEM analysis, the correlation matrix is

provided in Table 3. Correlations for the four technology

readiness components were found to be very similar to

correlations reported by Tsikriktsis (2004).

With regard to model fit and as indicated in Table 4, all

overall goodness-of-fit measures for the proposed conceptual

framework indicate satisfactory levels of fit between the

conceptual model and data. As mentioned by Hair et al.

(2006), there is no single fit measure or set of measures

totally accepted by the research community. Most fit

measures reported in marketing literature traditionally fall

into one of three categories: Absolute, Incremental (Com-

parative), and Parsimonious. Absolute fit measures deter-

mine the degree to which the overall model predicts the

observed covariance or correlation matrix. Because no

distinction is made in these measure regarding whether the fit

is better or worse in the structural or measurement models

and given the primary goal of the study is the address the

structural relationships, these types of measures were

deemed important and worthy of reporting. Incremental fit

measures compare the proposed model to some baseline

model (a single-construct model with all-indicators perfectly

measuring the constructs). As such, focus is more on the

structural model. Again, given the focus of the study and the

aggregation methodology utilized, reporting the more

popular indices from this category was deemed necessary.

Parsimonious fit measures relate goodness-of-fit of the

model to the number of estimate coefficients required to

achieve this level of fit. However, because no statistical test is

available for these measures, their use in an absolute sense is

limited in most instances to comparisons between models

(Hair et al., 2006), which is not the case here and beyond the

scope of this study. As a result, these measures are not

reported.

Chi-square fit index tests the hypotheses that an

unconstrained model fits the covariance/correlation matrix

well as the given model. In this study, chi-square was

Table 3. Construct correlations

Alienation(TRI)

Optimism(TRI)

Innovativeness(TRI)

Discomfort(TRI)

InsecuritySentiment toward

marketing

Alienation 1.000 �0.872�� 0.791�� 0.911�� 0.726�� 0.941��

(TRI) Optimism 1.000 0.832�� 0.787�� 0.608�� 0.905��

(TRI) Innovativeness 1.000 �0.753�� 0.655�� 0.801��

(TRI) Discomfort 1.000 0.823�� 0.912��

(TRI) Insecurity 1.000 �0.749��

Sentiment Toward Marketing 1.000

��Significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 2. (Continued)

Construct Scale Items a

Advertising 0.56advert1 Most advertising is very annoyingb

advert2 Most advertising makes false claimsb

advert3 If most advertising were eliminated, consumers would be better offa,b

advert4 I enjoy most adsadvert5 Most advertising is intended to deceive rather than informb

Price 0.91price1 Most products I buy are overpricedb

price2 Businesses could charge lower prices and still be profitableb

price3 Most prices are reasonable given the high cost of doing businessprice4 Most prices are fairprice5 In general, I am satisfied with the prices I payRetail/Selling Scale 0.99retail1 Most retail stores serve their customers wellretail2 Because of the way retailers treat me, most of my shopping is unpleasantb

retail3 I find most retail salespeople to be very helpfulretail4 When I need assistance in a store, I am usually not able to get itretail5 Most retailers provide adequate service

aDenotes item was deleted due to cross-loadings of 0.3 or higher.bDenotes item required reverse coding.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


reported at 12.898 (df¼ 4, p< 0.05). The chi-square value

should not be significant if the model exhibits satisfactory fit.

However, the concern with this test is that a larger sample

size (usually above 100 responses) results in a rejection of

the model (i.e., type II error) (Hair et al., 2006). This is most

likely the case in this study given the sample size of 201

responses. As such, another absolute fit measure is reported,

namely the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). This index is one of

the most widely used fit indices to determine model fit and

traditionally exhibits values ranging from 0 (poor fit) to 1.0

(perfect fit). GFI for the model was reported at 0.976. While,

no exact threshold levels for acceptability have been

established, values above 0.90 are generally considered to

be acceptable indicators of model fit (Hair et al., 2006). With

regards to incremental fit indices and according to Byrne

(2001), Bentler and Bonett’s (1980) normed fit index (NFI) is

the most acceptable index. However, addressing evidence

that the NFI has shown a tendency to under-estimate fit in

small samples, Bentler (1990) revised the NFI to take sample

size into account and proposed the comparative fit index

(CFI). Values for both NFI and CFI range from 0 to 1.00.

Although a value of >0.90 was originally considered

representative of a well-fitting model, a revised cutoff value

close to 0.95 has more recently been advised for NFI (Hu and

Bentler, 1999). For the model tested, NFI was reported at

0.991 and CFI was reported at 0.994. Both measures

illustrate model fit. Finally, the relative fit index (RFI)

represents a derivation of the NFI with values close to 0.95

indicating superior fit (Byrne, 2001). The RFI for the model

was reported to be 0.966. Overall, all reported (absolute and

incremental) goodness measures indicated satisfactory levels

of model fit.

A detailed look at Table 4 indicates that alienation from

the marketplace does, in fact, have a strong relationship with

the drivers and inhibitors of readiness to accept new

technology. Specifically, it is found that the degree to which

individuals view technology positively and their inclination

to be a pioneer and/or thought leaders with regards to its

adaptability is negatively associated with their level of

alienation from the marketplace (H1a and H1b). Also,

alienation from the marketplace is positively associated

with perceived lack of control and distrust of technology (H2a

and H2b). Both findings suggest that already entrenched

negative or positive perceptions of an individual’s roles as a

consumer and his/her relationship with the marketplace will

determine propensity to adopt new technologies.

With regards to the relationship between readiness to

embrace technology and sentiment toward marketing,

inhibitors of technology readiness were found to have a

significant negative relationship with sentiment toward

marketing (H4a and H4b). This suggests that when consumers

perceive little control of technology or are skeptical of its

need, they tend to develop negative perceptions of the

marketing function. This, as stated previously, could be

because ‘‘marketing’’ is viewed as the main proponent of the

new technology. On the other hand and with regards to the

drivers, only optimism is positively associated with

consumer sentiment toward marketing (H3a).

Somewhat surprisingly, the relationship between the

second driver of technology readiness (innovativeness) and

sentiment toward marketing was found to be insignificant

(H3b). This would imply that an individual’s tendency to be a

technology pioneer or thought leader in consumer exchanges

is somewhat inherent. A closer look at this sub-construct, as

defined by the scale items, raises the issue of where

individuals are actually projecting their perceptions of

technology. Unlike the other TRI sub-scales, innovativeness

appears to be an introverted view which measures whether or

not consumers perceive themselves as embracing of

technology. This argument is consistent with other mani-

festations of innovativeness where it is identified as a

personality trait underlying the adoption of innovations (e.g.,

Table 4. Results of the SEM analysis

Hypothesis RelationshipUnstandardized

estimateStandarderror

Criticalratio p-value

Standardizedestimate

H1a Alienation!TRI (Optimism) �0.973 0.042 �23.245� 0.000 �0.872H1b Alienation!TRI (Innovativeness) �0.601 0.036 �16.884� 0.000 �0.791H2a Alienation!TRI (Discomfort) �0.763 0.026 28.947� 0.000 0.911H2b Alienation!TRI (Insecurity) 0.577 0.042 13.821� 0.000 0.726H3a TRI (Optimism)! Sentiment toward Marketing 0.286 0.033 8.612� 0.000 0.386H3b TRI (Innovativeness)!Sentiment toward Marketing �0.039 0.039 �0.995 0.320 �0.036H4a TRI (Discomfort)!Sentiment toward Marketing �0.267 0.056 �4.726� 0.000 �0.270H4b TRI (Insecurity)! Sentiment toward Marketing �0.074 0.036 �2.078� 0.038 �0.071H5 Alienation! Sentiment toward Marketing �0.276 0.049 �5.646� 0.000 �0.334

Overall fit measures

x2 (df) 12.898 (4)GFI 0.976a

CFI 0.994a

NFI 0.991b

RFI 0.966b

�Significant at the 0.05 level.aDesirable fit indices value: >0.90.bDesirable fit indices value: >0.95.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

200 T. T. Mady

Price and Ridgway, 1983; Manning et al., 1995). Innovators

are described as individuals open to new experiences and

have a low threshold for recognizing the potential application

of new ideas (Leavitt and Walton, 1975). These views are

very similar to the definition of innovativeness put forth by

Parasuraman (2000). The marketing function is not viewed to

be related to how innovative individuals perceive themselves

to be. On the other hand, optimism, discomfort, and

insecurity, tend to exhibit more extroverted views of

technology and are dependent on perceptions of the

technology itself. This may explain why only those three

sub-constructs were found to be related to the marketing

function, which advocates the technology.

Finally, consumer alienation from the marketplace has a

direct and significantly negative relationship with sentiment

toward marketing (H5). This suggests that consumers’

perceptions of the marketing function are governed by

initial perceptions of their roles in the marketplace and how

they should navigate the day-to-day networks of consumer

exchanges. Individuals who accept the modern marketplace

and thrive in their roles as consumers will ultimately have a

more positive perception of marketing. Those not accepting

of the marketplace, be it due to being overwhelmed,

skeptical, or isolated, will believe the marketing function is

failing to deliver on its promises.

DISCUSSIONS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

This study represents an early attempt to shed light on some

of the antecedents of consumer sentiment toward marketing.

Previous research in the field has often viewed sentiment

levels in terms of demographic differences. However, as

illustrated, the construct can be the result of a much more

complex process. In today’s marketing environment, market-

ing managers typically operate under the assumption that all

technology is ‘‘good’’ technology and constantly attempt to

incorporate it into the consumer exchange process.

The results indicate that the more accepting of technology

(as a whole) an individual is, the more positive he/she will

perceive the marketing function. As such, marketing is

inexplicably linked to new technology. If marketers are to

heed the previous calls for addressing consumer concerns

about the field, it is imperative that marketing managers

focus on explaining the rationale behind the use of the

technology. This would involve making the argument that the

new technology will offer consumers increased control over

the consumption process, greater flexibility, and mosre

efficiency in their lives. Given the negative relationship

between the inhibitors of technology readiness (discomfort

and insecurity) and sentiment levels, focus should also be on

dissolving individual concerns and feelings of insecurity,

skepticism, and the ability of technology to work properly.

Such a focus should ultimately improve individual percep-

tions of marketing. Ironically, the results of the study suggest

that, because an individual’s innovativeness is not linked to

sentiment toward marketing, managers should not worry

about it. This may be true, but it does suggest that individuals

do attribute some of their readiness to embrace new

technologies to themselves and not only on a consumer

socialization process governed by the marketing function.

Parasuraman (2000) noted the need to address the reasons

behind an individual’s readiness to embrace new technology.

Certainly, as indicated by the results, consumer alienation

from the marketplace plays a significant role. One argument

is that negative perceptions of the consumption role governs

whether or not individuals will put the initial effort into

accepting a technology. The suggestion from the structure of

the model is that alienation is uncontrollable. That may be

true to some degree. However, previous research has

suggested that marketers can have an indirect impact on

alienation levels. For example, Lavidge (1970) and more

recently Wilkie and Moore (1999) note the social

responsibilities of marketing, which include reducing

abuses, upgrading standards, and helping to mitigate the

effects of poverty. The ramifications of these societal

objectives are understandable. However, what is interesting

is that the results of this study indicate there are other positive

repercussions including encouraging consumers to be more

accepting of new technologies. In today’s uncertain and

somewhat grim economic reality, more and more companies

are investing in new technologies to streamline costs

associated with customer relationships. By reducing alien-

ation levels, individuals will be more accepting of such

relationship-building technologies and thus sentiment

toward marketing will improve. The reality, however, is

that reducing alienation levels is extremely difficult and by

no means an easy task. Counter consumer culture move-

ments are definitely growing and becoming more vocal. The

results indicate that alienated consumers are less willing to

embrace new technology. Nonetheless, there seems to be a

growing market opportunity. Marketers could attempt to

target these alienated consumers with exchange processes

and service encounters that incorporate limited or no

technology. While this unconventional strategy certainly

goes against recent trends, it can be viewed as a plan by firms

to embrace alienation rather than simply perceiving

alienation as an obstacle to typical marketing activities

involving more technology.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

The results from the study are promising and suggest

relationships between the constructs. The question is

whether these results can be generalized. While every effort

in the present study was made to ensure that the sample

(nontraditional/mature students) provided a relatively good

surrogate for actual consumers, there is no doubt that

replication of the model using different types of respondents

will shed more light on the various constructs and the

generalizability of the model. A number of limitations of this

study can be attributed to the sample utilized. For example,

most of the respondents were studying toward a degree in

business. This could have altered the results somewhat or at

minimum created some bias toward a more positive

sentiment toward marketing and/or lower levels of alienation


DOI: 10.1002/cb


from the marketplace. Another concern is that the

respondents were university students. Being a university

student (regardless of age, degree program, etc.) may govern

an individual’s propensity to use technology and thus

technology readiness. Students must certainly be comfor-

table with technology-based exchange processes given that

technology is an integral part of any university learning

experience at the moment (e.g., turnitin.com, blackboard.-

com, internet and library database searches, email, online

course registration, grade posting, discussion boards, and

blogs). While this does not necessarily imply that student

must be more accepting of technology, it could surely

moderate technology readiness levels. In addition, while the

levels of technology readiness, alienation, and sentiment

toward marketing are beyond the scope of this study, the

environment or context from which an individual performs

his/her numerous exchange processes is an issue that could

be addressed in future research.

Another issue of concern is the impact of age on consumer

responses. Differences in older and younger consumers’

responses have been addressed in previous research in

marketing and psychology, albeit typically within the context

of graduate versus undergraduate students (e.g., Sears, 1986).

The primary area of study was the age gap between the two

groups and the role of ‘‘life experiences’’ which would be

associated with that gap. Most researchers that suggest the

inappropriateness of using undergraduate college students

argue that traditional undergraduate students lack the life

experiences and responsibilities to be considered rational

consumers (e.g., Shuptrine, 1975). In this study, traditional

undergraduate students were not employed in the survey. As

a result, the issue of differences in life experiences is not a

concern. However, research does suggest that younger

people tend to accept technology more readily and exhibit

higher levels of technology readiness (e.g., Tsikriktsis,

2004), while older consumers might exhibit extreme (often

negative) perceptions of technology. Given the conscious

effort made to make sure the students used in the sample

were ‘‘mature,’’ the results of the study could be moderated,

at least in part, by such a situation. To the best of the author’s

knowledge, less evidence suggest that such is the case for

sentiment toward marketing. Nonetheless, and with regards

to this study, it is certainly worth pursuing in future research

whether or not older/younger consumers exhibit different

levels based on the constructs and/or whether the proposed

model itself holds depending on age group.

Replication and testing of the model in different countries

is also worthy of future research. Studies could find different

levels of alienation, technology readiness, and sentiment

toward marketing based on different countries or cultures.

Moreover, the strength of the relationships may be different.

A multi-country/culture comparison can be conducted to

either support (or refute) the conclusions drawn from this

investigation. For example, this study finds a strong

relationship between readiness to embrace technology and

sentiment toward marketing in a developed country. This, as

mentioned, may be due to perceptions that marketing is the

force behind the use of such new technologies. However,

does that same relationship hold in less-developed countries,

where consumers are less mature in their beliefs of what the

marketing function is or does? Does alienation still impact

sentiment toward the marketing function or is alienation

targeted toward other entities, such as the government or

other overseeing bodies that are viewed as lacking in their

ability to regulate marketing activities? Moreover, does the

relationship between technology readiness and sentiment

toward marketing still hold in developing countries where

the ability of firms to utilize technologies in the marketing

and consumption process is hindered due to infrastructure or

consumer immaturity reasons? The contextual nature of the

model is certainly worth exploring further.

Finally, another area worth exploring in future research is

the fact that the relationships suggested may differ based on

the product category or industry in question or the nature of

the exchange process itself. Certainly, consumer perceptions

of marketing will be governed by whether the industry in

question is service-based or product-based. Industries which

are, by their very nature ‘‘high’’ tech (e.g., telecommunica-

tions) or lend themselves more to new technologies in the

exchange process (e.g., financial services) will probably

target individuals who are more tech savvy or at least exhibit

higher levels of readiness to embrace new technology. If so, it

remains to be seen whether these consumers’ higher

readiness levels result in more positive perceptions of

marketing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the editor and two anonymous

JCB reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions

for improving the overall quality of the paper during the

revision process. The author would also like to thank Kiran

Karande and Kevin Nawn for their valuable comments on

earlier drafts of this article.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Tarek Tawfik Mady is currently the Chair of the Department ofMarketing andMarketing Communications and Associate Professorof Marketing at the American University in Dubai. He holds a Ph.D.in Business Administration (Marketing) with an emphasis onInternational Business from Old Dominion University and anM.Sc. in Finance from Louisiana State University. His researchinterests include international marketing strategy, emerging mar-kets, the global consumer culture, and attitudes toward the market-ing function. His work has appeared in Journal of ConsumerBehaviour, International Journal of Advertising, Journal of Inter-national Consumer Marketing, and Journal of Euromarketing.Tarek T. Mady can be contacted at: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Allison N. 1978. A psychometric development of a test for customeralienation from the marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research15(4): 565–575.

Andreasen AR, Best A. 1977. Consumers’ complaints: doesbusiness respond. Harvard Business Review 55(4): 319–324.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

202 T. T. Mady

Balasubramanian SK, Kamakura WA. 1989. Measuring consumerattitudes toward the marketplace with tailored interviews. Jour-nal of Marketing Research 26(3): 311–328.

Barksdale HC, Darden WR, Perreault WD. 1976. Changes inconsumer attitudes toward marketing, consumerism and govern-ment regulations: 1971- 1975. The Journal of Consumer Affairs10(2): 117–139.

Barksdale HC, Darden WR. 1972. Consumer attitudes towardmarketing and consumerism. Journal of Marketing 36(4): 28–35.

Barksdale HC, Perreault WD, Arndt J, Barnhill JA. 1982. A crossnational survey of consumer attitudes towards marketing prac-tices, consumerism, and government regulations.Columbia Jour-nal of World Business 17(2): 71–85.

Bentler PM, Bonett DG. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fitin the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin88: 588–606.

Bentler PM. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin 107: 238–246.

Bitner MJ, Brown SW, Meuter ML. 2000. Technology infusion inservice encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science28(1): 138–149.

Byrne BM. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos. Lawr-ence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: New Jersey.

Chan E, Yau OHM, Chan R. 1990. Consumer sentiment in Aus-tralia: a replication and cross-national comparison. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 24(10): 44–58.

Chan T, Cui G. 2004. Consumer attitudes toward marketing in atransitional economy: a replication and extension. Journal ofConsumer Marketing 21(1): 10–26.

Cherrier H. 2007. Ethical consumption practices: co-production ofself-expression and social recognition. Journal of ConsumerBehaviour 6(5): 321–335.

Chopin MC, Darrat AF. 2000. Can consumer attitudes forecast themacroeconomy? The American Economist 44(1): 34–42.

Churchill GA. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures ofmarketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16(1): 64–73.

Curran JM, Meuter ML. 2005. Self-service technology adoption:comparing three technologies. Journal of Services Marketing19(2): 103–113.

Dabholkar PA. 1996. Consumer evaluation of new technology-based self-options: an investigation of alternative models ofservice quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing13(1): 29–52.

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. 1989. User acceptance ofcomputer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.Management Science 35(8): 982–1003.

Didow NM, Perreault WD,Williamson NC. 1983. A cross-sectionaloptimal scaling analysis of the index of consumer sentiment.Journal of Consumer Research 10(3): 339–347.

Elgin D. 2000. The Promise Ahead. Harper Collins: New York.Etzioni A. 1998. Voluntary simplicity: characterization, selectpsychological implications, and societal consequences. Journalof Economic Psychology 19: 619–643.

Fisk RP, Brown SW, Bitner MJ. 1993. Tracking the evolution of theservices marketing literature. Journal of Retailing 69(1): 61–103.

Gaski JF, Etzel MJ. 1986. The index of consumer sentiment towardsmarketing. Journal of Marketing. 50(3): 71–81.

Gaski JF, Etzel MJ. 2005. National aggregate consumer sentimenttoward marketing: a thirty-year retrospective and analysis. Jour-nal of Consumer Research 31(4): 859–867.

Graziano AM, Raulin ML. 1989. Research Methods: A Process ofInquiry. Harper and Row Publishers: New York.

Greyser S, Diamond S. 1974. Business is adapting to consumerism.Harvard Business Review 52(5): 38.

Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatman RL. 2006.Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Handelman JM, Arnold SJ. 1999. The role of marketing actionswith a social dimension: appeals to the institutional environment.Journal of Marketing 63(3): 33–48.

Ho SH, Ko YY. 2008. Effects of self-service technology on cus-tomer value and customer readiness: the case of internet banking.Internet Banking 18(4): 427–446.

Hu LT, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-ance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new altern-atives. Structural Equation Modeling: A MultidisciplinaryJournal 6: 1–55.

Huneke ME. 2005. The face of the un-consumer: an empiricalexamination of the practice of voluntary simplicity in the UnitedStates. Psychology & Marketing 22(7): 527–550.

Hustad TP, Pessemier EA. 1973. Will the real consumer activistplease stand up: an examination of consumers’ opinions aboutmarketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 10(3): 319–324.

Huth WL, Eppright DR, Taube PM. 1994. The indexes of consumersentiment and confidence: leading or misleading guides to futurebuyer behavior. Journal of Business Research 29(3): 199–206.

Iyer R, Muncy J. 2009. Purpose and object of anti-consumption.Journal of Business Research 62(2): 160–168.

James WL, Sonner BS. 2001. Just say no to traditional studentsamples. Journal of Advertising Research 41(5): 63–71.

Johnson EB. 1996. Cognitive age: understanding consumer alien-ation in the mature market. Review of Business 17(3): 35–40.

Jones MG, Gardner DM. 1976. Consumerism: A New Force inSociety. D.C. Heath: Massachusetts.

Katona G. 1963. The relationship between psychology andeconomics. In Psychology A Study of a Science. Koch S(ed.). McGraw Hill: New York.

Kelloway EK. 1998. Using LISREL for Structural Equation Mod-eling: A Researcher’s Guide. SAGE Publications: ThousandOaks, CA.

Kozinets RV, Handelman JM. 2004. Adversaries of consumption:consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Con-sumer Research 31(3): 691–704.

Kumar N, Stern LW, Achrol RS. 1992. Assessing reseller perform-ance from the perspective of the supplier. Journal of MarketingResearch 29(2): 238–253.

Lamb CW, Stem DE. 1979. An evaluation of students as surrogatesin marketing studies. Advances in Consumer Research 7: 796–799.

Lambert ZV. 1981. Profiling demographic characteristics of alie-nated consumers. Journal of Business Research 9(1): 65–86.

Lavidge RJ. 1970. The growing responsibilities of marketing.Journal of Marketing 34: 25–28.

Lawson R, Todd S, Boshoff C. 2001. Relationships between con-sumer sentiment towards marketing and consumer lifestyles.Australasian Marketing Journal 9(2): 7–22.

Leavitt C, Walton J. 1975. Development of a scale for innovative-ness. In Advances in Consumer Research, Schlinger MJ (ed.).Association for Consumer Research: Ann Arbor, MI; 2: 545–554.

Leonard-Barton D. 1981. Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energyconservation. Journal of Consumer Research 8(3): 243–252.

Lin JS, Hsieh P. 2006. The role of technology readiness in custo-mers’ perceptions and adoption of self-service technologies.International Journal of Service Industry Management 17(5):497–517.

Loehlin JC. 1998. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction toFactor, Path, and Structural Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum:New Jersey.

Lundstrom WJ, Lamont LM. 1976. The development of a scale tomeasure consumer discontent. Journal of Marketing Research13(4): 373–381.

Lysonski S, Durvasula S, Watson J. 2003. Should marketingmanagers be concerned about attitudes towards marketing inNew Zealand? A longitudinal view. European Journal of Market-ing 37(3/4): 386–406.

Manning KC, Bearden WO, Madden TJ. 1995. Consumer innova-tiveness and the adaption process. Journal of Consumer Psychol-ogy. 4(4): 329–345.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Meuter ML, Ostrom AL, Bitner MJ, Roundtree RI. 2003. Theinfluence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experienceswith self-service technologies. Journal of Business Research56(11): 899–907.

Meuter ML, Ostrom AL, Roundtree RI, Bitner MJ. 2000. Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction withtechnology-based service encounters. Journal of Marketing64(3): 50–64.

Mick DG, Fournier S. 1998. Paradoxes of technology: consumercognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Con-sumer Research 25(2): 123–143.

Middleton R. 1963. Alienation, race, and education. AmericanSociological Review 28: 973–977.

Parasuraman A. 2000. Technology readiness index (TRI): amultiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new tech-nologies. Journal of Service Research 2(4): 307–320.

Peterson RA. 1994. A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficientalpha. Journal of Consumer Research 21(2): 381–391.

Pikkarainen T, Pikkarainen K, Karjaluoto H, Pahnila S. 2004.Consumer acceptance of online banking: an extension of thetechnology acceptance model. Internet Research 14(3): 224–235.

Price LL, Ridgway NM. 1983. Development of a scale to measureuse innovativeness. In Advances in Consumer Research, BagozziRP, Tybout AM (eds). Association for Consumer Research: AnnArbor, MI; 10: 679–684.

Pruden HO, Leonardi JP. 1976. Instability and consumer alienation inFrance. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 4(4): 707–721.

Pruden HO, Shuptrine FK, Longman DS. 1974. A measure ofalienation from the marketplace. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 2(4): 610–619.

Rogers EM. 1995.Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press: NewYork.Sandlin JA, Milam JL. 2008. Mixing pop (culture) and politics:cultural resistance, cultural jamming, and anti-consumption activismas critical public pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry 38(3): 323–350.

Sears DO. 1986. College sophomores in the laboratory: influencesof a narrow database on social psychology’s view of humannature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3): 515–530.

Seeman M. 1959. In the meaning of alienation. American Socio-logical Review 24: 783–791.

Shuptrine FK, Pruden HO, Longman DS. 1977. Alienation from themarketplace. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 5(3):233–248.

Shuptrine FK. 1975. On the validity of using students as subjects inconsumer behavior investigations. Journal of Business 48(3):383–390.

Tsikriktsis N. 2004. A technology readiness-based taxonomy ofcustomers: a replication and extension. Journal of ServiceResearch 7(1): 42–52.

Uray N,Menguc B. 1996. Testing the cross-cultural generalizabilityof the scale of consumer attitudes toward marketing and con-sumerism. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 9(2):65–92.

Varadarajan PR, Thirunarayana PN. 1990. Consumer’s attitudestowards marketing practices, consumerism and government regu-lations: cross-national perspectives. European Journal of Market-ing 24(6): 6–23.

von der Heidt T, Scott DR. 2007. Partial aggregation for complexstructural equation modeling (SEM) and small sample sizes: anillustration using multi-stakeholder model of cooperative inter-organizational relationships (IORS) in product innovation. PaperPresented to the 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference, Sydney. 4–7December.

Webster C. 1991. Attitudes toward marketing practices: the effect ofethnic identification. Journal of Applied Business Research 7(2):107–116.

Wee CH, Chan M. 1989. Consumer sentiment in Hong Kong.European Journal of Marketing 23(4): 25–39.

Weijters B, Rangarajan D, Falk T, Schillewaert N. 2007. Determi-nants and outcomes of customers’ use of self-service technologyin a retail setting. Journal of Service Research 10(1): 3–21.

Wells WD. 1993. Discovery-oriented consumer research. Journal ofConsumer Research. 19(4): 489–504.

Wilkie WL, Moore ES. 1999. Marketing contributions to society.Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 198–218.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

204 T. T. Mady

Documents

Sentiment toward marketing: Should we care about consumer alienation and readiness to use technology?