Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 13, Issue 1–2, pp 229–241 | Cite as

Involvement: Its measurement for retail store research

  • Raj Arora
Article

Abstract

Several marketing scholars have noted the importance of the concept of involvement with respect to marketing strategy. Various definitions of involvement have been offered. These definitions have resulted in two major measures: the importance measure (importance attached to the attributes of the object under consideration in a choice process) and the “matrix approach”. This paper addresses the reliability and validity of these two measures.

Keywords

Consumer Research Retail Store High Stake Department Store Product Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arora, Raj (1982a), “Consumer Involvement in Retail Store Positioning,”Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 10 (Spring) 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. — (1982b), “Validation of S-O-R Model for Situation, Enduring and Response Components of Involvement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November) 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, Richard (1980),Causal Models in Marketing, New York: John Wiley of Sons.Google Scholar
  4. — (1982), “The Role of Measurement in Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing: Toward a Holistic Model,” inA Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis, ed. Claes Fornell, New York: Praeger Publishers, 5–23.Google Scholar
  5. Block, Peter H. (1981), “An Exploration into the Scaling of Consumers' Involvement with a Product Class,”Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 61–65.Google Scholar
  6. Bowen, L. and S. Chaffee (1974), “Product Involvement and Pertinent Advertising Appeals,”Journalism Quarterly, 51 (Winter), 613–621.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, Donald T. (1960), “Recommendations for APA Test Standards Regarding Construct, Trait, or Discriminant Validity,”American Psychologist, 15, 546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carminers, E.G. and R.A. Zeller (1979).Reliability and Validity Assessment, CA: Sage Publication Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, K. and R.W. Belk (1979), “The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort,”Advances in Consumer Research, 6, ed., W.J. Wilkie, Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research, Ninth Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL, 313–318.Google Scholar
  10. Evans, R. H. (1983), “Effect of Response Format and Product Involvement on Questionnaire Reliability,”Psychological Reports, 52, 407–411.Google Scholar
  11. Festinger, L.A. (1957),Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson.Google Scholar
  12. Freedman, J.L. (1964), “Involvement, Discrepancy, and Change,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 #3, 290–295.Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, Robert A. and Terry Deutscher, “An Empirical Investigation of Attribute Importance in Retail Store Selection.”Journal of Retailing, 53 Winter (1977–78), 59–72, 95.Google Scholar
  14. Harrel, G.D. (1977), “Industrial Product Class Involvement, Confidence in Beliefs, and Attitude-Intent Relationships,” inAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes, eds., J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: Americna Marketing Association, 94–111.Google Scholar
  15. Hovland, C.I., O.J. Harvey, and M. Sherif (1957), “Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Reactions to Communication and Attitude Change,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard, J.A. and J.N. Sheth (1969),The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John Wiley Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hupfer, N.T. and D.M. Gardner (1971), “Differential Involvement with Products and Issues: An Exploratory Study,”Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research, 262–270.Google Scholar
  18. Kassarjian, H.H. and W.M. Kassarjian (1979), “Attitudes Under Low Commitment Condition,” inAttitude Research Plans for High Stakes, eds. J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  19. King, Charles W. & Ring, Lowrence J. “Market Positioning Across Retail Fashion Institutions: A Comparative Analysis of Store Types,”Journal of Retailing, 56 Spring 1980, No. 1, 37–55.Google Scholar
  20. Korgaonkar, P.K. and G.P. Moschis (1982), “An Experimental Study of Cognitive Dissonance, Product Involvement, Expectations, Performance and Consumer Judgement of Product Performance,”Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (No. 3), p 32–44.Google Scholar
  21. Krugman, H.E. (1966), “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, #4, 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lastovicka, J.L. (1979), “Questioning the Concept of Involvement Defined Product Classes,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6, ed., W.J. Wilkie,Proceedings of Association for Consumer Research, Ninth Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL, 174–179.Google Scholar
  23. —, and D.M. Gardner (1979), “Components of Involvement,” inAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes, eds., J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Associations, 53–73.Google Scholar
  24. —, and D.M. Gardner (1978), “Low Involvement Versus High Involvement Cognitive Structures,”Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research 5, 87–92.Google Scholar
  25. Maloney, J.C. and B. Silverman eds. (1979),Attitude Research plays for High Stakes, Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  26. Newman, L.M. and I.J. Dolich (1979), “An Examination of Ego-Involvement as a Modifer of Attitude Changes Caused From Product Testing,”Advances in Consumer Research, 6, ed., W.J. Wilkie, Proceedings of Association for Consumer Research, Ninth Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL. 180–183.Google Scholar
  27. Ostrom, T.M. and T.C. Brock (1968), “A Cognitive Model of Involvement,” inTheories of Cognitive Consistency, eds., R. Abelson, et al., Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  28. Rhine, R.J. and W.A.J. Polowhiak (1971), “Attitude Change, Commitment, and Ego Involvement,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robertson, T.S. (1976), “Low Commitment Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Advertising Research, 16 (April), 19–24.Google Scholar
  30. Rothschild, M.L. (1979a), “Marketing Communications in Nonbusiness Situations or Why It's So Hard to Sell Brotherhood Like Soap,”Journal of Marketing, 43, #2 (Spring), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. — (1979b), “Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations,” inAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes, eds., J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 74–93.Google Scholar
  32. Rothschild, M.L., and M.J. Houston (1977), “The Consumer Involvement Matrix: Some Preliminary Findings,”Educator's Proceedings, American Marketing Association, 95–98.Google Scholar
  33. Sherif, M. and H. Cantril (1947),The Psychology of Ego Involvement, New York: John Wiley Press.Google Scholar
  34. — and C. Hovland (1961),Social Judgment—Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sherif, C.W., M. Sherif, and R.E. Nebergall (1965),Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment Involvement Approach, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shimp, T.A. and S. Sharma (1983), “The Dimensionality of Involvement: A Test of the Automobile Involvement Scale,” inResearch Methods and Causal Modeling in Marketing, eds, W.R. Darden, K.B. Monroe and W.R. Dillon, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 58–61.Google Scholar
  37. Slama M.E. and A. Tashchian (1983), “Comparing Methods of Measuring Involvement with Product Classes: A Structural Equations Approach: inResearch Methods and Causal Modeling in Marketing, eds. W.R. Darden, K.S. Monroe, and W.R. Dillon, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 66–69.Google Scholar
  38. Swinyard, W.R. and K. Coney (1978), “Promotional Effects on a High-Versus Low-Involvement Electorate,”Journal of Consumer Research, 5, No. 1 (June), 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tybjee, T.T. (1979a), “Refinement of the Involvement Concept: An Advertising Planning Point of View,” inAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes, eds., J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 94–111.Google Scholar
  40. — (1979b), “Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (Dec.), 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilkinson, L. (1975), “Effect of involvement on Similarity and Preference Structures,” unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, Robert H., J.J. Painter and H.R. Nicholas (1978), “A Policy-Oriented Typology of Grocery Shoppers,”Journal of Retailing, 54 (Spring), 27–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raj Arora
    • 1
  1. 1.Bradley UniversityPeoriaUSA

Personalised recommendations