Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Page 1
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
2.3. INTERVAL SCALES.............................................................................................................17
2.4. RATIO SCALES..................................................................................................................18
2.5. SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE.........................................................................................18
2.6. THE CONSTANT SUM SCALE...............................................................................................20
2.6.1. Advantages............................................................................................................20
2.6.2. Disadvantage........................................................................................................21
2.7. THURSTONE SCALE...........................................................................................................21
2.7.1. Advantages............................................................................................................21
2.7.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................................21
2.8. LIKERT SCALE..................................................................................................................21
2.8.1. Advantages ...........................................................................................................22
2.8.2. Disadvantages.......................................................................................................22
2.9. COMPARISON OF THURSTONE AND LIKERT SCALE..................................................................22
3. DISGUISED, STRUCTURED TECHNIQUES..............................................................22
4. CONCEPT TESTING.......................................................................................................22
Page 2
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
F.G.Ds Ordinal
Scale
Word
association
Depth
Story Interval
interview
Completion Scale
s
Thurston Scale
Page 3
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
The most common method of obtaining information about the behavior, attitudes and
other characteristics of people is to ask them. However it is not always possible, or
desirable to use direct questioning to obtain information. People may be either
unwilling or unable to give answers to questions they consider to be an invasion of
their privacy, that adversely affect their self-perception or prestige, that are
embarrassing that concern motivations that they do not fully understand or cannot
verbalize, or for other reasons. Therefore additional approaches to obtaining such
information may be necessary.
Page 4
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
1. Laddering involves having respondents identify attributes that distinguish
brands by asking questions. Each distinguishing attribute is then probed to
determine why it is important or meaningful. These reasons are then probed
to determine why it is important, and so forth. The purpose is to uncover the “
network of meanings” associated with the product, brand, or concept.
2. Hidden-issue questioning focuses on individual respondents feelings about
sensitive issues. Analysis on focus on common underlying themes across
respondents. These themes can then be used to guide advertising
development
3. Symbolic questioning requires respondents to describe the opposites of the
product/ activity of interest or a specific attribute of the product/ activity.
Individual depth interviews have been found to generate more and higher quality
ideas on a per respondent basis than either focus or minigroups. They are
particularly appropriate when:
Page 5
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
4. Advertising and communications research,
5. Background studies on consumer’s frames or reference,
6. Establishment of consumer vocabulary as a preliminary step in questionnaire
development and,
7. Determination of attitudes and behavior.
Advantages
1. Each individual is able to expand and refine their opinions in the interaction
with the other members. This process provides more detailed and accurate
information than could be derived from each separately.
2. A group interview situation is generally more exciting and offers more
stimulation to the participants than the standard depth interviews.
3. The security of being in a crowd encourages some members to speak out
when they otherwise would not.
4. As the questions raised by the moderator are addressed to the entire group
rather than an individual the answer contains a degree of spontaneity that is
not produced by other techniques.
5. Focus groups can be used successfully with children over five. They are also
very useful with adults in developing countries where literacy rates are low
and survey research is difficult. 88
6. A final major advantage of focus groups is that executives often observe the
interview (from behind mirrors) or watch films of the interview.
Disadvantages
1. Since focus group interviews last 1.5 to 3 hours and take place at a central
location, securing cooperation from a random sample is difficult.
2. Those who attend group interviews and actively participate in them are likely
to be different in many respects from those who do not.
3. There are chances that participants may go along with the popular opinion
instead of expressing their own which may be contrary to the popular
opinions.
4. The presence of a one-way mirror and /or an observer(s) has been found to
distort participant’s responses.
5. The moderator can introduce serious biases in the interview by shifting topics
too rapidly verbally or nonverbally encouraging certain answers, failing to
cover specific areas, and so forth.
6. Focus groups are expensive on a per respondent basis.
Minigroups
Minigroups consist of a moderator and 4 and 5 respondents rather than the 8 to 12
used in most focus groups. They are used when the issue being investigated
requires more extensive probing than is possible in a larger group.
Minigroups do not allow the collection of a confidential or highly sensitive data as
might be possible in an individual depth interview. However, they do allow the
researcher to obtain substantially depth of response on the topics that are covered.
Further the intimacy of the small group often allows discussion of quite sensitive
issues.
Page 6
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
The advantages and disadvantages of minigroups are similar to those of standard
focus groups, but on a smaller scale.
In principle, these interviews are the same as the previous ones, excepting
that they are conducted in groups rather than for individuals.
This method is therefore less expensive and less time consuming than the
depth interviews.
This method is advantageous because it gives excellent leads to consumer
attitudes that no other method can give.
Another advantage of this method is that each respondent receives
stimulation for responding from his group members and so the interviewer
need not prompt the interviewee to answer.
The disadvantage here is that one or two members could dominate in the
group and others might not get a chance to answer. This would again make it
an individual effort.
Word association techniques are used in testing potential brand names and
occasionally for measuring attitudes about particular products, product attributes,
brands, packages or advertisements.
Third- person techniques allow the respondent to project attitudes onto some vague
third person. This third person is generally “an average woman”, “your neighbors”,
“the guys where you work”, “most doctors” or the like. Thus instead of asking the
respondent why he or she did something or what he or she thinks about something
the researcher asks what friends, neighbors or the average person thinks about the
issue.
Page 8
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
Fantasy scenario requires the respondent to make up a fantasy about the product or
brand.
3.1.5. Problems
As projective techniques generally require personal interviews with highly trained
interviewers and interpreters to evaluate the responses, they tend to be very
expensive.
Small sample sizes can increase the probability of substantial sampling error. The
reliance on small samples often has been accompanied by non-profitability selection
procedures.
Some of the projective techniques require the respondents to engage in behavior
that may well be strange to them; this is particular true for techniques such as role-
plays. Thus there is reason enough to believe that there might be an error in the
findings.
Measurement error is also a serious issue with respect to projective techniques. The
possibility of interpreter bias is obvious.
3.1.6. Promises
They can uncover information not available through direct questioning or
observation.
They are particularly useful in the exploratory stages of research
They can generate hypotheses for further testing and provide attributes lists and
terms for more structures techniques such as the semantic differential.
The results of projective techniques can be used directly for decision- making.
Page 9
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
Responses are timed so that those responses that respondents “reason out”
are identified and taken into account in the analysis. The time limit is usually 5
seconds.
The usual way of constructing such a test is to choose many stimulating and
“neutral” words. The words are read out to the respondent one at a time, and
the interviewer essentially records the “first word” association by the
respondent.
Respondents should not be asked to write their responses because then the
interviewer will not know if the responses were spontaneous or whether the
respondent took time to think out the responses.
An example of such a test is: who would eat a lot of oatmeal? The first
response is “athletes”. This means that the respondent feels that the product
is more suited for sportspersons. More words on the same topic will reveal
more about the respondent’s attitude about the product.
While analyzing the results of word-association tests, responses are arranged
along such lines as “favorable - unfavorable” and “pleasant – unpleasant”.
Page 10
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
3.5.1. TAT
Clinical psychologists have long used this method.
Here the respondent is shown many ambiguous pictures and he is asked to
spin stories about them.
The interviewer may ask questions to help the respondent to think. For
example “what is happening here?” makes the answer focused towards an
action. Or “which one is the aggressor?” makes the respondent think about
the picture as one of aggression. The reason that respondents must be asked
such prompting questions is that the pictures are very abstract and general
and as such are open to very broad and irreverent interpretations. So some
amount of focus is needed to channel the respondent’s thinking.
Each subject in the pictures is a medium through which the respondent
projects his feelings, ideas, emotions and attitudes. The respondent attributes
these feelings to the characters because he sees in the picture something
related to himself.
Responses differ widely and analysis depends upon the ambiguity of the
picture, the extent to which the respondent is able to guess the conclusions
and the vagueness of the support questions asked by the interviewer.
1. Systematic errors
2. Variable errors
A systematic error, also known as bias, is one that occurs in a consistent manner
each time something is measured. For e.g.: A biased question would produce an
error in the same direction each time it is asked. Such an error would be a
systematic error.
A variable error is one that occurs randomly each time something is measured. For
e.g.: A response that is less favorable than the true feeling because the respondent
was in a bad mood (temporary characteristic) would not occur each time that
individual’s attitude is measured. In fact, an error in the opposite direction (overly
favorable) would occur if the individual were in a good mood. This represents a
variable error.
Page 11
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
The term reliability is used to refer to the degree of variable error in a measurement.
We define reliability as the extent to which a measurement is free of variable errors.
This is reflected when repeated measures of the same stable characteristic in the
same objects show limited variation.
A common conceptual definition for validity is the extent to which the measure
provides an accurate representation of what one is trying to measure. In this
conceptual definition, validity includes both systematic and variable error
components. However, it is more useful to limit the meaning of the term validity to
refer to the degree of consistent or systematic error in a measurement. Therefore we
define validity as the extent to which a measurement is free from systematic error.
1.1. Reliability
There are various operational approaches for estimation of reliability. The following
table summarizes these approaches.
Test-retest reliability estimates are obtained by repeating the measurement using the
same instrument using the same instrument under as nearly equivalent conditions
as possible. The results of the two administrations are then compared and the
degree of correspondence is determined. The greater the differences, the lower the
reliability
Page 12
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
A number of practical and computational difficulties are involved in measuring test-
retest reliability. They are:
1. Some items can be measured only once. For e.g.: It would not be possible to
remeasure an individual’s initial reaction to a new advertising slogan.
2. In many situations, the initial measurement may alter the characteristic being
measured. Thus an attitude survey may focus the individual’s attention on the topic
and cause new or different attitudes to be formed about it.
3. There may be some form of a carryover effect from the first measure. The retaking of
a measure may produce boredom, anger, or attempts to remember the answers
given in the initial measurement.
4. Factors extraneous to the measuring process may cause shifts in the characteristic
being measured. For e.g.: A favorable experience with the brand during the period
between the test and the retest might cause a shift in individual ratings of that brand.
Two primary problems are associated with this approach. They are:
1. The extra time, expense and trouble involved in obtaining two equivalent measures.
2. More importantly, the problem of constructing two truly equivalent forms.
Thus a low degree of response similarity may reflect either an unreliable instrument
or nonequivalent forms. Despite these difficulties, researchers should use alternative
measures of important concepts whenever possible to allow assessment of reliability
(and validity) as well as to improve accuracy (by using the data from both the
measures)
3. Internal-Comparison Reliability
Page 13
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
total number of items into two groups on a random basis and computing a measure
of similarity.
4. Scorer Reliability:
1.2. Validity
1. Content validity
2. Construct validity and
3. Criterion-related validity (predictive and concurrent)
Page 14
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
measurements
The most common use of face validity is with multi-item measures. In this case, the
researchers or some other individual or group of individuals assesses the
representativeness, or sampling adequacy, of the included items in light of the
purpose of the measuring instrument. Thus, an attitude scale designed to measure
the overall attitude towards a shopping center would not be considered to have
content validity if it omitted any major attributes such as location, layout and so on.
Content validation is the most common form of validation in applied marketing
research.
Criterion-related validity can take two forms, based on the time period involved. They
are:
1. Concurrent validity and
2. Predictive validity
Concurrent validity is the extent to which one measure of a variable can be used to
estimate an individual’s current score on a different measure of the same, or a
closely related variable. For e.g.: a researcher may be trying to relate social class to
the use of savings and loan associations. In a pilot study, the researcher finds a
useful relationship between attitudes towards savings and loan associations and
social class, as defined by Warner’s ISC scale. The researcher now wishes to test
this relationship further in a national mail survey. Unfortunately, Warner’s ISC is
difficult to use in a mail survey. Therefore, the researcher develops brief verbal
descriptions of each of Warner’s six social classes. Respondents will be asked to
indicate the social class that best describes their household. Prior to using this
measure, the researcher should assess its concurrent validity with the standard ISC
scale.
Predictive validity is the extent to which an individual’s future level on some variable
can be predicted by his or her performance on a current measurement of the same
or a different variable. Predictive validity is the primary concern of the applied
marketing researcher. Some of the predictive validity questions that confront
marketing researchers are:
Page 15
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
(a) Will a measure of attitudes predict future purchases?
(b) Will a measure of sales in a controlled store test predict future market share?
(c) Will a measure of initial sales predict future sales? and
(d) Will a measure of demographic characteristics of an area predict the success of a
branch bank in the area?
A number of approaches exist for assessing construct validity of which the most
common is called multitrait-multimethod matrix approach. These multiple measures
(by methods as different from each other as possible) of multiple traits or concepts
can be analyzed by the Campbell-Fiske procedure, confirmatory factor analysis, or
direct product model.
These techniques generally involve ensuring that the measure correlates positively
with other measures of the same construct (convergent validity), does not correlate
with theoretically unrelated constructs (discriminant validity), correlates in the
theoretically predicted way with measures of different but related constructs
(nomological validity), and correlates highly with itself (reliability).
1. Low self-focus
2. High need for status and
3. High materialism
We believe that it is unrelated to brand loyalty and the tendency to purchase new
products. Evidence of construct validity would exist if our scale:
Page 16
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
consumer. Structured techniques can provide a more objective measurement
system, one that is more comparable to a scale or yardstick. The term scaling has
been applied to the efforts to measure attitudes objectively, and a number of useful
scales have been developed.
An interval scale is a scale of measurement where the distance between any two
adjacent units of measurement (or 'intervals') is the same but the zero point is
arbitrary. Scores on an interval scale can be added and subtracted but cannot be
meaningfully multiplied or divided. For example, the time interval between the starts
Page 17
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
of years 1981 and 1982 is the same as that between 1983 and 1984, namely 365
days. The zero point, year 1 AD, is arbitrary; time did not begin then. Other examples
of interval scales include the heights of tides, and the measurement of longitude.
For e.g.:
1. Perception of national brands and private brands:
Attractive 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unattractive
Packaging Packaging
Page 18
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
Page 19
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
The constant sum scale requires the respondent to divide a constant sum, generally
10 or 100, among two or more objects or attributes on order to reflect the
respondent’s relative preference for each object, the importance of the attribute, or
the degree to which an object contains each attribute.
2.6.1. Advantages
When rank order data is used the researcher has no way of knowing the
characteristic which is of overwhelming importance or of knowing a characteristic
which is not much more important than other characteristics.
This can be explained with the following example:
Suppose a sample of respondents from the target market is requested to rank order
several automobile characteristics with 1 being more important. Assume the
individual ranks are similar and produce the following median ranks for each
attribute:
Price 1
Economy 2
Dependability 3
Safety 4
Comfort 5
Style 6
A constant sum measure of the importance of the same attributes could be obtained
from the following procedure:
Divide 100 points among the characteristics listed so that the division will reflect how
important each characteristic is to your selection of a new automobile.
Price ____
Economy ____
Dependability ____
Safety ____
Comfort ____
Style ____
Total 100
All three of the following groups’ average responses to the constant sum scale would
be consistent with the rank order results just described:
Page 20
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
With rank order scale the researcher has no way of knowing if price is of importance
(GROUP C); part of a general, strong concern for overall cost (GROUP A); or not
much important than the other attributes (GROUP B).
Constant Sum Scale provides such evidence.
2.6.2. Disadvantage
A disadvantage could be that individuals could occasionally misassign points such
that the total is more than, or less than 100. This can be adjusted for by dividing
each point allocation by the actual total and multiplying the result by 100.
2.7.1. Advantages
It is important to note that there are 11 attitude positions because in a scale with odd
number of parameters, it is easier to identify a neutral position.
2.7.2. Disadvantages
1. Thurstone scales are not widely used for Marketing Research because the
are time consuming during preparation
2. The ratings may be influenced by the Judges’ personal attitude
3. Different individuals can obtain exactly the same score from agreeing with
quite different items.
4. It does not obtain information about the intensity of agreement with the ratings
Page 21
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
____ Strongly Agree ____ Agree ____ Neither Agree nor Disagree ____ Disagree
____ Strongly Disagree
2.8.1. Advantages
1. It is relatively easy to construct and administer.
2. Instructions that accompany the scale are easily understood; hence it can be
used for mail surveys and interviews with children.
2.8.2. Disadvantages
1. It takes a longer time to complete as compared to Semantic Differential Scales,
etc.
2. Care needs to be taken when using Likert Scales in cross cultural research, as
there may be cultural variations in willingness to express disagreement.
For example:
How much do u think it cost for the hot cereal alone in a average bowl of cereal
such as you’d serve at the breakfast?
Do corn flakes cost less or more per bowl than cereal?
4. CONCEPT TESTING
Attitude Scale: Sets of rating scales used to measure one or more dimensions of an
individual’s attitude toward some object. Attitude scales are constructed using likert,
semantic differential or Stapel scales.
Page 22
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
Concurrent Validity: A measure of how accurate a measure of an object, state or
event is now as opposed to how accurate it will be in the future (predictive validity),
one measure of concurrent validity is how comparable the results of Instrument A
and Instrument B are when both are used to measure the same characteristics in the
same object at the same point of time.
Constant Sum Scale: The constant sum scale requires the respondent to divide a
constant sum, generally 10 or 100, among two or more objects or attributes on order
to reflect the respondent’s relative preference for each object, the importance of the
attribute, or the degree to which an object contains each attribute.
Depth interview: An interviewing procedure in which the interviewer does not have a
prespecified list of questions. The interviewer is free to create questions and probe
responses that appear relevant. Respondents are free to respond to questions in any
way they think appropriate. Types of depth interviews include individual, mini group
and focus group.
External Validity: The ability of the results from an experiment to predict the results
in the actual situation.
Face Validity: A form of content validity that exists when “non experts” such as
respondents or executives judge the measuring instrument as appropriate for the
task at hand.
Free Word Association: A projective technique that requires the respondent to give
the first word or thought that comes to mind after the researcher presents a word or
phrase.
Interval Scale: Numbers are used to rank items such that numerically equal
distances on the scale represent equal distances in the property being measured.
The location of the zero point and the unit of measurement is determined by the
researcher; consequently, ratios calculated on data from interval scales are not
meaningful.
Ordinal Scale: A rating scale in which numbers, letters, or other symbols are used to
assign ranks to items. An ordinal scale requires the respondent to indicate if one item
has more or less of a characteristic than another item. The magnitude of difference
between the items is not estimated.
Page 23
Chapter 8: Scales and Attitude Measurement
Predictive Validity: The extent to which the future level of some variable can be
predicted by a current measurement of the same or a different variable.
Ratio Scale: A rating scale in which items are ranked so that numerically equal scale
distances represent equal distances in the property being measured. These scales
have a natural and known zero point.
Split Half Reliability: A measure of reliability in which the results form half the items
on a multi-item measure are compared with the results for the remaining items. If
there is a substantial variation between the groups, the reliability of the instrument is
in doubt.
Page 24