CCS Submission

Submitted to
Prof. Ramesh Kumar S

9/7/2015

Sakshi 1411261
Kapish Malhotra 1411377

Additional Articles

1. Measuring the Involvement Construct.

Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. "Measuring The Involvement Construct." Journal
Of Consumer Research 12.3 (1985): 341-352. Business Source Complete.
Web. 8 July 2015.
The article aims to tackle the difficulties faced in the measurement of
involvement owing to different definitions of involvement in different context.
The article aims to develop a general, standardized, valid and a multi-item
scale to measure involvement with products (which can also be applied to
involvement with advertisements and purchase decisions). In the study,
generally used scales for involvement were pretested but problems in
generalizing them across product categories were recognized. The most
generalizable and effective scale seemed to be semantic differential scale.
The Semantic Differential consists of a series of bipolar items, each
measured on a seven-point rating scale. It is easy to administer and score,
takes only a few minutes to complete, and is applicable to a wide array of
objects. The descriptors or phrases easily relate across product categories
and can be appropriate to other domains, such as purchase decisions or
advertisements. In this study, the definition of involvement used for the
purposes of scale development was: A person's perceived relevance of
the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests. A bipolar
adjective scale, the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) was developed to
capture the concept of involvement for products. The scale successfully met
standards for internal reliability, reliability over time, content validity,
criterion-related validity, and construct validity. Tests of construct validity
demonstrated that the scores were positively related to perceived
differences among brands, brand preferences, interest in gathering
information about the product category, and comparison of product
attributes among brands. The article ends with the PII scale and instructions
for the interviewer on how to use the PII scale.

Relevance to Theme
Measurement of involevement is an important part of the project as we look
at consumers who are differently involved with the smartphones category as
well as products in the category.

2. Integrating advertising and news about the brand in the online

environment: Are all products the same?
Micu, Anca Cristina, and Iryna Pentina. "Integrating Advertising And News
About The Brand In The Online Environment: Are All Products The
Same?." Journal Of Marketing Communications20.3 (2014): 159175. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 July 2015.
This research compares the effects of paid advertising (banner ad plus
banner ad) and publicity (news article plus banner ad) on attitude toward the
brand in the context of different product categorization approaches. The
authors utilize both the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the
economics of information theory to test the mechanism through which
different electronic communication modes impact consumers attitude
toward the brand for various product categories. Findings indicate that the
product categorization based on the level of involvement (ELM) to be
superior to the one distinguishing search from experience goods (economics
of information). Including news about the brand in the online brand
communication mix generates higher brand attitudes for low- and moderateinvolvement products while for high-involvement products, brand attitudes
become more favorable with increasing credibility of the added news
message. The findings of the study were as under:

For high-involvement products, consumers exposed to both banner ad

and news story will have a more (less) favorable attitude toward the
brand than those exposed to banner ads alone if the arguments in the
news story are more (less) credible.
For low-involvement products, consumers exposed to both banner ad
and news story will have a more favorable attitude toward the brand
than those exposed to banner ads only.
Under moderate-involvement conditions, consumers exposed to both
banner ad and news story will have a more favorable attitude toward
the brand than those exposed to banner ads alone if the arguments in
the news story are more credible.
Under moderate-involvement conditions, consumers exposed to both
banner ad and news story will have a more favorable attitude toward
the brand than those exposed to banner ads only.

Relevance to Theme
The present article illustrates the impact of paid advertisements and
publicity on the attitude formation which is majorly relevant because in
smartphone category, most people tend to follow a lot of news and blogs
related to new products, new technology, support groups etc.

3. The effects of affective and cognitive elaborations from Facebook

posts on consumer attitude formation.
Chen, Kuan-Ju, Jooyoung Kim, and Jhih-Syuan Lin. "The Effects Of Affective
And Cognitive Elaborations From Facebook Posts On Consumer Attitude
Formation." Journal Of Consumer Behaviour 14.3 (2015): 208-218. Business
Source Complete. Web. 9 July 2015.
The article looks at the process of attitude formation in a social media
context. Building on the previous research on attitude towards ad, this article
looks at specifically, Facebook posts by arguing that social media interaction
is different than traditional media interaction since on social media, even
consumers can post about the brand and not just marketers. The article
aims to study 3 aspects of impact of social media marketing: First, it seeks to
identify the roles of affective and cognitive elaborations in consumers
attitude formation process induced by brand-related information in Facebook
posts. Second, drawing on the attitudes toward the ad, this study suggests a
model to bring up the construct of attitudes toward the posts and delineate
its influence on attitudes toward the brand. Third, this study further
investigates the effects of affective and cognitive elaborations on attitudes in
various marketing situations, including purchase-decision involvement (PDI),
product categories, and sources of Facebook posts. The findings of the paper
suggested the following:
In evaluating a low-PDI product, affective elaboration will influence attitudes
more than cognitive elaboration. In evaluating a hedonic product, affective
elaboration will influence attitudes more than cognitive elaboration. In
evaluating a utilitarian product, affective elaboration will influence attitudes
more than cognitive elaboration. In evaluating a product with consumer
posts, affective elaboration will influence attitudes more than cognitive
elaboration.

The cumulative results substantiated that affective elaboration, compared

with cognitive elaboration, was the dominant influencer for attitude
formation. In sum, the significant interaction effects were found when
consumers evaluated low-PDIhedonic products with consumer posts, highPDIhedonic products with brand posts, low-PDIutilitarian products with
brand posts, and high-PDIutilitarian products with brand posts.

Relevance to Theme
Given the extensive use of smartphone as a product by the youth and
extensive consumption of social media as a channel by them, brand
attitudes are significantly impacted by the social media brand posts and
consumer posts and hence the article is relevant for our theme.
4. Word of mouth communication within online communities:
Conceptualizing the online social network.
Brown, Jo, Amanda J. Broderick, and Nick Lee. "Word Of Mouth Communication
Within Online Communities: Conceptualizing The Online Social Network." Journal Of
Interactive Marketing (John Wiley & Sons) 21.3 (2007): 2-20. Business Source
Complete. Web. 9 July 2015.
The popularity of emerging consumption focused online communities and the
related communications within these groups that can also trigger offline
communication highlights the potential that these forums have with respect to
influencing consumers attitudes and creation of reference groups thus impacting
the decision making process. The effectiveness can be gauged by analysing the tie
strength, homophily and source credibility. However measuring these factors for
social media and online forum interactions versus that for an offline group is
difficult. Characteristics of a strong online tie would involve a gauging online
website reciprocity and emotional website closeness. Homophily speaks about the
group composition in terms of the similarity of members characteristics, for online
portals it would involve shared group interests and shared mind-set. Online source
credibility is measured in terms of perceived competence of a website and its
membership which is measured based on site trust-worthiness and actors expertise.
The authors report the results of a two-stage study aimed at investigating online
WOM: a set of in-depth qualitative interviews followed by a social network analysis
of a single online community. The analysis states and provides a strong evidence
that individuals behave as though web sites themselves were primary actors in
online social networks and that online communities can act as a social proxy for
individual contributing information. The authors offer a conceptualization of online
social networks which takes the Web site into account as an actor, an initial

exploration of the concept of a consumerWeb site relationship, and a conceptual

model of the online interaction and information evaluation process. Many
information seekers thus frequently visit the communities and some develop the
habit of visiting the sites with the need for information, thus revealing a continuous
engagement of individuals.
To generate a sense of group mind-set and shared interests, online brand
communities should include a wide range of interests that have a direct, but
nonintrusive, connection with the brand. The article suggests that a marketer
should try to generate a group mind-set and shared interests with online brand
communities by actively engaging the customers in a rich online dialogue.

Relevance to Theme
Except social media, online reviews, brand websites WOM and eWOM are some
channels for attitude formation amongst the target population in our project. This
article provides a sense of the impact of these aspects on the attitude formation.

Types of Sampling Techniques:

A Probability Sampling Techniques: It is based on the fact that each element
has a known, nonzero chance of being included in the sample, these
probabilities need not be equal. Following are the types of Probability
samples:
1. Simple random sampling (SRS): It is the basic form of probability
sampling. Each member of the population has an equal and known chance of
being selected. In case of very large populations, it is often difficult or
impossible to identify every member of the population, so the pool of
available subjects becomes biased.
2. Stratified sampling: It is superior to random sampling as it reduces
sampling error. A stratum is a subset of the population that shares at least
one common characteristic. The population is divided into mutually exclusive
and exhaustive subsets and then a simple random sample of elements is
chosen independently from each subset. Stratified sampling is often used
when one or more of the stratums in the population have a low incidence
relative to the other stratums.
3. Cluster sampling: In this kind of sampling first the parent population is
divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets and then a random
sample of the subsets is selected. It is further of three kinds: Single stage,
two stage and three stage cluster sampling.

4. Systematic sampling: is often used instead of random sampling. It is also

called an Nth name selection technique. A systematic sample involves
selecting every Nth element after a random start.
B Non-Probability Sampling Techniques: We cannot estimate the probability
associated with any population element getting selected in the sample. We
cannot ensure that the sample is representative of the population. Personal
judgment is involved in the process. But, it is only when the elements
selected have known probabilities of selection that one can evaluate the
precision of a sample result. Following are the types of Non-Probability
samples:
1 Convenience Sampling: It is one of the most common methods of
sampling, includes talking to a friend and based on his/her reaction
inferring the political sentiment of the country. Problem with this sampling
technique is that we have no way of knowing if the sample is
representative of the target population.
2 Judgment Sampling: Often called purposive samples; handpicked
samples to serve a research purpose. May be useful for exploratory
research; it can get you perspectives that lead to initial hypothesis.
Snowball Sample is a kind of judgment sample that is used to sample
special populations. It makes uses of word-of-mouth, opinion leaders and
network. Researcher initially locates an initial set of respondents with the
target sample characteristics, these people further suggest people with
desired characteristics.
3 Quota Sampling: Select people non-randomly according to a fixed quota
to represent the major characteristics of the population.
We choose: Stratified sampling, we choose high/ low involved consumers of
Smartphone categories and then randomly choose from these strata.
4 types of measurements:
A Nominal Scale: This scaling technique uses the basic comparison based on
identity. Each of the elements is unique.
B Ordinal Scale: Comparison based on order. Numbers tell about the relative
positions of objects but not the magnitude of differences between them. It
makes customers to distinguish among choices. The customer is asked to
rank the attributes, to make a decision of one attribute being more important
than the other.
C Interval Scale: Differences between objects can be compared, zero point is
arbitrary. It states that how far apart the objects are with respect to the
attribute being measured.
D Ratio Scale: Zero point is fixed, ratios of scale values can be compared.
Comparison of the absolute magnitudes of the numbers is legitimate.

Scaling techniques:
1. Comparative: In comparative scaling, the respondent is asked to compare one
brand or product against another. Following are the types of Comparative scaling
techniques:
A. Paired Comparison: In 'paired comparisons' every factor has to be paired with
every other factor in turn. A matrix is constructed and read top to side using all
possible combinations of given factors.
B. Rank Order: Ranking procedures require the respondent to order stimuli with
respect to some designated property of interest. Each respondent is asked to
directly rank the Brand/attribute with respect to that property.
C. Constant Sum: In constant-sum methods the respondent is given some number
of pointstypically 10 or 100and asked to distribute them over the alternatives in
a way that reflects their relative magnitude of some attitudinal characteristic.
2. Non-Comparative: With non-comparative scaling respondents need to evaluate
a single product or brand only. Their evaluation is independent of the other product
and/or brands which the marketing researcher is studying. Following are the types
of Non-Comparative scaling techniques:
A. Continuous Rating Scales: The respondents are asked to give a rating by
placing a mark at the appropriate position on a continuous line.
B: Semantic differential scale: Seven-point scale with bipolar labels. The
respondent may be given a set of pairs of antonyms, the extremes of each pair
being separated by seven intervals that are assumed to be equal. For each pair of
adjectives (e.g., powerful/weak), the respondent is asked to judge the concept along
the seven-point scale with descriptive phrases: Extremely powerful Very
powerful Slightly powerful Neither powerful nor weak Slightly weak Very
weak Extremely weak.
C. Likert Scale: Degrees of agreement on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) scale. The items making up a Likert scale are summed to produce a total
score. Typically, each scale item will have 5 categories, with scale values ranging
from -2 to +2 with 0 as neutral response
D. Staple Scale: Unipolar ten-point scale, -5 to +5, without a neutral point (zero). A
modification of the semantic differential is the Stapel scale (Crespi, 1961). This scale
is an even-numbered nonverbal rating scale used in conjunction with single
adjectives or phrases, rather than bipolar opposites, to rate an object, concept or
person.
We choose: Semantic Differential Scaling and Likert scaling techniques from the
interval scale for filtering the responses based on High/Low involvement with the
Smartphone category and for the rest of the questions.

Analysis Techniques:

These scale values, in turn, can be averaged across respondents to develop

semantic differential profiles.
The appropriate technique depends upon:
1

Type of Data:
Nominal: Use mode to find the central tendency.
Ordinal: Median and mode both are legitimate measures of central
tendency.
Interval: Mean, Median and the mode all are appropriate measures of
central tendency.
Ratio: All statistics used for interval scale are appropriate for Ratio
scale. Its important to understand numerical relationships properly,
reflecting the properties of measurement scale.
Research Design:
Sample Independence:
If the samples are independent, t-test for difference of two means will
be appropriate.
If the samples are dependent, a paired difference test for statistical
significance should be used.
Number of Groups:
Analysis of variance when you want to compare the number of groups.
Number of Variables:
Use multivariate statistical tools to handle more than one variable
dependency.
Assumptions underlying Test Statistics.

Analysis methodology:
1

Describe and summarize the data. Descriptive statistics are normally applied
to a single variable at a time.
2 Identify relationships between variables, check if variables are correlated. If
two variables tend to be correlated, that means that a participants score
on one tends to vary with a score on the other.
3 Use the statistics of independent variables to prove hypothesis.
4 Use Statistical significance to determine the probability that the observed
result of a study was due to the influence of the independent variable.

Questionnaire:
To measure a persons involvement or interest in Smartphone category, we judge
the product category against a series of descriptive scales according how the
respondents perceive the product.

Article used: Zaichkowsky ( 1985, p.342) defined involvement as a persons

perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and interests. He
suggests that PII (the personal Involvement Inventory) is applicable to
advertisements, products or purchase decision. Well be using PII for products.
The questions use semantic differential scale, items are scored on a 7 point
bipolar scale.
A Involvement towards product:
If you feel the product (Smartphone) is very closely related to one end of the scale,
place your check mark as follows:
Unimportant ;__;__;__;__;__;__ Important
or
Unimportant __;__;__;__;__;__; Important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ImportantUnimportant*
Means a lot to me Means nothing to me*
Matters to medoes not matter*
SignificantInsignificant*
Of no concernOf concern to me
trivialfundamental
Uselessuseful
VitalSuperfluous*
UninterestedInterested
MundaneFascinating

Note: Items are scored on 7-point scale. *Denotes items that are reverse scored.
Analysis of this questionnaire: Well find the mean of the responses gathered.
The distribution derived from the data was used to classify scorers into low,
medium, or high involvement. Low scorers were defined as those scoring in the first
quartile of the distribution. Medium scorers were defined as those scoring in the
middle 50 percent of the distribution. High scorers were defined as those scoring in
the top quartile of the distribution.
B Involvement towards ad
measured in the same way as product involvement
C Involvement towards purchase decision:
1 In selecting from many types and brands of this product available in the
market, would you say that:
I would not care at all as to which one I buy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would care a
great deal as to which one I buy
2

Do you think that the various types and brands of this product available in
the market are all very alike or all very different:
They are alike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 They are different
How important would it be for you to make a right choice of this product
Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely important

In making your selection of this product, how concerned would you be about
the outcome of your choice
Not at all concerned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much concerned

Questionnaire:
A Which Smartphone brand do you use?
(Choose one: Samsung, Apple, Micromax, Nokia Lumia)
B Product Knowledge:
(Measure on a Likert Scale of 1-5; 5:Strongly agree, 1:Strongly disagree)
I
I
I
I
I

regularly follow updates on the latest products and technology.

have a preference for the attributes I look for.
pay a lot of attention to whether things are good or bad.
have many more opinions than the average person.
want to know exactly what is good and bad about everything.

C Attitude towards TV Ad:

(Measure on a Likert Scale of 1-5; 5:Strongly agree, 1:Strongly disagree)
Column 1 : Active, adventurous, alive, amused, attentive, attractive, carefree,
cheerful, confident, creative, delighted, elated, energetic, enthusiastic,
excited, exhilarated, good, happy, humorous, independent, industrious,
inspired, interested, joyous, light0hearted, lively, playful, pleased, proud,
satisfied, stimulated, strong
Column2: Angry, Annoyed, bad, bored, critical, defined, depressed,
disgusted, disinterested, dubious, dull, fed-up, insulted, irritated, lonely,
offended, regretful, sad, skeptical, suspicious.
Column 3: Affectionate, calm, concerned, contemplative, emotional, hopeful,
kind, moved, peaceful, pensive, sentimental, touched, warm-Hearted.
D Attitude towards Social Media:
(Measure on a Likert Scale of 1-5; 5:Strongly agree, 1:Strongly disagree)
Column 1 : Active, adventurous, alive, amused, attentive, attractive, carefree,
cheerful, confident, creative, delighted, elated, energetic, enthusiastic,
excited, exhilarated, good, happy, humorous, independent, industrious,
inspired, interested, joyous, light0hearted, lively, playful, pleased, proud,
satisfied, stimulated, strong
Column2: Angry, Annoyed, bad, bored, critical, defined, depressed,
disgusted, disinterested, dubious, dull, fed-up, insulted, irritated, lonely,
offended, regretful, sad, skeptical, suspicious.
Column 3: Affectionate, calm, concerned, contemplative, emotional, hopeful,
kind, moved, peaceful, pensive, sentimental, touched, warm-Hearted

Opinion Seeking:
(Measure on a Likert Scale of 1-5; 5:Strongly agree, 1:Strongly disagree)
I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands to buy.
I spent a lot of time talking with my friends about new technology and
features.
My friends and neighbors usually give me good advice on what brands to buy.

Self-Concept:
(Items scored on 7-point semantic differential scale)
Rugged delicate
excitablecalm
uncomfortablecomfortable
dominatingsubmissive
thriftyindulgent
pleasantunpleasant
contemporaryNon-contemporary
organizedunorganized
Rationalemotional
youthful mature
formalinformal
orthodoxliberal
complexsimple
colorlesscolorful
modestvain

G Brand Personality:
(Items scored on 7-point semantic differential scale)
Sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, ruggedness
H Attitudes towards brand:
(Items scored on 7-point semantic differential scale)
1

Utilitarian Items:
UsefulUseless
WiseFoolish
ValuableWorthless
BeneficialHarmful

Hedonic Items:
PleasantUnpleasant
NiceAwful
HappySad
AgreeableDisagreeable

Brand Experience Scale:

(Measure on a Likert Scale of 1-7; 7:Strongly agree, 1:Strongly disagree
Affective Dimension:
This brand induces feelings and sentiments
I do not have strong emotions for this brand*
This brand is an emotional brand
Intellectual Dimension:
I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand
This brand does not make me think*
This brand stimulates my curiosity and problem solving