Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing
Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LAURENT
and JEAN-NOELKAPFERER*
GILLES
Thereis more than one kind of consumerinvolvement.Dependingon the antecedents of involvement(e.g., the product'spleasurevalue, the product'ssign or
symbolicvalue, risk importance,and prolability of purchaseerror), consequences
on consumerbehaviordiffer. The authorstlhereforerecommendmeasuringan involvementprofile,ratherthana singleinvolvement
level. Theseconclusionsare based
on an empiricalanalysisof 14 productcategories.
Measuring
Consumer
Involvement
The degreeof consumerinvolvementin a productcategory is now widely recognizedas a majorvariablerelevantto advertisingstrategy(Ray 1982;Rothschild1979;
Vaughn1980). Dependingon theirlevel of involvement,
individualconsumersdiffer in the extent of their decision processandtheirsearchfor information.Depending
on theirlevel of involvement,consumersmay be passive
or activewhen they receive advertisingcommunication,
and limit or extend their processingof this communication. To adaptto these differences, advertisersmay
considera numberof operationalvariablessuch as the
type of media, the degreeof repetition,the lengthof the
message, the tone of the message, and the quantityof
information(Tyebjee 1979). In practice,however, one
questionarisesfrequently:how can we know whethera
specific groupof consumersis indeed highly involved
in some productcategory?
Today,this questiongenerallyreceivesqualitativeassessmentfrom advertisingandproductmanagers.When
quantitativeindicatorsof involvementare used, the instruments
oftenboil downto a singlescale (Vaughn1980)
or to a single-item measure of perceived importance
(Agostini 1978; Hupferand Gardner1971; Lastovicka
and Bonfield 1982; Traylor1981). Shouldinvolvement
be reducedto a single dimension?Does "perceivedimportance"alone capturesall the richnessof the involvementconcept?Is it sufficientto classify people in terms
of a single involvementindicatoror shouldinvolvement
be analyzedin terms of multiplefacets, which need to
be measuredsimultaneouslyif one wants to provide
Profiles
INVOLVEMENT
ORINVOLVEMENTS?
Researchon consumerinvolvementgoes backto Sherif
andCantril's(1947) early work. Many authorshave re41
Journal of Marketing Research
42
1985
JOURNAL
FEBRUARY
OF MARKETING
RESEARCH,
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
43
PROFILES
CONSUMER
INVOLVEMENT
MEASURING
EmpiricalData
Empiricaldataalso highlightthe necessityof thinking
in termsof differenttypesof involvement.For example,
Lastovickaand Gardner(1979) asked their subjectsto
evaluate14 productson a series of items measuringimportance,commitment,and affect. Their analysis revealed three types of products:low involvement,high
involvement,and special interestor enthusiastproducts
(productsexpressingone's hobby). The differencebetweenthe two last types lay in the presenceof affect and
hedoniccharacterin the lattercase.
To summarize,our review of uses and indicatorsof
involvementand of empiricalresearchsuggeststhatthe
(permanentor situational)state of "involvement"may
stem from differenttypes of antecedents.Frequentuse
of the word"involvement"with a qualifier(personalinvolvement, emotionalinvolvement,etc.) suggests that
the sourceof involvementis importantinformationand
thatresearchersor managersshouldnot be contentwith
knowing only that an individualis or is not involved.
Knowingthe level of involvementoffersa staticdescription. Understandingof the sourcesof involvementprovides a dynamicpictureof the consumer'ssubjectivesituationandgives clues as to whatappealsshouldbe used
in communicatingwith consumers.
Beyondcontroversiesover definitionsof involvement,
ourreviewof currentresearchandpracticesindicatesfive
antecedents,or facets, of involvement.
1. The perceivedimportanceof the product(its personal
meaning).
2. The perceivedrisk associatedwith the productpurchase,
which in turnhas two facets (Bauer 1967):
-the perceivedimportanceof negativeconsequencesin
case of poor choice and
-the perceivedprobabilityof makingsuch a mistake
3. The symbolic or sign value attributedby the consumer
to the product,its purchase,or its consumption.This differentiatesfunctionalrisk from psychosocialrisk (Bauer
1967)
4. The hedonicvalue of the product,its emotionalappeal,
its abilityto providepleasureand affect.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEBRUARY
JOURNALOF MARKETING
1985
RESEARCH,
44
Table 1
FACETS
MEASURES
OF THEPRESUMED
(translatedfrom originalFrenchitems)
Number
Code
of
items
name
Facet
4
Productperceived
Importance
importance
Perceivedimportanceof negative
consequencesof a
mispurchase
Subjectiveprobability of a mispurchase
Hedonicvalue of
the productclass
Perceivedsign value
of the product
class
Examples
of items
is very importantto me.
For me
does not matter.
Whenyou get a
Risk
, it's not a
importance
big deal if you
makea mistake.
When you get a
Risk
, it's hard
probability
to makea bad
choice.
I can't say thatI
Pleasure
particularlylike
Sign
We first examinethe qualityof each scale. Discriminantvalidityalso is assessed. Then special emphasisis
givento the analysisof the relationshipsbetweenfacets.
Finally,we look at predictivevalidityby focusingon the
relationshipsof the facets to consumers'decision processes and communicationreceptivity.
Evaluationof the Qualityof Each Scale
Two criteriawere used to evaluateeach scale, multiproductfit andreliability.The firstcriterionis very importantif one wants to build a tool appropriatefor any
product.Unfortunatelymany items that would fit well
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
45
PROFILES
INVOLVEMENT
CONSUMER
MEASURING
Table 2
OF THEITEMS
OF THE
ANALYSIS
FACTOR
OBLIQUE
FACETSa
INVOLVEMENT
Importance1
Importance2
Importance3
Importance4
Factor 1
.59
.56
.62
.74
Pleasure 1
Pleasure 2
Pleasure 3
Pleasure 4
Pleasure 5
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
-.73
-.68
-.82
-.67
-.58
Sign 1
Sign 2
Sign 3
Sign 4
.62
Risk importance1
.74
Risk importance2
.74
Risk importance3
Risk probability1
Risk probability2
Risk probability3
'Omittedloadingsare inferiorto .25.
.78
.94
.73
.77
.76
.64
.50
It appearsthatinvolvementcannotsimply be equated
withperceivedrisk. Ourresultsprovidea directandpositive responseto Chaffeeand McLeod's (1973) conclusion after their literaturereview: "Althoughperceived
risk appearsclearly a sufficient conditionfor involvement, it is problematicwhetherit is a necessaryone.
Therewouldseemto be a numberof morepositivesources
of involvement,such as rewardsinherentin the product
afterpurchase"(p. 389).
WhatAre the RelationshipsBetweenFacets?
Obliquefactorsarenot expectedto be independentbecause the facets belong to the same construct.The following table is the matrixof the correlationsbetween
facets, computedover all 414 observations(each facet
score is measuredby the scale describedbefore).
Imporisk
Risk probability
Sign
Pleasure
Imporisk
Risk
probability
Sign
.47
.40
.46
.16
.15
.53
Table3
INVOLVEMENT
PROFILESa
Importance Subjective
of
probability
Pleasure Sign
negative
of
consequences mispurchase value value
181
121
112
147
Dresses
Bras
117
115
106
130
111
118
106
109
Washingmachines
122
95
TV sets
112
100
112
70
78
Vacuumcleaners
110
72
103
95
76
Irons
120
125
125
109
Champagne
65
Oil
89
97
92
86
106
78
83
Yogurt
Chocolate
80,
89
123
75
90
96
103
81
Shampoo
94
95
95
105
Toothpaste
Facialsoap
82
90
114
118
79
82
56
63
Detergents
'Averageproductscore = 100.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1985
RESEARCH,
Figure1
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
FACETS
OF INVOLVEMENT:
RISKIMPORTANCE/SIGN
A
Risk
Import an4e
waAie
U
0 nad
.j^AA
0 T.V.
m Ai9
* c, kom
, -euv.I4J_V 4t?oumut
*4kampoo
d'uAd
* footkcpaJLe
*yogkwtt
*octcgejt
v
0* Loap
t c~oPtP
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
47
MEASURING
CONSUMER
INVOLVEMENT
PROFILES
Figure 2
BETWEEN
FACETSOF INVOLVEMENT:
RELATIONSHIP
PLEASURE/SIGN
PIQasure
dtae60
.T.v.
* crtoet *?
* A
* yogftkA
*wuaz
?
* Aik.m.
(h,A).?*
1
*0
ampaghe
* b4
P9t&dCI~4AL-
tootkp acte
aCLmVaaoV
e*oi
* dttveht
S,'g9
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1985
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
RESEARCH,
48
Figure 3
A FACETOF INVOLVEMENT
BETWEEN
RELATIONSHIP
VALUE)AND A CONSEQUENCE
(PLEASURE
OF
THE
DECISION
(EXTENSIVENESS
PROCESS)
EXtervs iveneSS o
. dxci
S u)AC-tIAA.m/
* Lv6udU~
eL
))ua&ICAtVL
* r.v.
0
* 4rWA9
* 4kokpDyo e
*0ot
k
foDtpaJ)
aa.,ftpa it
oap
*yoqkvtd
Pleature-
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
value
49
MEASURING
PROFILES
CONSUMER
INVOLVEMENT
to influence the two consequencesof interest:extensivenessof the choice process and informationseeking.
Omittingthese variableswouldresultin specificationerror. A review of previousempiricalresearchsuggested
the inclusion of two other variables,perceiveddifferences between alternativesand price. Perceiveddifferences act as a majorstimulusof choice and searchbehavior(Assael 1981; Claxton,Fry, and Portis 1974; De
Bruicker1979;Ray 1973;Rothschild1979). Whenprice
is high, the expectationof obtaininga betterprice jus-
tifies spendingmore time in the choice process and acandCuntively searchingfor information(Dommermuth
diff 1967; Kiel and Layton 1981; Newmanand Staelin
1972). A 3-item scale measuredthe perceived differentiationvariable(Cronbach'salpha = .71). Price was
measuredby the index of average retail prices of the
productcategory.We used the logarithmof the price to
reduce the skewness of the variable. Because we had
four separatedependentvariables,we ran four separate
regressionson all 414 observations.
Figure4
AND A CONSEQUENCE
A FACETOF INVOLVEMENT
BETWEEN
RELATIONSHIP
(RISKIMPORTANCE)
OF THEDECISIONPROCESS)
(EXTENSIVENESS
Extensiveness
of the decision
process
dju^UL uWu
?vacuum rar~.
* T..
rNmachJLA
9
JtiPP
agL .
*skajayoo
* tootkpa.t6r
* doa
* vedst e
* yogIkv
kisk
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
importance
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1985
RESEARCH,
50
Table 4 reports the results of the regressions. A major
conclusion of the analysis is that the facets of the involvement profile have different influences on the dependent variables. Sometimes one facet is determinant
and sometimes another facet exerts the major influence.
Analysis of the standardized regression weights shows
that the extensiveness of the decision process is influenced above all by the perceived importance of the product and by the negative consequences of a mispurchase.
The second variable influencing extensiveness is the degree of perceived difference between alternatives. Consumers have a tendency to keep permanently informed
Figure 5
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
A FACETOF INVOLVEMENT
AND A CONSEQUENCE
(RISKIMPORTANCE)
(LIKING
ADVERTISING)
i
L;king
cadvertising
* dMu6
* tun
CJA"1)pa9I.e
*co ecoto&te
* r.v.
*tootpate
Ojaca
* wa.bAng
*4karknpoo
* vc4teA XLJ'ItI
*yo9hwdi
0
dAekgtpd
dW
A
O~UI(IZ
0* 4uWL
Rtsk
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
importance
INVOLVEMENT
MEASURING
CONSUMER
PROFILES
51
Table 4
INFLUENCE
OF THEINVOLVEMENT
FACETS
regression
(sta.Jordized
weights)
Risk
(importance)
Extensive decision process
Keepingpermanentlyinformed
Interestin articlesandTV programs
Lookingat advertising
?p< 0.001.
bp< 0.01.
Sign
value
Pleasure
value
Risk
(probability)
.61'
.lOb
.00
.06c
.27a
.18'
.15b
.08
.13
.14b
.28'
.05
.06
.37a
Perceived
differentiation
Price
.ob
-.08
R2
.17
.71
.05
.28
.01
.03
.00
.20
-.04
.01
.00
.17
cp < 0.05.
Figure6
A FACETOF INVOLVEMENT
BETWEEN
RELATIONSHIP
AND A CONSEQUENCE
(PLEASURE
VALUE)
(LIKING
ADVERTISING)
i
Liking
advert;sing
*dfUd
edunmpagq
T.V.*
e tootUL1Od4e
*jOa--r
chocoa&t
*4lwipoa
*yoqY0kL
Y~O9IUVd
e~p4l&
* WLOL,
* oi
Pleasure value
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING
FEBRUARY
1985
RESEARCH,
52
process, but has no influence on the other dependent
variables.
Figures 3 through 6 are graphic illustrations of these
results. Each of them shows, on the basis of average
productscores, the influence of one facet of involvement
(abscissa) on a possible consequence (ordinate). They
suggest that the extensiveness of the decision process is
weakly influenced by a product's pleasure value (Figure
3), but strongly influenced by risk importance (Figure
4). In contrast,propensityto exposure to advertisingdoes
not depend much on risk importance (Figure 5), but derives mainly from the product's pleasure value (Figure
6).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Looking at consumer behavior textbooks (Assael 1981;
Engel and Blackwell 1982), one sees that involvement
theory makes rather simple predictions on the effects of
involvement on consumer behavior. Typically, when
consumers are involved, they should engage in a number
of behaviors (active search, extensive choice process,
active informationprocessing, etc.); when consumers are
not involved, they should not engage in these behaviors.
Knowing the conditions that gave rise to involvement
has no role in the theory. Prediction of behaviors entails
knowing only the consumer's level of involvement. In
contrast, our research was prompted by the fact that
managers and researchers use the word "involvement"
with a qualifier, implying that the term used alone is too
imprecise unless one specifies what kind of involvement
is concerned. Here, we propose that the nuances in
meanings of involvement derive from differences in the
antecedent conditions producing involvement. The literaturereview suggested five such antecedent conditions
of involvement-perceived importance of the product or
the situation, perceived sign value, perceived pleasure
value, and perceived risk (itself divided in two subcomponents). A factor analysis indicated that though they
were correlated, each facet of involvement brought some
specific information. One could not capture the consumer's involvement through a single index; all facets of the
involvement profile must be taken into account simultaneously.
Regression analyses showed that all facets contributed
to the prediction of behavior. Also, some facets influence specific behaviors but not other behaviors. Therefore no precise prediction on the consequences of involvement could be made unless the antecedentconditions
were specified. Knowing the involvement level on one
facet (e.g., perceived importance, the classical indicator
of involvement) is not sufficient. The full profile must
be known because different facets have different influences on selected aspects of consumer behavior.
On practical grounds, the involvement profile can be
used to segment the market. Rather than merely indicating high-low involvement divisions of the market, the
profile allows identification of consumers high on some
facets but low on others. Moreover, the involvement
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONSUMER
INVOLVEMENT
MEASURING
PROFILES
ValidityAssessment,"Sage UniversityPaper.
Chaffee,S. H. and J. M. McLeod(1973), "ConsumerDecisions and InformationUse," in ConsumerBehavior:Theoretical Sources, S. Ward and T. S. Robertson,eds. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc., 385-415.
Chaiken,S. (1980), "HeuristicVersusSystematicInformation
Processingand the Use of SourceVersusMessage Cues in
Persuasion,"Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,
39 (5), 752-66.
Chombartde Lauwe, M. J. (1979), Un mondeautre: l'Enfance. Paris:Payot.
forDevelopingBetter
Churchill,G. A., Jr.(1979), "AParadigm
Measuresof MarketingConstructs,"Journal of Marketing
Research, 16 (February),64-73.
Claxton,J. D., J. N. Fry, andB. Portis(1974), "A Taxonomy
of Prepurchase
InformationGatheringPatterns,"Journalof
ConsumerResearch, 1 (December),35-42.
De Bruicker,F. S. (1979), "An Appraisalof Low-Involvement ConsumerInformationProcessing,"in AttitudeResearch Plays for High Stakes, J. C. Maloney and B. Silverman,eds. Chicago:AmericanMarketing
Association,11230.
Dommermuth,W. P. and E. W. Cundiff(1967), "Shopping
Goods, ShoppingCentersand Selling Strategies,"Journal
of Marketing,31 (October),32-6.
Engel, F. and R. D. Blackwell (1982), ConsumerBehavior,
4th ed. New York:The DrydenPress.
Finn, W. F. (1982), "Itis Time to Lay the Low-Involvement
Hierarchyto Rest," in Proceedingsof the Associationfor
ConsumerResearch, 13th Conference,99-102.
Greenwald,H. S. (1965), "TheInvolvementControversyin
PersuasionResearch,"unpublishedmanuscript,Columbia
University.
Hirschman,E. C. andM. B. Holbrook(1982), "HedonicConsumption:EmergingConcepts,Methodsand Propositions,"
Journalof Marketing,46 (Summer),92-101.
Houston,M. J. and M. L. Rothschild(1977), "A Paradigm
for Researchon ConsumerInvolvement,"WorkingPaper
11-77-46, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison.
Hupfer,N. T. and D. M. Gardner(1971), "DifferentialInvolvementwith ProductsandIssues:An Exploratory
Study,"
in Proceedingsof the Associationfor ConsumerResearch,
2nd Confterence,D. M. Gardner,ed. College Park, MD,
262-70.
Kiel, G. C. and R. A. Layton(1981), "Dimensionsof ConsumerInformationSeeking Behavior,"Journalof Marketing Research, 18 (May), 223-9.
Kiesler,C. A., B. E. Collins, and N. Miller (1969), Attitude
Change.New York:JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.
Krugman,H. E. (1965), "TheImpactof TelevisionAdvertising: earning Without Involvement," Public Opinion
Quarterly,29 (Fall), 349-56.
(1967), "The Measurementof AdvertisingInvolve-
53
ment,"Public OpinionQuarterly,30 (Winter),583-96.
Lastovicka,J. L. andE. H. Bonfield(1982), "Do Consumers
Have BrandAttitudes?"Journalof EconomicPsychology,
2, 57-75.
andD. M. Gardner(1979), "Componentsof Involvement," in AttitudeResearchPlays for High Stakes, J. C.
Maloneyand B. Silverman,eds. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,53-73.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbolsfor Sale," HarvardBusiness Review, 37 (July-August), 117-19.
InforNewman,J. W. and R. Staelin (1972), "Prepurchase
mationSeekingfor New Carsand MajorHouseholdAppliances,"Journalof MarketingResearch, 9 (August), 24957.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978), PsychometricTheory. New York:
McGrawHill Book Company.
Ostrom,I. M. and T. C. Brock(1968), "A CognitiveModel
of AttitudinalInvolvement,"in Theoriesof CognitiveConsistency,R. P. Abelsonet al., eds. New York:RandMcNally.
Ray, M. L. (1973), "MarketingCommunicationand the Hierarchyof Effects," in Sage AnnualReviewsin CommunicationResearch,F. GeraldKlineandP. Clark,eds. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
(1982), Advertisingand Communication
Management,
EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc.
ConsumerBeRobertson,T. S. (1976), "Low-Commitment
havior,"Journalof AdvertisingResearch, 16 (April), 1924.
Rokeach,M. (1968), Belief, Attitudesand Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rothschild,M. L. (1979), "AdvertisingStrategiesfor High
andLow InvolvementSituations,"in AttitudeResearchPlays
for HighStakes,J. C. MaloneyandB. Silverman,eds. Chicago: AmericanMarketingAssociation,74-93.
Sherif,M. and H. Cantril(1947), The Psychologyof Ego-lnvolvement.New York:JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.
and C. L. Hovland(1961), Social Judgment:Assimilationand ConstrastsEffects in Communicationand AttitudeChange. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.
Traylor, M. B. (1981), "ProductInvolvementand Brand
Commitment,"Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 21 (December),27-33.
Tyebjee,T. T. (1979), "Refinementof the InvolvementConcept: An AdvertisingPlanningPoint of View," in Attitude
ResearchPlaysfor High Stakes,J. C. Maloneyand B. Silverman,eds. Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,94111.
Vaughn, R. (1980), "How AdvertisingWorks: A Planning
Model,"Journalof AdvertisingResearch,20 (October),2733.
Zimbardo,P. G. (1960), "Involvementand Communication
Discrepancy as Determinantsof Opinion Conformity,"
Journalof Abnormaland Social Psychology,60, 86-94.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:34:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions