delvi-comparison of zaichkowsky and mittal scales

[ 180 ]

International Journal of Bank Marketing16/5 [1998] 180–194

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0265-2323]

Measuring purchase decision involvement for financial services: comparison of the Zaichkowskyand Mittal scales

Gordon R. FoxallCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UKJohn G. PallisterCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

A random sample of 308 UKconsumers was used to compare two scales for themeasurement of consumerinvolvement – Zaichkowsky’srevised Personal InvolvementInventory and Mittal’s Pur-chase-decision InvolvementScale – in terms of internalreliability, dimensionality,convergent validity, discrimi-nant validity, and criterionvalidity. In general, bothinventories perform well butthe results raise interestingquestions about the emotionalversus rational structure ofconsumer involvement withfinancial services. The practi-cal implications of the resultsfor consumer research andthe marketing of financialservices are discussed.

Introduction

The analysis of consumer behaviour forfinancial services has come into its own inrecent years, both as an aspect of academicstudy and as a means to more effective corporate decision making. But many of theimplications are troublesome for the marketing of financial services. The reality ofconsumers’ financial decision making in thelate 1990s appears to be a mass of confusion,lack of confidence and shortage of trust. Shelton (1994) reports, for instance, that consumers want more objectivity, long-termrelationships, less pressure, more control,solutions to their problems, and excellentadvice. Positive marketing would identifyeach of these demands as an opportunity, butfar too many financial service marketersseem to see them as threats. Because suppli-ers of financial services apparently offerconfusion, suspicion and scepticism, andbecause many consumers face economicuncertainty, job and career insecurity andnegative equity, the potential buyers of finan-cial services understand well the importanceof the purchase decision at the expense of itsexciting/appealing elements.

What are we to make of this situation? Inthe terminology of consumer involvementresearch, these buyers are influenced by therational aspect of involvement with financialservices while being untouched by the emotional aspects. Indeed, the concept ofconsumer involvement may hold importantkeys to the development of meaningful andeffective marketing plans for financial services (Gunter and Furnham, 1994; Laaksonen, 1991). But consumer researcherswishing to make use of this concept are facedwith a bewildering array of constructs andmeasures. Krugman (1965), Ray (1973) andHouston and Rothschild (1978) laid the foundations for the conceptualisation andoperational measurement of involvementsome years ago, and Mittal (1989) explicitlyinvited comparative studies between his scaleand those devised by other researchers. Butrecent interest in using the involvement construct in consumer research has not beenmatched by comparative studies of the relia-bility and validity of alternative measures.

There is some agreement in the literaturethat, at the bare minimum, involvement is todo with personal relevance, a perceived valuein the goal object, an arousing motivationreflecting interest in the goal object, and thatthis arousal or motivation can be stimulatedby communication, by the product itself or bythe purchase decision context. But beyondthat bare minimum lurk numerous academicand practical debates. Is it enduring or situational involvement, an important distinction introduced by Houston and Rothschild (1978), that matters? When advertising and attentional/processingstrategies are under investigation, shouldinvolvement be conceptualised as a “state ofactivation” (Cohen, 1983; Mitchell, 1981) or as“process involvement” (Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984; Krugman, 1966-67)? So, whilethere has been considerable interest in investigating consumers’ involvement withfinancial services, in the absence of soundpsychometric comparisons between differentmeasures, it is impossible to be sure thatdifferent studies are measuring the sameconstruct or whether the implications, oftendrawn somewhat freely, for consumerresearch and marketing management arejustified. In this article, we are concernedwith the psychometric properties of two keymeasures of involvement in the context ofconsumer behaviour for financial services.We investigated four financial products bearing a maturity value or benefit sometimein the future:1 pensions;2 life assurance;3 mortgages; and4 savings and investment.These products not only contrast with thetargets of the earlier research but are ofintrinsic interest in view of the extent ofstrategic change and product developmentwhich characterises the contemporary financial services industry. The chosen scalesare Zaichkowsky’s (1987b) Revised PersonalInvolvement Inventory (RPII) and Mittal’s(1989) Purchase-decision Involvement Scale(PIS). We compare them in terms of theirinternal reliability, dimensionality, conver-gent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion validity.

[ 181 ]

Gordon R. Foxall and John G. PallisterMeasuring purchase decisioninvolvement for financialservices: comparison of theZaichkowsky and Mittalscales

International Journal ofBank Marketing16/5 [1998] 180–194

The inventories

Zaichkowsky: the revised PersonalInvolvement InventoryZaichkowsky (1985) understands involvementas “A person’s perceived relevance of theobject based on inherent needs, values andinterests”. She attempts to construct a scalefor the measurement of this variable which iscontext-free and applicable over the full rangeof pertinent stimuli, namely products, purchase decisions and advertisements. Therigorous construction and scientific testing ofthe inventory resulted in a 20-item scale, thePersonal Involvement Inventory (PII) of highreliability (Cronbach alpha scores of 0.97 arenot unusual) and validity. The empirical dataon which these tests were based were collected as convenience samples of 268undergraduates, two data sets of 49 MBAstudents and two further data sets of 57 clerical and administrative staff. Numerousproduct classes were involved in thisresearch; the construct validity tests wereconducted for instant coffee, colour televisionand laundry detergent. The PII appears tocapture one major factor, relevance, across allproduct categories; some other minor factorswere not further considered since the majorfactor accounted for some 70 per cent of thevariance. The appeal of the 20-item PII lay inits simple structure (20 pairs of adjectives,scored on a semantic differential basis) andthe use of a single score to represent thedegree of involvement, so that products canbe easily compared on a continuum. Thescale has been widely used by otherresearchers (e.g. Celsi and Olson, 1988; Celuchand Evans, 1989).

Criticism of the PII arose on two counts.Park and McClung (1986) argued that somescale items were not applicable to involve-ment in advertising and that the scale was toolong for repeated testing. Vaughn (1986) andMcQuarrie and Munson (1987) found the scaleincapable of embracing the various types ofinvolvement conceptualised by someresearchers. In addition to these views thatthe inventory was too simple and too long,McQuarrie and Munson (1987) wereconcerned with the potential attitudinalcontamination of the PII: the required inde-pendence of involvement and attitudinalmeasures was not clear cut in the case of thePII. Zaichkowsky’s (1987b) consequent revi-sion consists of ten items, the Revised Per-sonal Involvement Inventory (RPII). Severalitems which had invited the charge of attitu-dinal contamination in the first version were omitted: e.g. beneficial – not beneficial; undesirable – desirable. The revised and

reduced scale (Table I), having apparentlyovercome the criticisms of the detractors, hasbeen used in a large number of additionalstudies (e.g. Goldsmith et al., 1991; McQuarrieand Munson, 1987; Foxall and Bhate, 1993)whose authors expressed satisfaction withthe reliability and predictive validity of thenew scale and its capacity to discriminateacross products and situations.

Mittal: the Purchase-decision InvolvementScaleMittal (1989) criticised Zaichkowsky’s original inventory on the grounds that someitems are attitudinal, others hedonic, andothers having no bearing on purchase decision involvement, e.g. needed – notneeded; essential – unessential. In regard tothe latter, he argued that essential productscan engender less purchase decision involve-ment than unessential luxury products.(Clearly the force of this criticism is some-what diminished by the revised PII.) Mittal(1989) defines purchase decision involvementas “the extent of interest and concern that aconsumer brings to bear on a purchase deci-sion task”. He clarified this definition byindicating that purchase decision involve-ment was similar to situational involvementas discussed by Houston and Rothschild(1977) but offered the advantage of referringto situational variations in the process (i.e.emergency purchase of a product as opposedto its routine selection). The fact that thisconcept and measure have the purchase deci-sion task as their goal object does not implythat this construct should be assessed only atthe time of purchase. Mittal (1989) argueshowever that, like other purchase-relatedmindsets (e.g. brand attitudes and purchaseintentions), purchase decision involvementshould be measured as close to the time ofpurchase as possible. It follows from this thatthe concept attempts to embrace and theproposed scale to measure a mindset ratherthan a response behaviour manifested in thedecision-making process. For instance, aconsumer’s routine purchase of cigarettesshould not score low on the purchase involve-ment scale if the consumer is not indifferentto which brand among many is purchased.

In the course of its construction and test-ing, Mittal’s inventory was reduced from fiveto four items, though three further itemswere added in order to measure productimportance. (Table II shows the final seven-item scale.) (We refer again to the five original items below.) Empirical data werecollected through two studies whichemployed convenience samples. The first,consisting of 256 consumers, considered threeproduct groups: beer, cameras and jeans; the

[ 182 ]



second, of 138 students considering two tothree products each, yielded data on 15 prod-uct groups and 317 observations.Comparison of Zaichkowsky’s (1987a, 1987b)and Mittal’s (1989) definitions of involvementreveals little apparent difference. Both defini-tions are context free and, while Zaichkowsky(1987a, 1987b) emphasises relevance, needs,values and interests, Mittal (1989) stressesinterest and concern. It could be argued thatthe concern dimension expressed by Mittal(1989) comprises the relevance, needs andvalues expressed by Zaichkowsky (1987a,1987b). Hence the key difference between thedefinitions is that Mittal’s (1989) PIS is specifi-cally developed to measure purchase decisioninvolvement, whereas in order to tap thisaspect, users of Zaichkowsky’s (1987a, 1987b)RPII must specify purchase decisions as thecontext of the measuring instrument. Themeasurement scales should, therefore, showhigh convergent validity.

Method

SampleA nationwide commercial omnibus surveyidentified respondents who had purchased atleast one of the four financial products withinthe preceding nine months. From theomnibus survey, 830 adults (21 per cent of the total sample – and in line with industry

estimates) reported buying a financial services product in the previous nine months.A replied-paid postal questionnaire was thenplaced with these adults – 550 adults acceptedthe questionnaire (66 per cent of the buyingpopulation). This in turn produced 330 repliesof which 308 were usable (56 per cent of thosewho accepted the questionnaire or 37 per centof the buying population). A comparativeanalysis, between the population whoreported buying (n = 830) and the samplepopulation (n = 308), on the variables of age/socio demographic grouping/area/financialproduct bought suggested no differencebetween the two populations. The exceptionwas gender, where 52 per cent of the popula-tion who reported buying were females butonly 40 per cent were females in the sampleused. Further information on the sample andsampling can be found in Pallister and Foxall(1998).

AnalysisInternal reliability was assessed by means ofCronbach alpha scores and item-to-total correlations. Dimensionality, determined byfactor analysis, is used to establish the extentto which one factor accounts for the majorityof the variance in each case. Convergentvalidity is the extent to which, when the two scales are correlated, the convergentcoefficients are high and significantly different from zero, while discriminant validity is the extent to which the discrimi-nant coefficients for the two scales, whenmeasured against a construct believed to beorthogonal to involvement, are low and notsignificantly different from zero. For thispurpose, we employed the innovativenessscale devised by Hurt et al. (1977). Criterionvalidity is assessed by determining how fareach involvement scale discriminates significantly among consumers on chosencriterion measures across the four products.The two scales are tested against criterionvariables derived from three sources. (Thewording of these criterion items adapted,after piloting, for our questionnaire differsslightly from that given by the originalauthors.) The first five, developed byZaichkowsky (1985) from the work of Robert-son (1976), Lastovicka and Gardner (1979),Mitchell (1979), Tyebjee (1979) and Belk (1975)are:1 the reading of information about the finan-

cial product;2 the reading of consumer reports about the

financial product;3 comparing product characteristics among

companies;4 think there are a lot of differences among

companies;

Table IZaichkowsky (1987a, 1987b) revised Personal Involvement Inventory scale

The purpose of this study is to measure your involvement in “****”. If you feel closelyrelated to one end of scale, please place your check mark as follows:

interesting to me_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:boring to meinteresting to me_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:boring to me

If you feel quite closely related to one end of scale (but not extremely) please place yourcheck mark as follows:


If you feel only slightly related (but not neutral) to one end of scale, please place yourcheck mark as follows:


Buying of ……………………………is:1. important to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: unimportant to me2. boring to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: interesting to me3. relevant to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: irrelevant to me4. exciting to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: unexciting to me5. means nothing to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: means a lot to me6. appealing to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: unappealing to me7. fascinating to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: mundane to me8. worthless to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: valuable to me9. involving to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: uninvolving to me

10. not needed by me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: needed to me

[ 183 ]



5 a company always preferred.

The next two criterion variables, developedby Mittal (1989), contain two items designedto cover the extent of information search, assuggested by Houston and Rothschild (1978)and Bloch and Richins (1983)):1 the amount of information considered in

the brand selection.2 the extent of brand comparisons.

Finally four “global” criterion variables wereadopted from the work of Mittal and Lee (1989)and had been developed from the work of Mit-tal (1983), Laurent and Kapferer (1985),Zaichkowsky (1985) and Beatty and Smith(1987). These items were used as general state-ments of financial product buying as opposedto the product/brand specific nature of the firsttwo groups of criterion variables. They were:1 enjoyment of buying financial services;2 confidence in selecting the right product;3 discussion of financial services purchas-

ing with friends;4 frequency of attending to financial adver-

tising.

Results

Internal reliabilityTables III and IV show that, without exception,the internal reliability of both tests reaches

high levels. The RPII achieves Cronbach alphascores of between 0.85 (for buyers of mortgages)and 0.95 (non-buyers of pensions), with item-to-total score correlations of 0.49 to 0.85 for buyersand 0.55 to 0.86 for non-buyers. One item,“needed by me”, produced an unacceptablecorrelation of 0.27 for mortgage buyers (TableV). Item-to-total correlations test the homo-geneity of the scale which, apart from thisitem, is impressive. The Mittal scale achievesCronbach alpha scores of between 0.77 (mortgage buyers) and 0.87 (pensions buyers),with item-to-total score correlations of 0.49 to0.79 for buyers and 0.50 to 0.79 for non-buyers.In each product group and for both buyers andnon-buyers, the item brands/types being veryalike or very different produced unacceptableitem-to-total score correlations of between 0.21and 0.37, suggesting that this item requires atleast rewording and possibly elimination(Table VI). Mittal (1989) reports high loadingsfor this item for beer and cameras, but a lowloading for jeans. The high item-to-total correlations for the remaining items indicatean acceptable level of homogeneity. (See alsothe results of the factor analysis, below.) Mittal’s seven-point scale produces Cronbachalphas consistently lower than those for theten-point Zaichkowsky scale. Cronbach alphais known to be sensitive to the length of thescale and it is to be expected that the alphascores for the Mittal seven-item scale would beconsistently lower than those forZaichkowsky’s ten-point scale. Some authors(e.g. Briggs and Cheek, 1986) suggest that themean inter-item correlation, which is indepen-dent of scale length, should supplement Cronbach alpha. But another explanation isalso relevant. Our results may reflect the bi-polarity of the Zaichkowsky scale as comparedwith the Likert-type statement approachemployed by Mittal: while a Cronbach alphascore of 0.90 can be anticipated in the formercase (Nunnally, 1978), a “norm” of 0.80 isexpected for the latter (Carmines and Zeller,1979). The present results compare favourablywith those produced in earlier research: for theRPII: 0.95 (Zaichkowsky, 1985), 0.91-0.94(Zaichkowsky, 1987a, 1987b), 0.96 (Goldsmithand Emmert, 1991), 0.84 (Foxall and Bhate,1993); and for the Mittal (1988) five-point scale:0.80 (Goldsmith and Emmert, 1991).

Tables III and IV show that buyers weremore involved than non-buyers with lifeassurance, mortgages and savings and invest-ments on the Zaichkowsky (1987b) scale andwith mortgages and savings and investmentson the Mittal (1989) scale. No significant difference is found for pensions on eitherscale. Involvement levels do not differ amongthe buyer groups by product, though signifi-cant differences are apparent for non-buyers

Table IIMittal (1989), Purchase-decision Involvement Scale

1. In selecting from the many types and brands of this product available in the market,would you say that:I would not care at all I would care a great dealas to which one I buy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 as to which one I buy

2. Do you think that the various types and brands of this product available in the marketare all very alike or are all very different?They are alike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 They are all very different

3. How important would it be to you to make a right choice of this product?Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely important

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

Also, the fifth item which was initially included but subsequently dropped:

5. How important will be the purchase of this product in your life?Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very important

Strongly Stronglydisagree agree

6. (Product) is very important to me _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:

7. For me (product) does not matter _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:

8. (Product) is an important part of my life _:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:

[ 184 ]



Table IIIInvolvement (Zaichkowsky (1987a, 1987b) ten-point RPII scale) – Cronbach alpha test

Pensions Life assurance Mortgages Savings and investmenta * sd a * sd a * sd a * sd

Buyers 0.91 49.5 12.96 0.93 49.36 15.19 0.85 50.32 10.47 0.90 51.13 12.56

n = 86 90 56 160

Non-buyers 0.95 47.49 16.21 0.93 42.72 16.21 0.95 43.73 17.39 0.92 46.21 13.92

n = 206 204 234 132

Overall 0.95 48.07 15.94 0.93 44.75 16.17 0.94 45.00 16.48 0.91 48.91 13.4

n = 292 294 290 292

Difference of Not significant Significantly different Significantly different Significantly differentmeans of buyers at p < 0.001 level at p < 0.002 level at p < 0.002 levelbuyers and non-buyers t-test

Buyers are Buyers are Buyers aremore involved more involved more involved

Between buyers tests Between non-buyers testsNo significant differences Significant difference

between pensions and life(p < 0.000 level) pensions and mortgages (p < 0.000 level)

Notes:a = Cronbach alpha* = Mean score on involvement – range 10-70sd = Standard deviation

Table IVInvolvement (Mittal, 1989) seven-point PIS scale) – Cronbach alpha test

Pensions Life assurance Mortgages Savings and investmenta * sd a * sd a * sd a * sd

Buyers 0.87 41.88 7.14 0.85 40.82 8.4 0.77 41.75 5.8 0.80 41.49 6.74

n = 90 95 59 161

Non-buyers 0.84 40.29 8.07 0.85 38.86 8.68 0.82 38.03 0.86 8.61 38.37 7.98

n = 217 210 245 145

Overall 0.85 40.70 7.83 0.85 39.47 8.62 0.81 38.75 8.26 0.82 40.01 7.51

n = 307 305 304 306

Difference of Not significant Not significant Significantly different Significantly differentmeans of buyers at p < 0.000 level at p < 0.000 levelbuyers and non-buyers t-test

Buyers are Buyers aremore involved more involved

Between buyers tests Between non-buyers testsNo significant differences Significant differences

between pensions and lifeassurance (p < 0.05 level)

Notes:a = Cronbach alpha* = Mean score on involvement – range 7-49sd = Standard deviation

[ 185 ]



of pensions and non-buyers of life assuranceand mortgages on the Zaichkowsky (1987b)scale, and between non-buyers of pensionsand non-buyers of life assurance on the Mittal(1989) scale.

DimensionalityThe computation of coefficient alpha presup-poses scale unidimensionality (Cronbach,1951). Zaichkowsky (1985, 1987b) developed

her scale as a unidimensional construct,compared, for instance, with the intention-ally multi-dimensional measure devised byLaurent and Kapferer (1985). McQuarrie andMunson (1987) questioned the unidimension-ality of the original 20-item PII but therevised, ten-item version developed byZaichkowsky in 1987 was intended to main-tain unidimensionality and overcome theissue of attitude contamination. Mittal’s(1989) scale is not explicitly unidimensional,though there is some indication that itsauthor expected a unitary structure.

In order to test for unidimensionality, thescores for the two involvement scales werefactor analysed using varimax rotation withsquared multiple correlations in the diagonalfor factor extraction (Lee and Comrey, 1979).Table VII shows the general pattern of resultsfor Zaichkowsky’s RPII. With one exception,buyers of mortgages, one major factor canbroadly be said to account for the vast major-ity of the variance and all items loaded posi-tively on this factor.

Reviewing the factor analysis of theZaichkowsky (1987b) scale (Table VII), it isclear that with the buyers of pensions, lifeassurance, and savings and investments, themajor factor is the “external states” (Blochand Bruce, 1984; Muncy and Hunt, 1984)aspect of involvement, indicated by “impor-tant”, “relevant”, “needed”, “means a lot”.For these three groups of buyers, this factoraccounted for 58 per cent, 63 per cent and 53per cent of the variance, respectively. Thesecond factor is “internal states” (Bloch andBruce, 1984; Muncy and Hunt, 1984). Thesame pattern is found for non-buyers acrossall four products, though it is noteworthy thatthis rational factor accounts for a higheramount of variance for the non-buyers. Thisfinding is consistent with those ofZaichkowsky (1987b) for the product level; atthe brand level, however, she found that themajor factor loaded on the emotional level ofinvolvement with the rational aspects becom-ing secondary. In this research, the buyers ofparticular financial products (and, therefore,by implication, brands) did not go throughthis “transformation” process, i.e. they didnot become emotionally involved with thebrand.

The exception to this, buyers of mortgages,do seem to have gone through this transfor-mation with the major factor being the emo-tive one (exciting, appealing, fascinating) andaccounting for nearly 44 per cent of the vari-ance. The rational aspect splits, however, intotwo factors for this group. A possible explana-tion for this is that since some 39 per cent ofmortgage buyers were under 36 years old, theloading on “means a lot” and “valuable”

Table VInternal reliability item-to-total score correlations – Zaichkowsky (1987a,1987b) RPII

Pensions Life assurance Mortgages Savings and investment

Buyers1. Important 0.75 0.84 0.67 0.752. Relevant 0.72 0.77 0.59 0.643. Means nothing 0.75 0.85 0.63 0.744. Boring 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.605. Worthless 0.74 0.84 0.49 0.706. Exciting 0.62 0.65 0.49 0.667. Appealing 0.69 0.75 0.49 0.608. Mundane 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.499. Involving 0.68 0.71 0.57 0.66

10. Not needed 0.63 0.68 0.27 0.62

Non-buyers1. Important 0.86 0.82 0.86 0.782. Relevant 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.793. Means nothing 0.87 0.80 0.85 0.804. Boring 0.74 0.66 0.65 0.735. Worthless 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.786. Exciting 0.74 0.61 0.70 0.557. Appealing 0.82 0.72 0.76 0.648. Mundane 0.72 0.59 0.69 0.669. Involving 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.71

10. Not needed 0.82 0.77 0.83 0.66

Table VIInternal reliability item-to-total score correlations – Mittal (1989) PIS

Savings andPensions Life assurance Mortgages investment

Buyers1. Care which brand bought 0.76 0.72 0.60 0.622. Brands are all alike 0.35 0.29 0.21 0.353. Important to make right choice 0.77 0.79 0.53 0.674. Concerned about choice 0.72 0.69 0.58 0.545. Product important 0.67 0.77 0.61 0.606. Product does not matter 0.75 0.50 0.64 0.487. Important part of my life 0.67 0.63 0.55 0.62

Non-buyers1. Care which brand bought 0.67 0.57 0.62 0.682. Brands are all alike 0.36 0.37 0.26 0.283. Important to make right choice 0.71 0.66 0.61 0.754. Concerned about choice 0.64 0.57 0.59 0.655. Product important 0.75 0.79 0.77 0.686. Product does not matter 0.48 0.73 0.52 0.647. Important part of my life 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.53

[ 186 ]



could relate to first-time buyers, thus produc-ing this dichotomy.

Reviewing the factor analysis of the Mittal(1989) scale (Table VIII), it is clear that withbuyers of pensions, life assurance and mort-gages, the rational aspect of involvement isthe major factor, accounting for 61, 57 and 48per cent of the variance, respectively (“impor-tant to me”, “matters a great deal”, “impor-tant part of my life”) and that the emotivefactor is secondary. In contrast to our findings for the Zaichkowskyscale, the reverse is true here of the non-buyers. In this instance, pensions, life assurance and mortgages load on the emotional aspect of involvement: this, themajor factor, accounts for 54, 55 and 51 percent of the variance, respectively. This timethe exception is savings and investmentsproducts which adhere more closely to thepredicted pattern of both Zaichkowsky(1987b) and Mittal (1989) in which non-buyers(at the product level) load more heavily on therational aspect of involvement and the buyers(at the brand level) load more heavily on theemotional aspects. This happened only with

the savings and investment product groupwith the Mittal scale and, to a slightly lesserextent, with the mortgages product groupwith the Zaichkowsky scale.

It is interesting to note that if Mittal’s original fifth item (Importance of the pur-chase of this product on your life) is includedin the Mittal inventory, the factor analyses forthe Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales producemore consistent results. Including this itemyields the result that the “rational” aspect isconsistent across the two scales for buyersand non-buyers, with the exception of mortgages in the case of the Zaichkowskyscale and savings and investments for theMittal scale.

For the Zaichkowsky scale for buyers andnon-buyers, all Cronbach alpha scores exceed0.90 (with the exception of mortgage buyers,which was 0.85) and most items loaded on thefirst factor, which accounted for most of thevariance. (This does not imply that the sec-ond factor be ignored – see Harman, 1976 –but that, for practical purposes, the scalemight well be treated as unitary.) Theassumption of linear combination of the ten

Table VIIFactor analysis of the Zaichkowsky (1987a, 1987b) RPII scale (rotated factor matrix)

Savings and Pensions Life assurance Mortgages investment

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2

Buyers1. Important 0.86 0.26 0.90 0.29 0.16 0.55 0.73 0.86 0.272. Relevant 0.92 0.14 0.87 0.22 0.10 0.55 0.69 0.86 0.143. Means a lot 0.89 0.23 0.90 0.30 0.19 0.87 0.29 0.84 0.284. Interesting 0.29 0.83 0.34 0.78 0.80 0.41 0.03 0.29 0.725. Valuable 0.87 0.23 0.89 0.29 0.03 0.90 0.21 0.82 0.266. Exciting 0.08 0.94 0.20 0.90 0.91 0.05 –0.08 0.23 0.847. Appealing 0.27 0.83 0.39 0.80 0.75 –0.20 0.36 0.14 0.858. Fascinating 0.16 0.86 0.13 0.80 0.88 0.17 0.07 0.05 0.809. Involving 0.52 0.54 0.67 0.39 0.43 0.02 0.71 0.35 0.70

10. Needed 0.81 0.15 0.86 0.13 –0.17 0.22 0.68 0.87 0.10Eigen value 5.75 2.00 6.32 1.68 4.39 2.35 1.01 5.29 1.90Percentage

variance 57.50 20.00 63.20 16.80 43.90 23.50 10.10 52.90 19.00

Non-buyers1. Important 0.91 0.31 0.91 0.22 0.90 0.33 0.85 0.292. Relevant 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.22 0.92 0.24 0.89 0.263. Means a lot 0.82 0.43 0.84 0.30 0.88 0.33 0.90 0.274. Interesting 0.32 0.83 0.27 0.84 0.23 0.83 0.42 0.725. Valuable 0.87 0.36 0.86 0.34 0.87 0.33 0.84 0.306. Exciting 0.27 0.89 0.20 0.86 0.23 0.89 0.05 0.907. Appealing 0.41 0.83 0.39 0.77 0.38 0.80 0.27 0.778. Fascinating 0.26 0.87 0.17 0.86 0.23 0.88 0.28 0.779. Involving 0.56 0.59 0.66 0.49 0.47 0.69 0.37 0.75

10. Needed 0.88 0.29 0.89 0.18 0.91 0.27 0.80 0.19Eigen value 7.08 1.32 6.35 1.62 6.74 1.59 5.97 1.58Percentage

variance 70.80 13.20 63.50 16.20 67.40 15.90 59.70 15.80

[ 187 ]



items is thus substantiated (McDonald, 1981).For the Mittal scale, however, the situation isless clear cut for both buyers and non-buyers.As was expected for this shorter scale, theCronbach alphas were somewhat lower thanfor the Zaichkowsky scale. With the sameexception of mortgagee buyers, for whom thealpha was 0.77, however, all of the scores wereabove the norm of 0.80. While one major factor accounted for most of the variance,there is evidence that the scale item “thebrands/types being very alike or very differ-ent” caused problems in respect of buyers ofpensions, life assurance and mortgages: forthese buyers, this item loaded negatively onthe first factor. With non-buyers, the item“matters a great deal” loaded negatively forpensions and mortgages.

We have seen that it is not clear whetherMittal intended to design a unidimensionalscale, though he differentiated the four scaleitems relating to purchase involvement fromthe three relating to product importance/involvement. Both Mittal’s (1989) results and the present findings suggest unidimen-sionality, however. But while Mittal reportedthat this was purchase involvement, we havefound that the product importance dimension

is more prominent than purchase involve-ment. (Mittal’s results may have been distorted by the inclusion of cameras whichproduced a negative loading on the threeproduct importance items.)

Convergent and discriminant validityConvergent validity is demonstrated by positive correlations between different measures of the same trait; discriminantvalidity, by low and nonsignificant correla-tions between identical measures of differenttraits (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Churchill,1979). We assessed convergent validity bycorrelating the total scores on each of the four product scales with both the scores from theZaichkowsky measure and those for the Mittal scale (Table IX). In all instances, thereare high and statistically significant corre-lations between the two scales. The twoscales, therefore, are measuring the sametrait of purchase involvement for financialservices. We are aware that our testing forconvergent validity uses a total scoreapproach which assumes a unidimensionalconstruct. This is common practice which wefeel justified in adopting for presentpurposes, but it must be borne in mind that

Table VIIIFactor analysis of the Mittal (1989) PIS scale (rotated factor matrix)

Pensions Life assurance Mortgages Savings and investmentFactor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

Buyers1. Care a great deal in

selecting brand 0.40 0.83 0.45 0.73 0.52 0.57 0.81 0.262. Brands all very different –0.04 0.70 –0.14 0.78 –0.16 0.75 0.71 –0.013. Right choice very important 0.43 0.80 0.56 0.71 0.29 0.67 0.69 0.454. Very concerned about

outcome of choice 0.35 0.83 0.52 0.67 0.35 0.74 0.82 0.155. Important to me 0.92 0.14 0.76 0.41 0.89 0.07 0.16 0.866. Matters a great deal 0.86 0.31 0.82 –0.01 0.83 0.25 0.04 0.857. Important part of life 0.84 0.21 0.82 0.19 0.82 0.13 0.32 0.75

Eigen value 4.23 1.21 3.95 1.08 3.36 1.25 3.42 1.35Percentage

variance 60.70 17.20 56.50 15.40 48.00 17.90 48.90 19.10

Non-buyers1. Care a great deal in

selecting brand 0.83 0.28 0.86 0.16 0.82 0.28 0.31 0.822. Brands all very different 0.67 0.00 0.41 0.28 0.62 –0.06 –0.08 0.633. Right choice very important 0.73 0.43 0.88 0.26 0.84 0.25 0.44 0.804. Very concerned about

outcome of choice 0.85 0.22 0.86 0.18 0.87 0.20 0.35 0.805. Important to me 0.35 0.84 0.30 0.89 0.26 0.91 0.89 0.216. Matters a great deal –0.01 0.87 0.24 0.89 –0.02 0.91 0.81 0.247. Important part of life 0.31 0.78 0.17 0.90 0.25 0.82 0.80 0.10

Eigen value 3.78 1.24 3.84 1.32 3.58 1.59 3.77 1.17Percentage

variance 54.00 17.70 55.00 18.80 51.20 22.60 53.90 16.80

[ 188 ]



there are problems in using a total scoreapproach for dimensional constructs(Bagozzi, 1982, 1985).

Table X shows the results for discriminantvalidity, in which each of the involvementmeasures was correlated with respondents’scores on the innovativeness inventory ofHurt et al. (1977). The correlations are gener-ally low and not significantly different fromzero. The same pattern of exception to thisgeneralisation is apparent for both of theinvolvement scales. Three of the groups showlow yet significant correlations between eachof the Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales on onehand and the Hurt-Joseph-Cook scale on theother: buyers of savings and non-buyers ofpensions. Despite these exceptions, this testof discriminant validity suggests that theinvolvement scales of Zaichkowsky and Mit-tal are measuring a construct that is differentfrom innovativeness as conceptualised and

measured by Hurt et al. (1977). Celuch andEvans (1989) confirm this finding in the caseof high involvement products.

Criterion validityThe pattern of significant and positive corre-lations shown in Tables XI-XIII (Zaichkowsky)and XIV, XV and XVI (Mittal) between theproduct category involvement measures andthe behavioural criteria variables indicatesthat both scales possess some criterion validity. However, the concern across the fourproducts and two scales is the relatively lowand nonsignificant level of correlation frequently found. The virtual absence of anysignificant correlations for both buyers andnon-buyers of life assurance and mortgages(Zaichkowsky scale) and for buyers of theseproducts (Mittal) is especially evident.

Several criterion variables are related toZaichkowsky’s scale for buyers and non-buyers combined (Table XI).• Interested in reading information.*• Interested in reading consumer reports.*• Compared product characteristics between

companies.• Think there are a lot of differences between

companies.• Choice based on a great deal of information.• Extensive product comparisons.• Enjoy buying financial products.*• Confident to select the right product.• Often discuss financial products with

friends.• Often pay attention to financial advertising.*

However, only the four asterisked items showcorrelations of 0.40 or above. For buyers, ninecriterion variables correlate withZaichkowsky involvement for pensions, andseven for savings and investment (Table XII).But the other products show little consistentrelationship with this measure of involve-ment. For non-buyers of pensions, there is ahigh number of correlations between criterionvariables and Zaichkowsky involvement – allbut A company “always preferred –” though not all of the associations are of more thanmoderate strength (Table XIII). Mortgagesalso attracts a reasonable number of correla-tions for the non-buyers, though none of theseven is of more than moderate strength.

Five criterion variables are consistentlyrelated to all four products for buyers andnon-buyers combined (Table XI).• Interested in reading consumer reports.• Choice based on a great deal of information.• Extensive product comparisons.• Enjoy buying financial products.• Often discuss financial products with

friends.

Table IXConvergent validity utilising the Zaichkowsky(1987a, 1987b) and Mittal (1989) scales

Pensions Life Mortgages Savings

Correlations between Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales –by product, buyers, non-buyers and overall

Buyers 0.55a 0.72a 0.46b 0.58a

Non-buyers 0.57a 0.60a 0.69a 0.61a

Overall 0.60a 0.66a 0.65a 0.56a

Notes:a = significant at the p < 0.001 levelb = significant at the p < 0.01 level

Table X Discriminant validity utilising the Zaichkowsky(1987a, 1987b) and Mittal (1989) scales withHurt et al. (1977) Innovativeness scale

Pensions Life Mortgages Savings

Correlations between Hurt et al. Innovativeness scaleand the Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales – by product,buyers, non-buyers and overall

Correlations between the Hurt et al. and Zaichkowskyten-point scaleBuyers 0.20 0.10 0.02 0.24b

Non-buyers 0.21b 0.07 0.10 0.18Overall 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.22b

Correlations between the Hurt et al. and Mittal seven-point scaleBuyers 0.10 –0.01 0.06 0.28a

Non-buyers 0.18b 0.05 0.07 –0.08Overall 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.12

Notes:a = significant at the p < 0.001 levelb = significant at the p < 0.01 level

[ 189 ]



For buyers, however, only one criterion correlates consistently with the Zaichkowskyscale for all four products: “Enjoy buyingfinancial products”; this is also the sole criterion that correlates with this scale fornon-buyers for all of the products. This pattern is not mirrored in the case of theMittal scale. The results for the combinedsample (Table XIV) indicate a more compre-hensive display of significant correlations. Infact, there are only two criterion statementswhich do not achieve significance for any ofthe products: “A company always preferred”and “Confident to select the right product”.

Most of the remaining criterion variablescorrelate with all four products, though manyof the relationships are relatively weak inabsolute terms. The pattern of relationshipsis somewhat similar for buyers and non-buyers for pensions, though the correlationsare higher for buyers on the two criteriasuggested by Mittal (1989): Choice based on agreat deal of information, and Extensiveproduct comparisons (Tables XV and XVI).

In summary, the Zaichkowsky scale demon-strates criterion validity on pensions and savings and investments (with the notableexception of “A company I always prefer”);

Table XICriterion validity statements Zaichkowsky (1987a, 1987b) ten-point scale RPII

Savings andOverall Pensions Life assurance Mortgage investment

4.2 Interested in reading information 0.40a 0.14 0.18b 0.30a

4.3 Interested in reading consumer reports 0.40a 0.15b 0.18b 0.29a

4.4 Compared product characteristics between companies 0.37a 0.14 0.13 0.20b

4.5 Think there are a lot of differences between companies 0.27a –0.00 0.08 0.08

4.6 A company always preferred 0.09 –0.04 0.02 –0.044.7 Choice based on great deal of information 0.32a 0.17b 0.20a 0.174.8 Extensive product comparison 0.38a 0.18b 0.21a 0.13

15.1 Enjoy buying financial products 0.47a 0.22a 0.20a 0.34a

15.2 Confident to select the right product 0.20a 0.13 0.23a 0.17b

15.3 Often discuss with friends financial products 0.28a 0.28a 0.28a 0.23a

15.4 Often pay attention to financial advertising 0.45a 0.17b 0.12 0.22a

Notes:a = Significant at p < 0.001 levelb = Significant at p < 0.01 level

Table XIICriterion validity statements Zaichkowsky (1987a, 1987b) ten-point scale RPII

Savings andBuyers Pensions Life assurance Mortgage investment

4.2 Interested in reading information 0.47a 0.23 0.27 0.54a

4.3 Interested in reading consumer reports 0.30a 0.19 0.17 0.47a

4.4 Compared product characteristics between companies 0.39a 0.19 0.14 0.21b

4.5 Think there are a lot of differences between companies 0.28b 0.03 0.12 –0.01

4.6 A company always preferred 0.07 0.06 0.13 –0.034.7 Choice based on great deal of information 0.35a 0.01 0.37b 0.21b

4.8 Extensive product comparison 0.42a 0.29b 0.13 0.21b

15.1 Enjoy buying financial products 0.56a 0.30b 0.44a 0.37a

15.2 Confident to select the right product 0.19 0.14 0.41b 0.1815.3 Often discuss with friends financial products 0.31b 0.21 0.12 0.26a

15.4 Often pay attention to financial advertising 0.47a 0.35b 0.14 0.18


[ 190 ]



criterion validity cannot be claimed for thisscale; however, in the cases of life assuranceand mortgages for either buyers or non-buyers.The Mittal scale achieves criterion validity forpensions, life assurance, and savings andinvestment (though for buyers only in the lastcase) and for non-buyers of mortgages[1].

Implications

For consumer researchThe results indicate that for purchase deci-sion involvement in respect of pensions, life

assurance, mortgages and savings, and investments, both Zaichkowsky’s (1987b) RPIIand Mittal’s (1989) PIS inventories exhibithigh and acceptable levels of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity. Basedon this analysis, the two scales appearequally capable of capturing the construct of purchase decision involvement. Ourassessment of the dimensionality of thescales indicates that one major factoraccounts for most of the variance and that an additional factor plays a secondary part.This is so for both scales and confirms themas homogeneous, internally consistent or

Table XIIICriterion validity statements Zaichkowsky (1987a, 1987b) ten-point scale RPII

Savings andNon-buyers Pensions Life assurance Mortgage investment

4.2 Interested in reading information 0.38a 0.12 0.20b 0.43a

4.3 Interested in reading consumer reports 0.45a 0.13 0.20b 0.44a

4.4 Compared product characteristics between companies 0.37a 0.13 0.11 0.13

4.5 Think there are a lot of differences between companies 0.27a –0.00 0.08 0.14

4.6 A company always preferred 0.10 –0.09 0.03 –0.034.7 Choice based on great deal of information 0.32a 0.23b 0.17b 0.174.8 Extensive product comparison 0.37a 0.13 0.20b 0.07

15.1 Enjoy buying financial products 0.44a 0.19b 0.19b 0.25b

15.2 Confident to select the right product 0.21b 0.09 0.23a 0.1315.3 Often discuss with friends financial products 0.27a 0.29a 0.31a 0.1815.4 Often pay attention to financial advertising 0.45a 0.09 0.12 0.22


Table XIVCriterion validity statements Mittal (1989) seven-point PIS

Savings andOverall Pensions Life assurance Mortgage investment

4.2 Interested in reading information 0.39a 0.17b 0.21a 0.42a

4.3 Interested in reading consumer reports 0.39a 0.19a 0.20a 0.38a

4.4 Compared product characteristics between companies 0.32a 0.18a 0.20a 0.26a

4.5 Think there are a lot of differences between companies 0.35a 0.15b 0.28a 0.31a

4.6 A company always preferred 0.10 –0.01 0.06 –0.014.7 Choice based on great deal of information 0.34a 0.29a 0.27a 0.32a

4.8 Extensive product comparison 0.30a 0.25a 0.28a 0.28a

15.1 Enjoy buying financial products 0.37b 0.13 0.20a 0.33a

15.2 Confident to select the right product 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.0815.3 Often discuss with friends financial products 0.20a 0.30a 0.22a 0.15b

15.4 Often pay attention to financial advertising 0.39a 0.13 0.16b 0.29a


[ 191 ]



unidimensional measures of purchase decision involvement.

With the exception of the buyers of mortgages, the Zaichkowsky scale demon-strated that the rational aspect of purchaseinvolvement was the major factor for buyersand non-buyers. The emotional aspect wasthe secondary factor for non-buyers. Thisfinding is confirmed by Vaughn (1986) andPark and Young (1986) who also identified thefactors of importance/relevant/needed forpurchase decision involvement. Zaichkowsky(1987b) also confirmed this finding at the

product involvement level but she found thatthe emotional aspect became the major factorat the brand involvement level. The researchmight have expected this transformation alsoto have taken place at the buying level, i.e.that the emotional aspects of purchase deci-sion involvement would become the majorfactor once the brand has been selected. Thedimensionality of the Mittal scale, with theexception of savings and investment, is con-sistent with our findings on the Zaichkowskyscale at the buying level, i.e. the rationalaspect of purchase involvement was the

Table XVCriterion validity statements Mittal (1989) seven-point PIS

Savings andBuyers Pensions Life assurance Mortgage investment

4.2 Interested in reading information 0.36a 0.22 0.23 0.50a

4.3 Interested in reading consumer reports 0.28b 0.13 0.19 0.41a

4.4 Compared product characteristics between companies 0.38a 0.24 0.14 0.36a

4.5 Think there are a lot of differences between companies 0.39a 0.07 0.16 0.29a

4.6 A company always preferred 0.22 –0.04 –0.01 0.014.7 Choice based on great deal of information 0.45a 0.35a 0.27 0.40a

4.8 Extensive product comparison 0.43a 0.38a 0.11 0.42a

15.1 Enjoy buying financial products 0.32b 0.15 0.24 0.44a

15.2 Confident to select the right product 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.2015.3 Often discuss with friends financial products 0.24 0.31a 0.10 0.20b

15.4 Often pay attention to financial advertising 0.39a 0.23 0.14 0.43a


Table XVICriterion validity statements Mittal (1989) seven-point PIS

Savings andNon-buyers Pensions Life assurance Mortgage investment

4.2 Interested in reading information 0.39a 0.16 0.23a 0.31a

4.3 Interested in reading consumer reports 0.43b 0.22b 0.21a 0.32a

4.4 Compared product characteristics between companies 0.30a 0.17b 0.20a 0.13

4.5 Think there are a lot of differences between companies 0.34a 0.21b 0.30a 0.29a

4.6 A company always preferred 0.06 –0.02 0.07 –0.014.7 Choice based on great deal of information 0.30a 0.26a 0.27a 0.23b

4.8 Extensive product comparison 0.25a 0.19b 0.19a 0.14

15.1 Enjoy buying financial products 0.39a 0.12 0.21a 0.1415.2 Confident to select the right product 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.0515.3 Often discuss with friends financial products 0.18b 0.29a 0.24a 0.1115.4 Often pay attention to financial advertising 0.38a 0.06 0.16b 0.11


[ 192 ]



major factor. The opposite was the case fornon-buyers. Mittal’s own findings were con-sistent with the latter finding in that he foundthat at the product level the emotional aspectwas the major factor – as was the case withour non-buyers. Buyers, in our research,utilising the Mittal scale, exhibited the ratio-nal aspect of purchase decision involvement,consistent with our findings on theZaichkowsky scale. Clearly the issue is “whydoesn’t the buyer of financial services becomeemotionally involved with the brand?”. Is theproduct market so different from others? – byraising this question it runs counter to theargument, which is agreed by this research,that involvement research should be based onindividual behaviour (Antil, 1984; Ray, 1973) –thus the question is more to do with “why hasthe individual not “changed” when movingfrom the non-buying situation to the buying situation in this product market?”

For financial services marketingHence, the importance (and therefore rational)dimension of the decision seems to overridethe more emotional side of purchase decisioninvolvement. Maybe a key issue in this analysis is the item “The various types andbrands of financial products are all very alikeor are all very different”, which is the seconditem on the Mittal (1989) scale. Otherresearchers (Assael, 1984; Engel et al., 1986)have argued that perceived brand differencesare a condition of involvement. Whilst theseresearchers did not use the term purchaseinvolvement, in the context of this researchperceived brand differences should, perhaps,be the most relevant of all the variables; yet, when the item-to-total correla-tions are considered, this item produces thelowest correlation and well below the 0.50 levelof acceptance across all products and in boththe buying and non-buying situations.

The cause of this may be more to do withthe consumers’ (buyers’) uncertainty, doubtand confusion with the financial productmarket. Shelton’s (1994) research which wasmentioned in the Introduction and which wasconducted for Clerical Medical InvestmentGroup, suggests that consumers are sceptical,confused, pressurised, suspicious, dominatedand poorly treated, particularly by the lifeindustry, but also by financial servicesproviders in general. An example is therecent misrepresentation in the selling ofpensions. This situation is compounded bythe contrast between perceived risk andinformation search, a critical element in thebuying of financial products. Germunden(1985) put forward a number of reasons whythe risk-information-search hypothesis didnot necessarily hold, namely, “high perceived

risk decision makers do not search inten-sively for information because they perceiveavailable information sources either as nottrustworthy or as not competent”.

Early researchers of the risk-information-search hypothesis (Arndt, 1967; Cunningham,1967) stressed that consumers would prefer touse independent and personal sources toreduce risk. (This is confirmed in part in thisresearch by the fact that with savings andinvestment, buyers, in particular, use suchsources): “Information acquisition increasesperceived risk rather than decreasing it.”

Germunden (1985) discusses the work ofWeigel (1980), Katz (1960) in the context that adecision maker may want to increase the per-ceived risk in order to make a more efficientbuy. The “social influence process” may wellmake the buyer more risk conscious afterconsulting with family, friends and colleagues.The warnings and threats which result fromthese interaction processes serve to producehigher risks. “The influences of perceived riskon information search are suppressed bynumerous barriers and the costs of informa-tion.”

Clearly, searching, storing and processingof information can be a time-consumingprocess in a complex product market, i.e.cognitive capacity can be limited, and, asGermunden (1985) states: “with increasingcomplexity, barriers to understanding a prob-lem and expressing information-needs alsoincrease”. It is noteworthy, then, that ourresults indicate that non-buyers indulgemore extensively in initial informationsearch and processing than do buyers, but asthe purchasing decision is reached, complex-ity and barriers seem to emerge.

Note1 One further observation has implications for

future research. The differences betweenbuyers and non-buyers of financial servicesthat we have identified may be depressedbecause of the sampling procedure we adopted– each respondent had bought at least one ofthe products under investigation. Furtherwork employing these scales should, therefore,use a broader range of samples.

ReferencesAntil, J.H. (1984), “Conceptualization and opera-

tionalization of involvement”, in Kinnear, T.C.(Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11,Association for Consumer Research, AnnArbor, MI, pp. 203-9.

Arndt, J. (1967), “Role of product-related conversa-tions in the diffusion of a new product”, Jour-nal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, pp. 291-5.

Assael, H. (1984), Consumer Behaviour and Mar-keting Action, 2nd ed., Boston, MA, Kent.

[ 193 ]



Bagozzi, R.P. (1982), “Field investigation of thecausal relationships between cognition,affect, intentions and behavior”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 562-84.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1985), “Expectancy-value attitudemodels: an analysis of critical theoreticalissues”, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 2, pp. 43-60.

Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S.M. (1987), “Externalsearch effort: an investigation across severalproduct categories”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 14, pp. 83-95.

Belk, R.W. (1975), “Situational variables in con-sumer behaviour”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 2, pp. 157-64.

Bloch, P.H. and Bruce, G.D. (1984), “Productinvolvement as leisure behaviour”, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 11, Association for ConsumerResearch, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 197-201.

Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), “A theoreticalmodel for the study of product importanceperceptions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47No. 3, pp. 69-81.

Briggs, S.R. and Cheek, J.M. (1986), “The role offactor analysis in the development and evalu-ation of personality scales”, Journal of Per-sonality, Vol. 54, pp. 106-48.

Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergentand discriminant validity by the multitrait –multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 56, pp. 81-105.

Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), Reliabilityand Validity Assessment, Sage Publications, CA.

Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988), “The role ofinvolvement in attention and comprehensionprocesses”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 15, September, pp. 210-24.

Celuch, K. and Evans, R. (1989), “An analysis ofthe convergent and discriminant validity ofthe personal involvement inventory and theconsumer involvement profile”, PsychologicalReports, Vol. 65, pp. 1291-97.

Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developingbetter measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.

Cohen, J.C. (1983), “Involvement and you: 1000great ideas”, in Bagozzi, R.P. and Tybout, A.M.(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,Association for Consumer Research, AnnArbor, MI, pp. 325-8.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and theinternal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334

Cunningham, S.C. (1967), “Perceived risk as afactor in informal communications”, in Cox,D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, HarvardUniversity Press, Boston, MA, pp. 265-88.

Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W.(1986), Consumer Behaviour, 5th ed., TheDryden Press, New York, NY.

Foxall, G.R. and Bhate, S. (1993), “Cognitive stylesand personal involvement of market initiatorsfor ‘healthy’ food brands: implications for

adoption theory”, Journal of Economic Psy-chology, Vol. 14, pp. 33-56.

Germunden, H.G. (1985), “Perceived risk andinformation search: a systematic analysis ofthe empirical evidence”, International Jour-nal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 79-100.

Goldsmith, R.E. and Emmert, J. (1991), “Measur-ing product category involvement: a multi-trait – multimethod study”, Journal of Busi-ness Research, Vol. 23, pp. 363-71.

Goldsmith, R.E., Emmert, J. and Hofacker, C.(1991), “A causal model of consumer involve-ment: replication and extension”, WinterEducation Conference Proceedings: AmericanMarketing Association, pp. 330-8.

Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C. (1984), “Audienceinvolvement in advertising: four levels”, Jour-nal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 581-92.

Gunter, B. and Furnham, A. (1994), ConsumerProfiles, Routledge, London.

Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, 3rded., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Houston, M.J. and Rothschild, M.L. (1977), “Aparadigm for research on consumer involve-ment”, Working Paper 11-77-46, University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Houston, M.J. and Rothschild, M.L. (1978), “Con-ceptual and methodological perspectives oninvolvement”, in Jain, S.C. (Ed.), ResearchFrontiers in Marketing Dialogues and Direc-tions, American Marketing Association,Chicago, IL, pp. 184-87.

Hurt, H.Y., Joseph, K. and Cook, C.D. (1977), “Scalefor the measure of innovativeness”, HumanCommunication Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 58-65.

Katz, D. (1960), “The functional approach to thestudy of attitudes”, Public Opinion Quarterly,Vol. 24, pp. 161-204.

Krugman, H.E. (1965), “The impact of televisionadvertising: learning without involvement”,Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 349-56.

Krugman, H.E. (1966-67), “The measurement ofadvertising involvement”, Public OpinionQuarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 583-96.

Laaksonen, P. (1994), Consumer Involvement Con-cepts and Research, Routledge, London.

Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979), “Com-ponents of involvement in understandingattitudes and predicting social behaviour”, inMaloney, J. and Silverman, B. (Eds), AttitudeResearch Plays for High Stakes, AmericanMarketing Association, pp. 53-73.

Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J.N. (1985), “Measuringconsumer involvement profiles”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 22, pp. 41-53.

Lee, H.B. and Comrey, A.L. (1992), A First Coursein Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

McDonald, R.P. (1981), “The dimensionality of testsand items”, British Journal of Mathematicaland Statistical Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 100-17.

McQuarrie, E.F. and Munson, J.M. (1987), “TheZaichkowsky personal involvement inven-tory: modification and extension”, in Wallen-dorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in

[ 194 ]



Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 36-40.

Mitchell, A. (1979), “Involvement: a potentiallyimportant mediator of consumer behaviour”,in Wilkie, W.L. (Ed.), Advances in ConsumerBehaviour, Vol. 6, Association of ConsumerResearch, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.191-6.

Mitchell, A. (1981), “The dimensions of advertis-ing involvement”, in Monroe, K.R. (Ed.),Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Asso-ciation of Consumer Research, Ann Arbor MI,pp. 25-30.

Mittal, B. (1983), “Understanding the bases andeffects of involvement in the consumer choiceprocess”, (doctoral dissertation, University ofPittsburgh, 1982), University MicrofilmsInternational, Ann Arbor, MI.

Mittal, B. (1988), “The role of affective choicemode in the consumer purchase of expressiveproducts”, Journal of Economic Psychology,Vol. 9, pp. 499-524.

Mittal, B. (1989), “Measuring purchase decisioninvolvement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-62.

Mittal, B. and Lee, M.S. (1989), “A causal model ofconsumer involvement”, Journal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 10, pp. 363-89.

Muncy, J.A. and Hunt, S.D. (1984), “Consumerinvolvement: definition issues and researchdirections”, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 11, Association forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 193-6.

Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Pallister, J. and Foxall, G.R. (1988), “Psychometricproperties of the Hurt-Joseph-Cook scales forthe measurement of innovativeness”, Techno-vation (in press).

Park, C.W. and McClung, G.W. (1986), “The effectof TV program involvement on involvementwith commercials”, in Lutz, R. (Ed.), Advancesin Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Association forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 544-8.

Park, W.C. and Young, M.S. (1986), “Consumerresponse to television commercials: theimpact of involvement and background musicon brand attitude formation”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 11-24.

Ray, M.L. (1973), “Marketing communications andthe hierarchy of effects”, in Clarke, P. (Ed.),New Models for Mass CommunicationResearch, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA, pp. 147-76.

Robertson, T.S. (1976), “Low commitment con-sumer behaviour”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 19-24.

Shelton, B. (1994), “Who will survive in the year2000?”, Clerical Medical Investment Group(internal document).

Tyebjee, T. (1979), “Refinement of the involvementconcept: an advertising planning point ofview”, in Maloney, J. and Silverman, B. (Eds),Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes,American Marketing Association, pp. 94-111.

Vaughn, R. (1986), “How advertising works: aplanning model revisited”, Journal of Adver-tising Research, Vol. 26, pp. 57-66.

Weigel, K. (1980), “Das Informationverhalten vonKreditmanagern bei der Analyse vonJahresabschlssen gewerblicherKreditnehmer, Eine empirischeUntersuchung, Saarbrken” (dissertation).

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involve-ment construct”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 12, pp. 341-52.

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1987a), “The emotional aspectof product involvement”, in Melanie andDobson, P.A. (Eds), Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 14, Association of ConsumerResearch, Wallendorf, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 32-5.

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1987b), “The personal involve-ment inventory: reduction”, Revision andApplication to Advertising, Discussion PaperSeries, Faculty of Business Administration,Simon Frazer University, BC, Canada.

delvi-comparison of zaichkowsky and mittal scales

Documents