Marketing Scales Handbook: Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Insight Research (Volume 8) 0692395830, 9780692395837

Citation preview

MARKETING SCALES HANDBOOK ………………………………………………

Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Insight Research

Volume 8

Gordon C. Bruner II

GCBII Productions, LLC Fort Worth, Texas USA

Marketing Scales Handbook, Volume 8. Copyright © 2015, Gordon C. Bruner II. All rights reserved.

ISBN-10: 0692395830 ISBN-13: 978-0-692-39583-7 Reviews of the measurement scales in this book are the intellectual property of Gordon C. Bruner II. Unless otherwise noted, ownership and copyright of the scales themselves is not clear. The overwhelming majority of scales can be used freely but citations of the original sources or some previous users is expected when reports or papers are written that refer to the scales. Published by: GCBII Productions, LLC 6109 Timberwolfe Lane Fort Worth, Texas 76135 USA [email protected] 817-677-8876

Published in the United States of America.

Table of Contents ........... Preface

xviii

Acknowledgements

xx

Introduction

xxii

Scale Reviews

Scale #

1

Scale Name

Page #

1.

Ad Attribute Importance (Artistic Originality) ........................................................... 2

2.

Ad Attribute Importance (Authenticity) ................................................................... 3

3.

Ad Attribute Importance (Executional Quality) ......................................................... 4

4.

Ad Claim’s Precision.............................................................................................. 5

5.

Ad Headline Metaphoric Level ................................................................................ 6

6.

Affirmation of Customers....................................................................................... 7

7.

Aloneness ........................................................................................................... 8

8.

Analytic/Holistic Thinking Style .............................................................................. 9

9.

Analytic/Holistic Thinking Style ............................................................................ 11

10.

Anger ............................................................................................................... 13

11.

Anger (Empathetic) ............................................................................................ 14

12.

Animosity Toward Outsourced Countries ............................................................... 15

13.

Anxiety (General) ............................................................................................... 17

14.

Anxiety (Purchase) ............................................................................................. 18

15.

Appropriateness of the Warranty Time Units .......................................................... 19

16.

Attachment Avoidance ........................................................................................ 20

17.

Attachment to a Person ....................................................................................... 22

18.

Attachment to the Company (Anxiety) .................................................................. 23

19.

Attachment to the Company (Comforting) ............................................................. 25 iii

20.

Attention Overload ............................................................................................. 27

21.

Attitude Toward Advergames for Children (Negative) .............................................. 28

22.

Attitude Toward Advergames for Children (Positive) ............................................... 29

23.

Attitude Toward Advertising (Credibility) ............................................................... 30

24.

Attitude Toward Advertising (Entertaining) ............................................................ 32

25.

Attitude Toward Advertising (General) .................................................................. 34

26.

Attitude Toward Advertising (Good for Economy) ................................................... 35

27.

Attitude Toward Advertising (Informative) ............................................................. 37

28.

Attitude Toward Advertising (Materialism) ............................................................. 39

29.

Attitude Toward Advertising (Social Role) .............................................................. 41

30.

Attitude Toward Consuming the Food.................................................................... 43

31.

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (Believability) ............................................... 44

32.

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (Entertaining) ............................................... 45

33.

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (General) ..................................................... 46

34.

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (Realism Enhancement) ................................. 47

35.

Attitude Toward Offshoring .................................................................................. 48

36.

Attitude Toward Personalized Advertising (Benefits) ............................................... 49

37.

Attitude Toward Personalized Advertising (Irritating) .............................................. 50

38.

Attitude Toward Puzzles ...................................................................................... 51

39.

Attitude Toward Reading ..................................................................................... 52

40.

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Aesthetics) .................................................... 53

41.

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Community) .................................................. 54

42.

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Customization) .............................................. 55

43.

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Information Benefits) ..................................... 56

44.

Attitude Toward the Ad (Affective) ....................................................................... 57

45.

Attitude Toward the Ad (Deceptive) ...................................................................... 58

46.

Attitude Toward the Ad (Humorous) ..................................................................... 59 iv

47.

Attitude Toward the Ad (Relevance) ..................................................................... 60

48.

Attitude Toward the Ad (Trustworthiness) ............................................................. 61

49.

Attitude Toward the Brand Extension .................................................................... 62

50.

Attitude Toward the Brand Extension .................................................................... 63

51.

Attitude Toward the Brand .................................................................................. 64

52.

Attitude Toward the Brand .................................................................................. 65

53.

Attitude Toward the Cause .................................................................................. 67

54.

Attitude Toward the Company (Social Responsibility) .............................................. 68

55.

Attitude Toward the Company's Communications ................................................... 69

56.

Attitude Toward the Experience ........................................................................... 70

57.

Attitude Toward the Game ................................................................................... 71

58.

Attitude Toward the Game ................................................................................... 73

59.

Attitude Toward the Hiking Boots ......................................................................... 74

60.

Attitude Toward the Hotel ................................................................................... 75

61.

Attitude Toward the Movie (General) .................................................................... 76

62.

Attitude Toward the Object (Disgusting)................................................................ 77

63.

Attitude Toward the Person ................................................................................. 78

64.

Attitude Toward the Pricing Policy ........................................................................ 79

65.

Attitude Toward the Promotional Offer .................................................................. 80

66.

Attitude Toward the Responsible Drinking Ad (Challenge Appraisals) ........................ 81

67.

Attitude Toward the Responsible Drinking Ad (Threat Appraisals) ............................. 82

68.

Attitude Toward the Retailer (General Evaluative) .................................................. 83

69.

Attitude Toward the Salesperson (Informative) ...................................................... 84

70.

Attitude Toward the Store Brand .......................................................................... 85

71.

Attitude Toward Touching .................................................................................... 86

72.

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Being Helpful) ..................................................... 88

73.

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Self-Appraisal) .................................................... 89 v

74.

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Self-Enhancement) .............................................. 91

75.

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Social Bonding) ................................................... 93

76.

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Social Comparison) .............................................. 95

77.

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Teach Cultural Values) ......................................... 97

78.

Attractiveness (General) ..................................................................................... 99

79.

Authenticity of the Story ................................................................................... 101

80.

Availability of Green Products ............................................................................ 102

81.

Avoidance of Personalized Advertising................................................................. 104

82.

Awareness of Surroundings ............................................................................... 105

83.

Behavior of Other Customers (Suitability) ........................................................... 106

84.

Benefits of Organic Food ................................................................................... 107

85.

Brand Anthropomorphism.................................................................................. 108

86.

Brand Consciousness ........................................................................................ 109

87.

Brand Equity.................................................................................................... 110

88.

Brand Extension Authenticity (Avoiding Exploitation) ............................................ 112

89.

Brand Extension Authenticity (Honoring Heritage) ................................................ 113

90.

Brand Extension Authenticity (Maintaining Standards & Style) ............................... 114

91.

Brand Extension Authenticity (Preserving Essence) ............................................... 115

92.

Brand Extension Fit (Functional)......................................................................... 116

93.

Brand Extension Fit (Image) .............................................................................. 117

94.

Brand Extension Fit (Relevance) ......................................................................... 118

95.

Brand Extension Fit (Similarity).......................................................................... 119

96.

Brand Extension Fit (Similarity).......................................................................... 120

97.

Brand Globalness ............................................................................................. 122

98.

Brand Image (Conservative) .............................................................................. 124

99.

Brand Image (Innovative) ................................................................................. 125

100.

Brand Improvement ......................................................................................... 126 vi

101.

Brand Schematicity .......................................................................................... 127

102.

Brand Usage (Conspicuousness)......................................................................... 129

103.

Brand Values (Openness) .................................................................................. 130

104.

Brand Values (Self-Enhancement) ...................................................................... 132

105.

Brand Values (Socially Responsible) ................................................................... 134

106.

Cause Participation Via Purchase ........................................................................ 136

107.

Change (General) ............................................................................................. 137

108.

Charitable Behaviors (Social Reinforcement) ........................................................ 139

109.

Choice Difficulty ............................................................................................... 140

110.

Choice Maximization ......................................................................................... 141

111.

Cognitive Resource Demands ............................................................................. 142

112.

Cognitive Resource Demands ............................................................................. 144

113.

Commercial Friendship Likelihood ....................................................................... 145

114.

Commitment to Sustainability in a Social Medium (Internalization) ......................... 147

115.

Commitment to Sustainability in a Social Medium (Involvement)............................ 148

116.

Commitment to Sustainability in a Social Medium (Responsibility) .......................... 149

117.

Communication Encouragement (Parent/Child) .................................................... 150

118.

Company Profit-Maximization ............................................................................ 152

119.

Company Reputation (Dependability) .................................................................. 153

120.

Competitive Intensity of the Brand ..................................................................... 155

121.

Competitive Interpersonal Interaction ................................................................. 156

122.

Compliance with Norms to Purchase Green Products ............................................. 157

123.

Composting Intention ....................................................................................... 158

124.

Conceptual Fluency of the Brand ........................................................................ 159

125.

Congruence (Self with Product) .......................................................................... 160

126.

Consequences of Unhealthy Eating (Severity) ...................................................... 161

127.

Consequences of Unhealthy Eating (Vulnerability) ................................................ 162 vii

128.

Conservation Behavior ...................................................................................... 163

129.

Conservation Intention (Paper) .......................................................................... 164

130.

Conspicuous Logo Preference ............................................................................. 165

131.

Consumption Experiences (Confidence Building)................................................... 166

132.

Consumption Experiences (Novelty Seeking) ....................................................... 167

133.

Consumption Experiences (Social Benefits) .......................................................... 168

134.

Consumption Knowledge (Breadth)..................................................................... 169

135.

Consumption Knowledge (Depth) ....................................................................... 170

136.

Controllability of Shopping Websites ................................................................... 171

137.

Country’s Need for Help .................................................................................... 172

138.

Country-of-Origin Product Image (General) ......................................................... 173

139.

Country-of-Origin Product Image (General) ......................................................... 175

140.

Creativity (Personal) ......................................................................................... 177

141.

Creativity (Personal) ......................................................................................... 178

142.

Creativity of the Product ................................................................................... 179

143.

Credibility of Brand-Related Communications ....................................................... 180

144.

Currency Conversion Ease ................................................................................. 181

145.

Decision Closure .............................................................................................. 182

146.

Decision Importance ......................................................................................... 184

147.

Diet Restriction ................................................................................................ 185

148.

Dieting Expertise .............................................................................................. 186

149.

Difficulty Writing about the Experience ................................................................ 187

150.

Discomfort (Physical) ........................................................................................ 188

151.

Discomfort (Social) ........................................................................................... 189

152.

Discount Calculation Ease .................................................................................. 190

153.

Distraction During the Study.............................................................................. 191

154.

Donation Intention ........................................................................................... 192 viii

155.

Ease of Justifying a Moral Position ...................................................................... 193

156.

Eating Behavior (Emotional) .............................................................................. 194

157.

Eating Behavior (Restraint) ............................................................................... 196

158.

Eating Control Behavior .................................................................................... 198

159.

Eating Control Confidence ................................................................................. 199

160.

Ecocentrism..................................................................................................... 200

161.

Edibility of the Product ...................................................................................... 201

162.

Effectiveness of the Treatment for a Lethal Condition............................................ 202

163.

Efficacy of Another's Response to One's Participation ............................................ 203

164.

E-Mail Forwarding Ability ................................................................................... 204

165.

E-Mail Opening Ability ....................................................................................... 205

166.

Empathy ......................................................................................................... 206

167.

Engagement (General) ...................................................................................... 207

168.

Engagement with the Program ........................................................................... 208

169.

Environmentalism (Activist Behavior).................................................................. 210

170.

Environmentalism (Apathy) ............................................................................... 211

171.

Environmentalism (Purchasing Behavior) ............................................................ 212

172.

Environmentalism (Purchasing Behavior) ............................................................ 213

173.

Environmentalism (Reducing Air Pollution) .......................................................... 214

174.

Environmentalism (Reducing Pollution) ............................................................... 215

175.

Environmentalism (Social Norms) ....................................................................... 216

176.

Environmentalism (Solid Waste Reduction) .......................................................... 217

177.

Environmentalism (Sustainability Importance) ..................................................... 218

178.

Envy ............................................................................................................... 219

179.

Exchange Equity (Across Customers) .................................................................. 220

180.

Expertise (General) .......................................................................................... 221

181.

Expertise with Green Products ........................................................................... 223 ix

182.

Expertise with Video Games .............................................................................. 225

183.

Fairness of the Return Shipping Policy ................................................................ 226

184.

Fear of Disapproval .......................................................................................... 227

185.

Financial Well-Being ......................................................................................... 228

186.

Fit (Ad with Product)......................................................................................... 229

187.

Fit (Brand-Brand) ............................................................................................. 230

188.

Focus on Friends .............................................................................................. 232

189.

Food Salience .................................................................................................. 233

190.

Gambling Decision Difficulty .............................................................................. 234

191.

Game Playing Arousal ....................................................................................... 235

192.

Game Playing Enjoyment .................................................................................. 237

193.

Goal Attainment Motivation ............................................................................... 238

194.

Green Products Identification Ability ................................................................... 239

195.

Group Belongingness (Future) ........................................................................... 240

196.

Group Heterogeneity ........................................................................................ 241

197.

Guilt ............................................................................................................... 242

198.

Guilt ............................................................................................................... 243

199.

Guilt (Expected) ............................................................................................... 244

200.

Health Benefits of the Product (Immediate) ......................................................... 245

201.

Health Benefits of the Product (Long-term) ......................................................... 246

202.

Health Consciousness ....................................................................................... 247

203.

Health Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 249

204.

Health Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 250

205.

Homophily ....................................................................................................... 251

206.

Hoping for an Ideal Product ............................................................................... 252

207.

Identity Synergy .............................................................................................. 253

208.

Imagery Fluency .............................................................................................. 254 x

209.

Importance (General) ....................................................................................... 255

210.

Impression Management ................................................................................... 256

211.

Information Load ............................................................................................. 257

212.

Innovation Ability (Company’s) .......................................................................... 258

213.

Innovation Ability (Company’s) .......................................................................... 260

214.

Innovativeness (Technological) .......................................................................... 261

215.

Innovativeness Importance (Technological) ......................................................... 262

216.

Intention to Download the Coupon ..................................................................... 263

217.

Intention to Play the Game ................................................................................ 264

218.

Intention to Use the Lawyer .............................................................................. 265

219.

Involvement in the Task .................................................................................... 266

220.

Justice (Procedural) .......................................................................................... 267

221.

Justice (Procedural) .......................................................................................... 268

222.

Justice Concerns about Others ........................................................................... 269

223.

Justice Efficacy (Purchase of Free Trade Products) ................................................ 270

224.

Justice Restoration Efficacy (Purchase of Free Trade Products) ............................... 271

225.

Justice Restoration Potential .............................................................................. 272

226.

Justice Restoration Potential (Purchase of Fair Trade Products) .............................. 273

227.

Knowledge (Subjective) .................................................................................... 274

228.

Knowledge of Financial Products (Objective) ........................................................ 275

229.

Knowledge of Product Component Prices ............................................................. 277

230.

Knowledge of Stores' Prices ............................................................................... 278

231.

Knowledge of the Investment (Subjective) .......................................................... 279

232.

Knowledge of the Product Class ......................................................................... 280

233.

Knowledge of Vitamins (Subjective).................................................................... 282

234.

Legitimation of Online Gambling (Normative) ....................................................... 283

235.

Likelihood of Trying the Medication ..................................................................... 285 xi

236.

Loneliness (Emotional) ...................................................................................... 286

237.

Loneliness (General) ......................................................................................... 288

238.

Loneliness (Social) ........................................................................................... 290

239.

Loyalty to the Retailer....................................................................................... 292

240.

Loyalty to the Store .......................................................................................... 293

241.

Maladaptive Responses to the Environmental Challenge ........................................ 294

242.

Mathematical Strength ...................................................................................... 295

243.

Moral Decoupling of a Person’s Actions................................................................ 296

244.

Morality of the Brand ........................................................................................ 297

245.

Multicomponent Product Systems (Combination/Integration) ................................. 298

246.

Need for Human Interaction (Store Checkout) ..................................................... 299

247.

Need to Belong ................................................................................................ 300

248.

New Product Ideas (Designer Constraints) ........................................................... 302

249.

New Product Ideas (Designer Diversity) .............................................................. 304

250.

New Product Ideas (Designer Quantity)............................................................... 305

251.

Novelty (General) ............................................................................................. 306

252.

Outrage at the Church Practice .......................................................................... 307

253.

Packaging's Role in Controlling Consumption ....................................................... 308

254.

Participation (Patient with Physician) .................................................................. 309

255.

Participation Enjoyment (Service Process) ........................................................... 310

256.

Performance of the Athlete ................................................................................ 311

257.

Performance of the CEO .................................................................................... 312

258.

Performance of the Governor ............................................................................. 313

259.

Persuasion Resistance ....................................................................................... 314

260.

Physical Appearance of Other Customers ............................................................. 315

261.

Preference for Numerical Information ................................................................. 316

262.

Pressure to Conform in an Evaluation ................................................................. 317 xii

263.

Prestige of Consuming the Product ..................................................................... 318

264.

Prestige of the Behaviors (Comparative) ............................................................. 319

265.

Price Equity (Insurance Premiums) ..................................................................... 320

266.

Price Knowledge Confidence (Product Category) ................................................... 321

267.

Pride............................................................................................................... 322

268.

Pride in Game Playing Performance .................................................................... 323

269.

Privacy Concerns with Personalized Advertising .................................................... 324

270.

Product Contamination from Other Customers ..................................................... 326

271.

Product Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 327

272.

Product Effectiveness (Concentratedness) ........................................................... 328

273.

Product Evaluation (Food) ................................................................................. 329

274.

Product Scarcity ............................................................................................... 330

275.

Product Sharing Knowledge ............................................................................... 331

276.

Product Sharing Likelihood ................................................................................ 332

277.

Production Effort .............................................................................................. 333

278.

Public Transportation Usage Intention ................................................................. 334

279.

Publicness/Privateness of Consumption ............................................................... 336

280.

Purchase Dissimilarity ....................................................................................... 337

281.

Purchase Intention (Company’s Products) ........................................................... 338

282.

Quality of Green Products .................................................................................. 339

283.

Quality of Product Manufacturing........................................................................ 341

284.

Quality of the Brand ......................................................................................... 342

285.

Quality of the Brand ......................................................................................... 343

286.

Quality of the Brand ......................................................................................... 344

287.

Quality of the Brand Extension ........................................................................... 345

288.

Reactance ....................................................................................................... 346

289.

Recommending a Friend .................................................................................... 348 xiii

290.

Reconciling With the Company ........................................................................... 349

291.

Recycling Benefits ............................................................................................ 350

292.

Regret about Purchasing from the Retailer .......................................................... 351

293.

Relationship Importance (Customer with Business) .............................................. 352

294.

Relative Dullness of Two Ads ............................................................................. 353

295.

Relevance of the Story ...................................................................................... 354

296.

Reliability of the Brand ...................................................................................... 355

297.

Religious Commitment ...................................................................................... 356

298.

Repurchase Intention (Shopping Websites) ......................................................... 358

299.

Resentment ..................................................................................................... 359

300.

Response Efficacy (Following Nutritional Guidelines) ............................................. 360

301.

Responsibility for Product Return (Retailer) ......................................................... 361

302.

Responsibility for Product Return (Self) ............................................................... 362

303.

Reversal of the Story ........................................................................................ 363

304.

Risk (Product Scarcity)...................................................................................... 364

305.

Risk of Buying an Unfamiliar Brand ..................................................................... 365

306.

Satisfaction with Shopping Websites ................................................................... 367

307.

Satisfaction with the Medical Service .................................................................. 368

308.

Satisfaction with the Recovery Process ................................................................ 369

309.

Satisfaction with the Shopping Experience ........................................................... 370

310.

Saving Money .................................................................................................. 371

311.

Self-Accountability ........................................................................................... 372

312.

Self-Awareness (Private) ................................................................................... 374

313.

Self-Control (Spending) .................................................................................... 375

314.

Self-Efficacy (Following Nutritional Guidelines) ..................................................... 377

315.

Self-Efficacy (High) .......................................................................................... 378

316.

Self-Efficacy (Low) ........................................................................................... 379 xiv

317.

Self-Efficacy (Participation) ............................................................................... 380

318.

Self-Efficacy (Recovery) .................................................................................... 381

319.

Self-Efficacy (Self-Service Checkout Technology) ................................................. 382

320.

Self-Image Congruence with the Event ............................................................... 383

321.

Self-Integration in Production ............................................................................ 384

322.

Self-View ........................................................................................................ 385

323.

Self-View ........................................................................................................ 387

324.

Sharing (Social Utility) ...................................................................................... 388

325.

Shopping Control When With Others ................................................................... 389

326.

Shopping Intention ........................................................................................... 390

327.

Shopping Intimacy ........................................................................................... 391

328.

Shopping Orientation (Price vs. Quality) .............................................................. 393

329.

Shopping Orientation (Task Completion) ............................................................. 395

330.

Similarity to Another Person .............................................................................. 396

331.

Similarity to Other Customers ............................................................................ 397

332.

Similarity to the Ad Creator ............................................................................... 398

333.

Skepticism of Retailer’s Advertised Prices ............................................................ 399

334.

Skepticism of the Low-Price Guarantee ............................................................... 400

335.

Skepticism Toward the Price Information in the Ad ............................................... 401

336.

Social Media Usage ........................................................................................... 402

337.

Social Status Insecurity .................................................................................... 404

338.

Sophistication (General) .................................................................................... 405

339.

Spending Control Failure (Psychological Consequences) ........................................ 406

340.

Store Attributes Beliefs ..................................................................................... 407

341.

Store's Price-related Image ............................................................................... 409

342.

Stressfulness (General) ..................................................................................... 410

343.

Substitutability of a Shared vs. Owned Product .................................................... 411 xv

344.

Superiority (Social) .......................................................................................... 412

345.

Support for Customers ...................................................................................... 413

346.

Suspensefulness of the Object ........................................................................... 414

347.

Suspicion of an Ulterior Motive ........................................................................... 415

348.

Switching Costs (Store Checkout Method) ........................................................... 416

349.

Targetedness of the Ad ..................................................................................... 417

350.

Taste Evaluation .............................................................................................. 418

351.

Taste Evaluation .............................................................................................. 419

352.

Telepresence ................................................................................................... 420

353.

Telepresence (Internet Shopping) ...................................................................... 422

354.

Telepresence (Negative Physiological Responses) ................................................. 423

355.

Temporal Orientation (Present) .......................................................................... 424

356.

Threatened ...................................................................................................... 425

357.

Time Pressure (Grocery Shopping) ..................................................................... 426

358.

Tiredness from Exercise .................................................................................... 427

359.

Trust in Companies Producing Green Products ..................................................... 428

360.

Trust in Companies Selling Fair Trade Products .................................................... 429

361.

Trust in Internet Shopping ................................................................................ 430

362.

Trust in Internet Shopping ................................................................................ 431

363.

Trust in the Brand ............................................................................................ 432

364.

Trust in the Online Store ................................................................................... 434

365.

Trust in the Salesperson ................................................................................... 435

366.

Trust in the Salesperson ................................................................................... 436

367.

Trust in the Store ............................................................................................. 438

368.

Typicality (General) .......................................................................................... 439

369.

Typicality of Message Phrasing ........................................................................... 440

370.

Typicality of the Brand Strategy ......................................................................... 441 xvi

371.

Uncertainty of Downsizing Effects ....................................................................... 442

372.

Understanding the Experience ........................................................................... 443

373.

Uniqueness of the Brand ................................................................................... 444

374.

Value of the Magazine ....................................................................................... 445

375.

Values (Altruistic) ............................................................................................. 446

376.

Viral E-Mail Forwarding (Opportunity) ................................................................. 447

377.

Viral E-Mail Opening (Opportunity) ..................................................................... 448

378.

Viral E-Mail Opening (Subject Relevance) ............................................................ 449

379.

Visual Appeal ................................................................................................... 450

380.

Warmth .......................................................................................................... 451

381.

Website Interactivity (Speed of Response) .......................................................... 452

382.

Willingness to Pay a Price Premium .................................................................... 453

383.

Willingness to Play the Game Again .................................................................... 454

384.

Willingness to Purchase the Company's Products .................................................. 455

385.

Willingness to Support the Politician After a Scandal ............................................. 457

386.

Willingness to Try the Snack Food ...................................................................... 458

387.

Word-of-Mouth (Positive) .................................................................................. 459

388.

Word-of-Mouth Intention (Positive) .................................................................... 460

389.

Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (Negative).................................................................. 461

390.

Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (Negative) .................................................................. 463

391.

Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (Positive) ................................................................... 464

392.

Worry ............................................................................................................. 465

xvii

Preface . . . . . Books are not dead yet! Even though the database at the website (www.MarketingScales.com) contains several thousand reviews, interest in these compilations by individual researchers, students, and libraries continues. Given that, I have continued to create and publish the books rather than merely putting each new review in the database and moving on to the next review. Structurally, this volume is similar to Volume 7. By that I mean I have consciously limited the number of reviews I conducted. To get the work done in a timely manner, some scales were ignored while others were treated as “see also” online if they were the same or similar to ones included in past volumes. The effect of these limits is that the overwhelming majority of the reviews in this volume are of scales that have only been used once. A small number have been used a couple of times during the review period. In a few other cases, I came across scales that were somehow missed in my past work. Since most scales are only known to have been used once, the reviews in this volume are about a page long and the book is able to fit nearly 400 scales into less than 500 pages. As with Volumes 5, 6, and 7, one of the benefits of this ebook format is that it is much easier for users to find information of interest compared to the effort required with a paper book. A Table of Contents is included but users are urged to utilize the Find function that should be available in the software being used to read the book. Other potential benefits of the book being in a digital format are the ability to highlight passages that you consider important to your purpose, being able to leave comments for yourself on the pages of the text, and the ease with which scale items can be copied from a review and placed into a questionnaire. While I encourage researchers to use these scales, I urge them to credit those authors who created the scale or, in those cases where the origin is unknown, to at least cite some of the authors who have previously used it. While getting permission to use another researcher’s scale is rarely necessary in the marketing discipline, users are expected to give credit when measures are not their own and when they are building upon other researchers’ work. Finally, I recently read that a well-known movie critic in the U.S. was publishing the final edition of his long-running movie guide. The reason he gave for ending the series is that there were too few people interested in the information who were willing to pay what was necessary to support the staff needed to produce such a reference book. Although I have no staff, I completely understand the challenge of producing reference books that require tremendous amount of effort. There was a saying we joked about back in the 1990s after the first few paper volumes had come out. We heard it said that the Marketing Scales Handbooks were the most “stolen” books in marketing. That referred to the observation that one person would buy a book and it would be loaned out to others to the point that it would eventually “disappear.” The xviii

contemporary equivalent is even more likely to be true now that copying and sharing of ebook files is so easy. The point is that I am not certain how many more volumes such as this will be produced. The effort level is extremely high and the rewards are few, especially now that I am retired from academia. Having said that, I am not giving up just yet. I have already begun reviewing scales that appeared in articles published after the period covered in this volume. The day will come when I will step back from this work but, for the time-being, I plan to continue reviewing scales and would expect there will be a Volume 9 published in the next 2 to 3 years. Until then, my reviews of new scales will be added to the database at www.MarketingScales.com in a timely manner.

xix

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . When preparing to review scales, most of what I need comes from the journal articles in which the scales are reported. On occasion, however, when clarification or more details are needed, I attempt to contact the authors for the information. Unfortunately, not all of those I contact get back to me. I appreciate those listed below who have responded with information that helped in some way:

Tamar Avnet

Liat Hadar

Martin Schreier

Vishag Badrinarayanan

Kelly Haws

Maura Scott

Cheryl Burke Jarvis

Edith Shalev

Ann Kronrod

Kevin J. Shanahan

Anand Kumar

Eesha Sharma

Didem Kurt

Robert Smith

Son K. Lam

Gerri Spassova

Ben Lawrence

Susan Spiggle

Xiuping Li

Debora Thompson

Lan Luo

Carlos Torelli

Martin Mende

Kirk Wakefield

Sarah Moore

Liad Weiss

Hang Nguyen

Andrew E. Wilson

Mauricio Palmeira

Dengfeng Yan

Sanjay Puligadda

Mark Yi-Cheon Yim

Priya Raghubir

Eric Yorkston

Julie Baker Rajeev Batra Ali Besharat Barbara Briers Scot Burton Les Carlson Boyoun (Grace) Chae Joshua John Clarkson Xianchi Dai Thomas DeCarlo Rod Duclos Nathaniel J. Evans Judith Anne Garretson Folse Paul Fombelle Mark R. Gleim

Adam Rapp Alexandra Aguirre Rodriguez

xx

Additionally, my sincerest thanks go to the researchers who have purchased this book and/or previous volumes. Without your support, there is no doubt this effort could not continue. Finally, I appreciate my wife’s understanding of the time and effort I put into this work. Although she may not fully understand what it is I am writing about, she does know it is work I enjoy. May your measures always be valid!

Fort Worth, Texas March 2015

xxi

Introduction . . . . . . . . This eighth volume of the Marketing Scales Handbook series covers the scales that were reported in articles published in 2012 and 2013. As with the earlier volumes, this book should not be called a new “edition” since that implies content from the previous books was merely revised and updated a bit. Nothing could be further from the truth! This is a new “volume” because it covers a different time period than the other books in the series. Further, the content is completely new. While that does not always mean a scale was created and first reported in the articles published in 2012 or 2013, it does mean that none of the scales in this volume were in a previous volume of this series. If users are looking for something that is not in this book, they are urged to check out the full database at www.MarketingScales.com where several thousand reviews of other scales are available. Similar to Volumes 4 to 7, this volume is composed entirely of scales that were used in scholarly research of “consumers” or similar groups of respondents, e.g., viewers, patients, citizens, etc. Dozens of the scales in this volume are amenable for use in a wide variety of studies and with all sorts of people, including those in an organizational context such as administrators and employees. To be part of this volume, scales had to be composed of three or more items, have an acceptable level of empirical evidence of their psychometric quality, and be reflective measures rather than formative. There were three other criteria used as well. As described below, one was a constraint imposed at the scale level, one was a constraint at the construct level, and the final one had to do with time. At the scale level, some measures found in articles were not included because they were the same or very similar to ones that had been reviewed in previous volumes. Because of that, there are no scales in this book with lots of uses reported over many years. Another criterion used to focus the work involved in creating this volume was at the construct level. How many unique, alternative measures of a construct have already been reviewed and are housed now in the Marketing Scales database? Having alternative measures of the same construct is useful to researchers so that they can compare the various characteristics and choose the scale that best suits their purpose. At some point, however, the endless review of measures of the same construct is not the best use of time. While there was no hard and fast rule to guide constraint, suffice it to say that the greater the number of different measures of a construct that have already been reviewed in past volumes, the less likely that yet another measure was reviewed. The final major criterion used to manage the workload was to focus on articles from a two year period. This was begun with Volume 7 and has been continued with Volume 8. An initial examination was conducted of 650+ articles published in six top xxii

marketing journals during 2012 and 2013. From that group, 176 articles received greater scrutiny because they appeared to have measures of the type included in the book. After closer examination, some of those articles were dismissed because the measures they included did not meet enough of the stated criteria or the authors did not respond to requests for more information. Ultimately, there were 144 articles from the marketing literature domain with 392 scales that were reviewed for this book. Assigning titles to scales (naming them) is more challenging than might be imagined. It is not as simple as calling them what the users did. In some cases, the researchers described a scale but did not give it a “proper” name, e.g., the attitude scale used in the field survey. Other times, a scale was given a name by authors that made sense in the context of their particular study but was more wide known with a general construct name, e.g., evaluation of the quality of the fictitious brand extension vs. quality of the brand. Given this, several things were taken into account when deciding what to call each scale: what did the creators call it, what have other users called measures of the same construct, and is the name relatively short? The layout of reviews is exactly the same as followed in the last few volumes. Details about the type of information found in the various sections of each scale review are provided in the table on the next page.

xxiii

TABLE Description of Scale Review Format SCALE NAME: A relatively short, descriptive title is assigned to each scale. Several issues are taken into account when assigning a title and the name may not be the one used by the authors. See discussion above for more details.

SCALE DESCRIPTION: A few sentences are used to succinctly describe the construct apparently being assessed and the number of items composing the scale. If known, the number of points on the rating scale and the response format (e.g., Likert, semantic differential) are stated as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: Information about the creation of the scale is provided, if known. In a substantial portion of cases, the source of the scale was not stated by the authors of the article. While in many and maybe most of those cases the authors were the creators of the scale, it is not always true. Sometimes the authors of the article do not cite the source and it leaves the impression the measure is original even though they borrowed it from someone else. The opposite also occurs too many times. Specifically, authors describe their scale as “adapted” from a particular source. Yet, when a comparison is made between the new “adapted” scale and the cited one, there is little resemblance.

RELIABILITY: For the most part, reliability is described in terms of internal consistency, most typically with Cronbach's alpha or construct reliability. In the few cases where it is known, scale stability (test-retest correlation) is reported as well. With respect to those statistics, higher numbers are generally better. With particular regard to internal consistency, statistics below .60 if not .70 as well could be considered insufficiently reliable for testing theory.

VALIDITY: There are several types of validity and no one study is expected to fully validate a scale. While it is hoped that authors of each study would provide at least some evidence of a scale’s validity, the reality has been the opposite. Most articles do not have information about scale validity. At the other extreme, a few authors have provided so much information in their articles about the scale validation that it is merely summarized in this field. In those cases, readers are urged to consult the cited articles for more details.

COMMENTS: This field is used occasionally when something significant was observed and was deemed important to point out but did not fit well in the other sections. For example, if something about a scale is judged to be deficient then readers are urged in this section to exercise caution in using the scale.

xxiv

REFERENCES: Every source cited in a review is referenced in this section. The six journals that were closely examined for articles with scales are Journal of Advertising, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, and Journal of Retailing. Citation of additional journals, books, proceedings, and other sources are provided when relevant. As stated in the Acknowledgements, in many cases the scale users themselves were contacted. If they responded and provided useful information, they were cited.

SCALE ITEMS: The statements, adjectives, or questions composing a scale are listed in this field. Also, an indication of the response format is provided unless it is has been adequately specified in the Scale Description section. For example, if a measure is described as “Likert-type” it can be assumed that the extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were strongly agree / strongly disagree or some close variant. Where an item is followed by an (r) it means that the numerical response should be reverse-coded when calculating scale scores. Since errors involving notation of reverse-coding can occur at various stages of the article composition, review, editing, and publication process, users of scales are urged to examine items closely to determine which ones should be reverse-coded.

xxv

SCALE REVIEWS

1

Ad Attribute Importance (Artistic Originality) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The importance a person places on artistry and creativity in judging the quality of an advertisement is measured in this scale using four, five-point uni-polar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) generated items for this scale and two companion measures (executional quality of the ad and ad authenticity) by drawing inspiration from past measures of ad characteristics. As discussed further below, the authors used EFA to determine which of 17 ad attributes represented which dimension. The scale was used in Study 3b with a sample of 200 people drawn from the Amazon MTurk national online panel.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .74 (Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel 2013, p. 303).

VALIDITY: The authors did not address the scale's validity. However, they did use EFA (with both Varimax and Oblimin rotations) and found that the 17 ad attributes loaded on three different factors. The four items shown below loaded on what the authors called "artistic originality."

REFERENCES: Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS:1 With respect to the attributes listed below, please judge how important each of them is to you in judging how good or bad you believe the ad was.2 1. 2. 3. 4.

Storyline/Script Quality Artistry Creativity of the Ad Uniqueness of the Ad

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by the authors with these items were extremely unimportant / extremely important. 2. The scale stem and instructions were not provided in the article. This scale stem is provided to give an idea of what the participants might have been asked to do with the items.

2

Ad Attribute Importance (Authenticity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has three, five-point uni-polar items and measures how important a person believes realism and believability are in evaluating an advertisement's quality.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) generated items for this scale and two companion measures (executional quality of the ad and artistic originality) by drawing inspiration from past measures of ad characteristics. As discussed further below, the authors used EFA to determine which of 17 ad attributes represented particular facets. The scale was used in Study 3b with a sample of 200 people drawn from the Amazon MTurk national online panel.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .79 (Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel 2013, p. 303).

VALIDITY: The authors did not address the scale's validity. However, they did use EFA (with both Varimax and Oblimin rotations) and found that the 17 ad attributes loaded on three different factors. The three items shown below loaded on what the authors called "authenticity."

REFERENCES: Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS:1 With respect to the attributes listed below, please judge how important each of them is to you in judging how good or bad you believe the ad was.2 1. 2. 3.

Realism of the ad Authenticity of the ad Trustworthiness of the ad

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by the authors with these items were extremely unimportant / extremely important. 2. The scale stem and instructions were not provided in the article. This scale stem is provided to give an idea of what the directions might have been.

3

Ad Attribute Importance (Executional Quality) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Ten, five-point uni-polar items are used to measure how important a person believes technical aspects (lighting, sound, editing) are to judging an ad's quality.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) generated items for this scale and two companion measures (ad artistic originality and ad authenticity) by drawing inspiration from past measures of ad characteristics. As discussed further below, the authors used EFA to determine which of 17 ad attributes represented the same facet. The scale was used in Study 3b with a sample of 200 people drawn from the Amazon MTurk national online panel.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .90 (Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel 2013, p. 303).

VALIDITY: The authors did not address the scale's validity. However, they did use EFA (with both Varimax and Oblimin rotations) and found that the 17 ad attributes loaded on three different factors. The ten items shown below loaded on what the authors called "executional quality."

REFERENCES: Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS:1 With respect to the attributes listed below, please indicate how important each of them is to you in judging how good or bad you believe the ad was.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Production Professionalism Technical Sophistication Quality of Lighting Quality of Sound Quality of Video/Photography Quality of Video Editing Execution Quality Quality of Acting/Animation Quality of Colors Quality of Music

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by the authors with these items were extremely unimportant / extremely important. 2. The scale stem and instructions were not provided in the article. This scale stem is provided to give an idea of what the participants were asked to do with the items.

4

Ad Claim’s Precision SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of exactitude a person believes was used in a particular advertising claim is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Xie and Kronrod (2012) was not stated. It appears to have been created by them. They used the scale to measure participants' attitudes regarding the precision of a numerical claim made in an ad.

RELIABILITY: In Study 1a by Xie and Kronrod (2012), the alpha was .87. (The scale was used in all of the other studies reported in the article but the reliability was only stated for 1a.)

VALIDITY: Xie and Kronrod (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, to the extent that the scale was used as a manipulation check and it was successful, that provides some limited evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Xie, Guang-Xin and Ann Kronrod (2012), "Is the Devil in the Details?" Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 103-117.

SCALE ITEMS:1 The _____ mentioned in the advertisement is: 1. 2. 3. 4.

exact detailed precise specific

1. An appropriate name for the focal piece of information should be placed in the blank. Xie and Kronrod (2012) used the word "number" because the precision of a numerical claim was being studied. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were definitely not (1) and definitely yes (7).

5

Ad Headline Metaphoric Level SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures the extent to which a person believes the headline for an advertisement states something that is symbolic regarding a product but is not literally true. Four, sevenpoint Likert-type items compose the scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: Chang and Yen (2013) borrowed the scale from Ang (2002). In research by the latter, the internal consistency of the scale was .81 and .73 as used with utilitarian and symbolic products, respectively. The study in which Chang and Yen (2013) used the scale had a final sample of 408 participants who were undergraduate students attending a large university in southern Taiwan.

RELIABILITY: In the study conducted by Chang and Yen (2013), the scale's alpha was .85.

VALIDITY: Chang and Yen (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Ang, Swee Hoon (2002), “Effects of Metaphoric Advertising Among Mainland Chinese Consumers,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 8 (3), 178–88. Chang, Chun-Tuan and Ching-Ting Yen (2013), " Missing Ingredients in Metaphor Advertising: The Right Formula of Metaphor Type, Product Type, and Need for Cognition," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 80-94.

SCALE ITEMS: To what extent do you think the headline . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

is metaphoric? encourages imagination? tries to suggest qualities of the product by associating it with another object? is direct in saying what the product can do? (r)

6

Affirmation of Customers SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief that an organization provides positive feedback about his/her reaching an identity goal is measured in this scale using three, seven-point items. The phrasing of the items can be tailored for a specific organization and a specific role a person plays with the organization, e.g., shopper, employee, volunteer.

SCALE ORIGIN: Fombelle et al. (2012) created a three item scale by drawing ideas and phrases from a couple of measures of partner affirmation by Drigotas et al. (1999). Unique to the study of Fombelle et al. (2012), participants filled out the three scale items three times, once for each of three top consumer "identities" they had with an organization, e.g., shopper, teacher, parent. (Sixteen possible identities had been determined in a pre-test.) Then, an overall scale score was calculated in a multi-step process (Fombelle 2013). The three scores for item 1 were multiplied. Likewise, the same was done for the other two items. Then, the products of those three multiplications were added as they would be in a normal summated scale. This approach was taken to account for the individual strength of each identity.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was reported as .98 by Fombelle et al. (2012). Keep in mind that the alpha value was increased to some extent by the three scale items being completed three times.

VALIDITY: The CFA conducted by Fombelle et al. (2012) showed that their hypothesized model fit the data well. With respect to the affirmation scale, the AVE was .94.

REFERENCES: Drigotas, Stephen M., Carly E. Rusbult, Jennifer Wieselquist, and Sarah Whitton (1999), "Close Partner as Sculptor of Ideal Self: Behavioral Affirmation and the Michelangelo Phenomenon," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (2), 293–323. Fombelle, Paul W. (2013), personal correspondence. Fombelle, Paul W., Cheryl Burke Jarvis, James Ward, and Lonnie Ostrom (2012), "Leveraging Customers’ Multiple Identities: Identity Synergy as a Driver of Organizational Identification," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 587-604.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The _____ sees me as a good __________. The _____ thinks I have the traits and dispositions of a good __________. The _____ treats me like I am a good __________.

1. The shorter blank at the beginning of the items should be filled with the name of the focal organization. The longer blanks at the end of the items should be filled with a particular "identity," e.g., shopper, community member, volunteer.

7

Aloneness SCALE DESCRIPTION: Eight, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the extent to which a person feels excluded and unaccepted. While the construct measured is extremely close to what is usually meant by "loneliness," more of the items in this scale have to do with one’s isolation rather than the affective response to it, e.g., unhappiness.

SCALE ORIGIN: Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) used the scale in Study 4 of the five described in their article and referred to it as belongingness. The results were based on responses from 216 business school undergraduates attending either the University of Pittsburgh or the Georgia Institute of Technology. The source of the scale was not identified and is assumed to have been the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .87 (Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia 2013, p. 668).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013).

REFERENCES: Dommer, Sara Loughran, Vanitha Swaminathan, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2013), "Using Differentiated Brands to Deflect Exclusion and Protect Inclusion: The Moderating Role of SelfEsteem on Attachment to Differentiated Brands," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 657675.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I feel like I don’t fit in. When I am with others, I feel like I don’t belong. I feel like others don’t accept me. I am often not included in other people’s plans. I feel excluded a lot of the time. I worry about whether other people care about me. I want other people to accept me. I feel alone.

1. Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) described the scale as a seven-point Likert-type. Given that, the extreme verbal anchors could have been something like the typically used strongly disagree/strongly agree. Further, because they wanted to use the scale as a measure of belongingness, the authors reverse-scored each item. That is unnecessary if the construct is viewed as aloneness or something conceptually similar to it.

8

Analytic/Holistic Thinking Style SCALE DESCRIPTION: The intended construct being measured has to do with a person's general tendency to think either analytically (focus on the parts) or holistically (focus on the whole). The scale is composed of six, five-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012) in their Study 3 is a subscale of a larger instrument called the Analysis-Holism Scale constructed by Choi, Koo, and Choi (2007). The latter set of authors reported the results of six studies that provided evidence in support of the instrument's reliability and validity. However, there is concern about the strength of that evidence, at least as it regards what they called the locus of attention subscale (the one used by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala 2012). The range of the reported internal consistencies of the subscale was from .56 (Study 1) to .71 (Study 3). Further, one item of the scale (#6 below) loaded extremely low on the factor that the other five loaded on. In fact, it loaded much higher on another factor in the instrument. Yet, Choi, Koo, and Choi (2007) decided to keep the item in the scale because of its "face validity;" i.e., despite the empirical evidence to the contrary, they believed the item represented the same construct as the other items in the scale (p. 704).

RELIABILITY: When used by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012), the scale's alpha was .69.

VALIDITY: No evidence was provided by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012) in support of the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Given the scale's low internal consistencies in multiple studies and its lack of unidimensionality, its psychometric quality is a concern. The possibility exists that if item #6 is removed then those problems could be alleviated. Certainly, caution is called for in use of this scale until further testing and improvement occurs.

REFERENCES: Choi, Incheol, Minkyung Koo, and Jong An Choi (2007), “Individual Differences in Analytic versus Holistic Thinking,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (5), 691–705. Ein-Gar, Danit, Baba Shiv, and Zakary L. Tormala (2012), "When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: The Positive Effect of Negative Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 846-859.

9

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The whole, rather than its parts, should be considered in order to understand a phenomenon. 2. It is more important to pay attention to the whole than its parts. 3. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 4. It is more important to pay attention to the whole context rather than the details. 5. It is not possible to understand the parts without considering the whole picture. 6. We should consider the situation a person is faced with, as well as his/her personality.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012) on the response scale were does not describe me at all (1) and describes me very much (5).

10

Analytic/Holistic Thinking Style SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using ten items, the scale attempts to measure a person's cognitive orientation to either focus on the whole more so than the parts (holistic thinking) or to devote more attention to the parts than to the whole (analytic thinking).

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in a study by Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) in which data were gathered from college students in the U.S. and South Korea. The Korean version of the questionnaire was translated/back-translated and then pretested. The authors stated that the scale was "adapted" from measures by Choi et al. (2007) and Nisbett et al. (2001). Indeed, items #1 to #8 (below) are the same or very similar to items taken from two different scales by Choi et al. (2007). The source of items #9 and #10 is not as clear, however. Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) may have written them based on inspiration received from concepts discussed in the article by Nisbett et al. (2001) since the latter did not have a scale with those items.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .756 (Badrinarayanan 2013).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Badrinarayanan et al. (2012).

REFERENCES: Badrinarayanan, Vishag (2013), personal correspondence. Badrinarayanan, Vishag, Enrique P. Becerra, Chung-Hyun Kim, and Sreedhar Madhavaram (2012), "Transference and Congruence Effects on Purchase Intentions in Online Stores of Multi-channel Retailers: Initial Evidence from the U.S. and South Korea," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 539–557. Choi, Incheol, Minkyung Koo, and Jong An Choi (2007), “Individual Differences in Analytic versus Holistic Thinking,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (5), 691–705. Nisbett, Richard E., Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, and Ara Norenzayan (2001), "Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic versus Analytic Cognition," Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291310.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Everything in the universe is somehow related to each other. 2. Even a small amount of change in any element in the universe can to substantial alterations in others. 3. Any phenomenon has numerous number of causes although some of the causes are not known. 4. Any phenomenon has numerous number of results although some the results are not known. 5. Nothing is unrelated. 11

6. 7. 8. 9. it. 10.

It’s not possible to understand the pieces without considering the whole picture. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Paying attention to the field is more important than paying attention to its elements. A marker of good architecture is how harmoniously it blends with other buildings around Sometimes, the empty space in a painting is just as important as the objects.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described. A Likert-type response format appears to be appropriate (e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree).

12

Anger SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using four, uni-polar items, the scale measures the extent to which a person experienced feelings of resentment and outrage during a particular event.

SCALE ORIGIN: Joireman et al. (2013) used the scale in all three studies reported in their article. Analyses were based on: 226 travelers who had complained to the Canadian Transportation Agency (Study 1); a panel of 249 U.S. consumers (Study 2); and, 434 undergraduates (Study 3). The authors indicated their scale was based on a measure by Bougie, Pieters, and Zeelenberg (2003) but, comparison of the two scales shows there is only one item in common. Given that, Joireman et al. (2013) are assumed to have created the scale for use in their studies.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities provided by Joireman et al. (2013) for the scale were .92 (Study 1), .96 (Study 2), and .87 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Joireman et al. (2013) in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs ranged from .74 to .81.

REFERENCES: Bougie, Roger, Rik Pieters, and Marcel Zeelenberg (2003), “Angry Customers Don’t Come Back, They Get Back: The Experience and Behavioral Implications of Anger and Dissatisfaction,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (4), 377–93. Joireman, Jeff, Yany Grégoire, Berna Devezer, and Thomas M. Tripp (2013), "When Do Customers Offer Firms a 'Second Chance' Following a Double Deviation? The Impact of Inferred Firm Motives on Customer Revenge and Reconciliation," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 315-337.

SCALE ITEMS:1 During the incident, I felt . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

outraged resentful indignation angry

1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Joireman et al. (2013) with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

13

Anger (Empathetic) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the level of anger a person typically experiences upon learning that a person or group of people have been hurt in some way by others.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Shanahan et al. (2012) is composed of three items taken from the Trait Empathetic Anger scale by Vitaglione and Barnett (1999, 2003). The former selected those three items in particular because the other four items were not relevant to their study (Shanahan 2014). The data collected by Shanahan et al. (2012) for their study came from a panel owned by a large university in the United States. Usable responses were received from 264 panel members.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .918 (Shanahan 2014).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Shanahan et al. (2012).

REFERENCES: Shanahan, Kevin J. (2014), personal correspondence. Shanahan, Kevin J., Christopher D. Hopkins, Les Carlson, and Mary Anne Raymond (2012), "Depictions of Self-Inflicted Versus Blameless Victims for Nonprofits Employing Print Advertisements," Journal of Advertising, 41 (3), 55-74. Vitaglione, Guy D. and Mark A. Barnett (1999), "Measuring a New Dimension of Empathy: The Empathic Anger Scale," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Denver, CO. Vitaglione, Guy D. and Mark A. Barnett (2003), "Assessing A New Dimension of Empathy: Empathic Anger as a Predictor of Helping and Punishing Desires," Motivation and Emotion, 27 (4), 301-323.

SCALE ITEMS: Please indicated your level of agreement with each of the following statements: 1. If I see that someone is feeling mad because he or she was mistreated then I feel mad too. 2. I feel angry for other people when they have been victimized by others. 3. I get angry when a friend of mine is hurt by someone else.

14

Animosity Toward Outsourced Countries SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three items are used to measure a person's belief that countries which are the recipients of jobs or other functions that have been moved from their original country (outsourced) are unfairly taking advantage of lower labor costs.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) in two studies. Data were gathered in Italy and the final samples used in the analyses appear to have been 325 and 407 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The survey instruments were back-translated (EnglishItalian) and revised as needed. The items in the animosity scale were taken from a four item measure by Durvasula and Lysonski (2009) who had developed it by drawing on a scale by Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 1 by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) was .90. The reliability was not reported for Study 2.

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that the animosity scale was included in the analyses that Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) conducted of the variables in each of their two studies. The authors concluded that sufficient evidence was found for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. Tests of common method variance were also conducted and the authors concluded it did not represent a threat to their data.

REFERENCES: Durvasula, Srinivas and Steven Lysonski (2009), "How Offshore Outsourcing is Perceived: Why Do Some Consumers Feel More Threatened?" Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(1), 17–33. Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard Bagozzi (2013), "The Effects of Company Offshoring Strategies on Consumer Responses," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (6), 683-704. Klein, Jill Gabrielle, Richard Ettenson, and Marlene D. Morris (1998), “The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), 89-100.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Outsourced countries are trading unfairly with our country because they take advantage of lower labor costs. 2. Outsourced countries are unfairly taking advantage of their low labor costs, selling their products and services at low prices and putting our country out of the market. 3. Our country is more fair in its trade dealing with the outsourced countries than those countries are with ours. 15

1. The response format used with these items was not explicitly described by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013). It appears to have been a seven-point Likert-type scale.

16

Anxiety (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With six, five-point, uni-polar items, the scale measures feelings of stress and discomfort one has experienced in some context.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Cutright (2012) was not identified. In the fifth of seven studies discussed in the article, the scale was used to measure how participants' feelings of control affected their anxiety.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 5 (n = 74) by Cutright (2012) was .88.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Cutright (2012).

REFERENCES: Cutright, Keisha M. (2012), "The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 775-790.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

comfortable (r) relaxed (r) calm (r) anxious worried tense

1. The response scale used by Cutright (2012) with these items was anchored by very slightly or not at all (1) and extremely (5).

17

Anxiety (Purchase) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a consumer feels nervous and worried about buying a specified product is measured in this scale with three, seven point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Thomas and Tsai (2012) in Study 3 (n = 243) of their article. Two item versions of the scale that referred to non-purchase issues were used in Studies 1A and 1B.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha in Study 3 was .89 (Thomas and Tsai 2012, p. 336).

VALIDITY: Thomas and Tsai (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Thomas, Manoj and Claire I. Tsai (2012), "Psychological Distance and Subjective Experience: How Distancing Reduces the Feeling of Difficulty," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 324340.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I feel anxious about purchasing a __________. I feel nervous about purchasing a __________. I feel worried about purchasing a __________.

1. The name for the focal product category should be placed in the blanks, e.g., computer.

18

Appropriateness of the Warranty Time Units SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of three, seven-point items intended to measure the suitability of stating the warranty for a class of products in a particular unit of time, e.g., days, weeks, years.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lembregts and Pandelaere (2013) used the scale in Study 4 of those described in their article. Data were collected from 74 participants at Ghent University (Belgium). The language in which the scale was presented to participants was not identified. Likewise, the source of the scale was not stated by the authors and is assumed to have been created by them for the study in which it was used.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .95 (Lembregts and Pandelaere 2013, p. 1284).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Lembregts and Pandelaere (2013).

REFERENCES: Lembregts, Christophe and Mario Pandelaere (2013), "Are All Units Created Equal? The Effect of Default Units on Product Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1275-1289.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How “right” does it feel to express warranties for __________ in _____? totally not right / very right 2. How suitable do you think it is to express warranties for __________ in _____? totally not suitable / very suitable 3. How appropriate is it to express warranties for __________ in _____? totally not appropriate / very appropriate

1. The name for the product category should be placed in the first blank in each item, e.g., cell phones. The warranty period should be stated in the second blanks, e.g., years.

19

Attachment Avoidance SCALE DESCRIPTION: Eighteen Likert-type items are used in the scale to measure a person's inclination to distrust relationships as well as to maintain independence and emotional distance from his/her relationship partners.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kemp, Kennett-Hensel, and Kees (2013) in Studies 2 and 3. It was created by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) who also provided support for the scale's validity.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale as used in Study 2 by Kemp, Kennett-Hensel, and Kees (2013) was .91. (Although the scale was used in Study 3, no information regarding its reliability was reported.)

VALIDITY: Kemp, Kennett-Hensel, and Kees (2013) did not report any tests of the scale's validity that they conducted.

REFERENCES: Brennan, Kelly A., Catherine L. Clark, and Phillip R. Shaver (1998), “Self-Report Measurement of Adult Romantic Attachment,” in Attachment Theory and Close Relationships, J.A. Simpson and S.W. Rholes, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 46–76. Kemp, Elyria, Pamela A. Kennett-Hensel, and Jeremy Kees (2013), "Pulling on the Heartstrings: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Gender in Persuasive Appeals," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 69-79.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners. (r) Just when my partner starts to get close to me I find myself pulling away. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close. I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back. I am nervous when partners get too close to me. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner. (r) I try to avoid getting too close to my partner. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. (r) I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners. I tell my partner just about everything. (r) I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. (r) 20

15. 16. 17. 18.

I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners. (r) I don’t mind asking romantic partners for comfort, advice, or help. (r) It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. (r) I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance. (r)

1. The number of points on the response scale used by Kemp, Kennett-Hensel, and Kees (2013) was not explicitly stated. It appears to have been seven. Also, the items which should be reverse-coded were not identified. Judgment was used by the reviewer to identify the items that seem to reflect the opposite of attachment avoidance. Before calculating scale scores, users are urged to carefully examine item-total correlations and other data to make a proper determination of reverse-coding.

21

Attachment to a Person SCALE DESCRIPTION: This three item, seven-point scale measures how close one feels to and identifies with a particular individual.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not stated by De Angelis et al. (2012), thus, it is assumed to have been created by them. The scale was used by the authors in a pretest (n= 52 college students) before Experiment 4.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .92 (De Angelis et al. 2012, p. 559).

VALIDITY: De Angelis et al. (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, because it was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was found to be successful, that provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: De Angelis, Matteo, Andrea Bonezzi, Alessandro M. Peluso, Derek D. Rucker, and Michele Costabile (2012), "On Braggarts and Gossips: A Self-Enhancement Account of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmission," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (4), 551-563.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How close do you feel to __________? not close at all / very close How attached do you feel to __________? not attached at all / very attached To what extent do you identify with __________? not at all / very much

1. The scale items (questions) were reconstructed here based on the descriptions provided in the article by De Angelis et al. (2012). (The verbal anchors for each response scale were explicitly stated in the article.) The name of the focal person should be placed in the blanks.

22

Attachment to the Company (Anxiety) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a customer has an excessive need to be valued by a business and worries about rejection and abandonment.

SCALE ORIGIN: Mende and Bolton (2011) constructed this scale and a companion attachment measure by drawing heavily on the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver 1998; Fraley, Waller, and Brennan 2000). As part of the development process, Mende and Bolton (2011) tested the quality of the scales with three samples in three service settings. Across those studies, strong support was found for the reliability and validity of the measures. The data for the study conducted by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) came from North American customers of the insurance division of a large financial services company. A probability sample was contacted by a marketing research firm and 1199 customers composed the final sample. The authors called this scale customer attachment anxiety.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .80 in the study by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013, p. 130).

VALIDITY: Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) did not provide information regarding any further analyses of the scale's validity beyond what provided in Mende and Bolton (2011).

REFERENCES: Brennan, Kelly A., Catherine L. Clark, and Phillip R. Shaver (1998), “Self-Report Measurement of Adult Romantic Attachment,” in Attachment Theory and Close Relationships, J.A. Simpson and S.W. Rholes, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 46–76. Fraley, R. Chris, Neils G. Waller, and Kelly A. Brennan (2000), “An Item Response Theory Analysis of Self-Report Measures of Adult Attachment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 350–65. Mende, Martin and Ruth N. Bolton (2011), “Why Attachment Security Matters: How Customers’ Attachment Styles Influence Their Relationships with Service Firms and Service Employees,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (3), 285–301. Mende, Martin, Ruth N. Bolton, and Mary Jo Bitner (2013), "Decoding Customer–Firm Relationships: How Attachment Styles Help Explain Customers' Preferences for Closeness, Repurchase Intentions, and Changes in Relationship Breadth," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (1), 125-143.

23

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I worry about being abandoned by _____ as a customer. _____ changes how it treats me for no apparent reason. I worry that _____ doesn’t really like me as a customer. I worry that _____ doesn’t care about me as much as I care about it.

1. The response scale used by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) employed strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as the extreme verbal anchors. The name of the company should be placed in the blanks.

24

Attachment to the Company (Comforting) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a customer finds comfort in having a close relationship with a company is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. If reverse-scored, as did Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013), the scale can be interpreted as measuring the extent to which a customer feels uncomfortable being dependent on the company.

SCALE ORIGIN: Mende and Bolton (2011) constructed this scale and a companion attachment measure by drawing heavily on the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver 1998; Fraley, Waller, and Brennan 2000). As part of the development process, Mende and Bolton (2011) tested the quality of the scales with three samples in three service settings. Across those studies, strong support was found for the reliability and validity of the measures. The data for the study conducted by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) came from North American customers of the insurance division of a large financial services company. A probability sample was contacted by a marketing research firm and 1199 customers composed the final sample. As noted above, the authors reverse-coded each item in this scale and called it customer attachment avoidance in line with theory that conceptualized the attachment style dimensions being attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver 1998).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .80 in the study by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013, p. 130).

VALIDITY: Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) did not provide information regarding any further analyses of the scale's validity beyond what was provided in Mende and Bolton (2011).

REFERENCES: Brennan, Kelly A., Catherine L. Clark, and Phillip R. Shaver (1998), “Self-Report Measurement of Adult Romantic Attachment,” in Attachment Theory and Close Relationships, J.A. Simpson and S.W. Rholes, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 46–76. Fraley, R. Chris, Neils G. Waller, and Kelly A. Brennan (2000), “An Item Response Theory Analysis of Self-Report Measures of Adult Attachment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 350–65. Mende, Martin and Ruth N. Bolton (2011), “Why Attachment Security Matters: How Customers’ Attachment Styles Influence Their Relationships with Service Firms and Service Employees,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (3), 285–301. Mende, Martin, Ruth N. Bolton, and Mary Jo Bitner (2013), "Decoding Customer–Firm Relationships: How Attachment Styles Help Explain Customers' Preferences for Closeness, Repurchase Intentions, and Changes in Relationship Breadth," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (1), 125-143. 25

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

It is a comfortable feeling to depend on _____. I am comfortable having a close relationship with _____. It’s easy for me to feel warm and friendly toward _____. It helps to turn to _____ in times of need.

1. The response scale used by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) employed strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as the extreme verbal anchors. The name of the company should be placed in the blanks and scores on each item should be reversed if the desire is to measure "customer attachment avoidance" as did Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013).

26

Attention Overload SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of six, five-point, uni-polar items that are intended to measure how much of a person's capacity to pay attention has been reached or exceeded.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Cutright (2012) was not identified. In the fifth of seven studies discussed in the article, the scale was used to measure how participants' feelings of control affected their sense of what she referred to as "attentional overload."

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 5 (n = 74) by Cutright (2012) was .84.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Cutright (2012).

REFERENCES: Cutright, Keisha M. (2012), "The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 775-790.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

overwhelmed focused (r) scattered distracted confused preoccupied

1. The response scale used by Cutright (2012) with these items was anchored by very slightly or not at all (1) and extremely (5).

27

Attitude Toward Advergames for Children (Negative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent of a person's negative beliefs regarding "advergames" made for children is measured with six Likert-type items. (Advergames are custom-made for a good or service in order to entertain potential consumers as well as promote the brand.)

SCALE ORIGIN: Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013) used the scale with 214 people who were "a geographically diverse sample of parents of children ages 7 to 11" (p. 232). Half of the items in the scale were adapted from a scale used by Crosby and Grossbart (1984) to measure attitudes about advertising aimed at children. The other three items were adapted from an advertising-related scale used by Wolin, Korgaonkar, and Lund (2002) that they called value corruption.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .857 (Evans, Carlson, and Hoy 2013, p. 234).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013). However, some support for the scale's unidimensionality comes from a factor analysis performed on the items in this scale along with those expected to measure two related constructs. With the exception of one item that loaded on all three factors (not shown below), the items loaded on their respective factors.

REFERENCES: Crosby Lawrence A., and Sanford L. Grossbart (1984), “Parental Style Segments and Concern about Children’s Food Advertising,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 7 (1), 43–63. Evans, Nathaniel J., Les Carlson, and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2013), "Coddling Our Kids: Can Parenting Style Affect Attitudes Toward Advergames?" Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 228240. Wolin, Lori. D., Pradeep Korgaonkar, and Daulatram Lund (2002), “Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behaviour towards Web Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 87–113.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Advergames make children want things they don’t really need. Advergames take undue advantage of children. Advergames lead children to make unreasonable purchase demands on their parents. There is too much advergaming directed at children. Advergames directed at children lead to family conflict. Advergames use tricks and gimmicks to get children to buy their products.

1. Although not explicitly stated by Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013), indications are that they used a five-point scale with Strongly agree and Strongly disagree as the extreme verbal anchors.

28

Attitude Toward Advergames for Children (Positive) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a parent holds positive beliefs about "advergames" made for children. (Advergames are custom-made for a good or service in order to entertain potential consumers as well as promote the brand.)

SCALE ORIGIN: Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013) used the scale with 214 people who were "a geographically diverse sample of parents of children ages 7 to 11" (p. 232). They indicated that they had adapted three of the items from work by Walsh, Laczniak, and Carlson (1998) and one from Crosby and Grossbart (1984).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .751 (Evans, Carlson, and Hoy 2013, p. 234).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013). However, some support for the scale's unidimensionality comes from a factor analysis performed on the items in this scale along with those expected to measure two related constructs. With the exception of one item that loaded on all three factors (not shown below), the items loaded on their respective factors.

REFERENCES: Crosby Lawrence A., and Sanford L. Grossbart (1984), “Parental Style Segments and Concern about Children’s Food Advertising,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 7 (1), 43–63. Evans, Nathaniel J., Les Carlson, and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2013), "Coddling Our Kids: Can Parenting Style Affect Attitudes Toward Advergames?" Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 228240. Walsh, Anne D., Russell N. Laczniak, and Les Carlson (1998), “Mothers’ Preferences for Regulating Children’s Television,” Journal of Advertising, 27 (3), 24–36.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

My child learns something by playing advergames. Advergames teach children good eating habits. There’s nothing wrong with advergames sponsored by toy manufacturers. There’s nothing wrong with advergames for children sponsored by food manufacturers.

1. Although not explicitly stated by Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013), indications are that they used a five-point scale with Strongly agree and Strongly disagree as the extreme verbal anchors.

29

Attitude Toward Advertising (Credibility) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that advertising is trustworthy and provides truthful information about products is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. As discussed further below, the items are phrased with respect to advertising in general but they can be easily adapted for use with particular media.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jin and Lutz (2013) in Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6. The authors indicated that they used the "original 33 items" from an instrument created by Pollay and Mittal (1993) to measure several factors related to consumers' belief structures about advertising. However, only one of the items used by Jin and Lutz (2013) to measure credibility (what they called veracity) was explicitly in the instrument and another item was rephrased. The origin of the other two items in Jin and Lutz's (2013) four item scale is unknown.

RELIABILITY: In Study 6, the scale's alpha was .75. Information about the scale's reliability in the other studies was not reported.

VALIDITY: Jin and Lutz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, they did factor analyze the items in this credibility scale along with 24 other items intended to measure several other advertising-related attitudes drawn primarily from Pollay and Mittal (1993). The authors reported that the expected factor structure was found.

COMMENTS: Although the items are phrased below in terms of advertising in general, it is easy to make the scale specific to a particular medium with minor modifications to the items, e.g., In general, internet advertising is misleading. Jin and Lutz (2013) did just that with some of the experimental groups of Study 2. It does not appear that the items were summated to create a scale and that may be why no information about reliability was provided.

REFERENCES: Jin, Hyun Seung and Richard J. Lutz (2013), "The Typicality and Accessibility of Consumer Attitudes Toward Television Advertising: Implications for the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Advertising in General," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 343-357. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

30

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. In general, I feel that I can trust advertising. 2. Products/services that I have used usually live up to the promise of quality made in their ads. 3. In general, advertising is misleading. (r) 4. In general, advertisements present an accurate picture of the product advertised.

1. The verbal anchors used by Jin and Lutz (2013) with these items were not stated. They could have been strongly disagree/strongly agree as used by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

31

Attitude Toward Advertising (Entertaining) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of four, seven-point Likert-type items that measure one's beliefs about the hedonic value of advertising. As discussed further below, the items are phrased with respect to advertising in general but they can be easily adapted for use with particular media.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jin and Lutz (2013) in Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6. Three of the items are from a measure developed by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

RELIABILITY: In Study 6, the scale's alpha was .76. Information about the scale's reliability for the other studies was not reported.

VALIDITY: Jin and Lutz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, they did factor analyze the items in the entertaining scale along with 24 other items intended to measure several other advertising-related attitudes drawn from Pollay and Mittal (1993). The authors reported that the expected factor structure was found.

COMMENTS: Although the items are phrased below in terms of advertising in general, it is easy to make the scale specific to a particular medium with minor modifications to the items, e.g., Sometimes radio advertisements can be fun. Jin and Lutz (2013) did just that with some of the experimental groups of Study 2. It does not appear that the items were summated to create a scale and that may be why no information about reliability was provided.

REFERENCES: Jin, Hyun Seung and Richard J. Lutz (2013), "The Typicality and Accessibility of Consumer Attitudes Toward Television Advertising: Implications for the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Advertising in General," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 343-357. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining. 2. Sometimes I take pleasure in thinking about what I saw, heard, or read in advertisements. 3. Sometimes advertisements are even more enjoyable than other media content. 4. Sometimes advertisements can be fun.

32

1. The verbal anchors used by Jin and Lutz (2013) with these items were not stated. They could have been strongly disagree/strongly agree as used by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

33

Attitude Toward Advertising (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: To measure a person's global attitude toward advertising, the scale uses three, five-point Likert-type items. The statements are not specific to any particular type of advertising, facet, or context but instead apply to advertising overall.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed along with several other measures in a study by Pollay and Mittal (1993). They did not, however, discuss the psychometric quality of the global attitude scale.

RELIABILITY: As used by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013, p. 218), the scale's internal consistency (construct reliability) was .87.

VALIDITY: Along with items being considered for measuring other constructs, those in the attitude toward advertising scale were examined with EFA and CFA by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013). The final measurement model fit the data and there was evidence provided in support of the attitude scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .70.

REFERENCES: Poels, Karolien, Wim Janssens, and Laura Herrewijn (2013), "Play Buddies or Space Invaders? Players’ Attitudes Toward In-Game Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 204-218. Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

Overall, I like advertising. Overall, I consider advertising a good thing. My general opinion toward advertising is unfavorable. (r)

34

Attitude Toward Advertising (Good for Economy) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures one's beliefs about the economic benefits that advertising has for a country. As discussed further below, the items are phrased with respect to advertising in general but they can be easily adapted for use with particular media.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jin and Lutz (2013) in Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6. Three of the items are the same or very similar to those in a scale developed by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

RELIABILITY: In Study 6, the scale's alpha was .74. Information about the scale's reliability for the other studies was not reported.

VALIDITY: Jin and Lutz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, they did factor analyze the items in this scale along with 24 other items intended to measure several advertising-related attitudes drawn from Pollay and Mittal (1993). The authors reported that the expected factor structure was found.

COMMENTS: Although the items are phrased below in terms of advertising in general, it is easy to make the scale specific to a particular medium with minor modifications to the items, e.g., In general, newspaper advertising helps our nation’s economy. Jin and Lutz (2013) did just that with some of the experimental groups of Study 2. It does not appear that the items were summated to create a scale and that may be why no information about reliability was provided.

REFERENCES: Jin, Hyun Seung and Richard J. Lutz (2013), "The Typicality and Accessibility of Consumer Attitudes Toward Television Advertising: Implications for the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Advertising in General," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 343-357. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

In In In In

general, general, general, general,

advertising advertising advertising advertising

helps our nation’s economy. does not waste our economic resources. promotes competition, which benefits the consumer. results in lower prices for the products I buy. 35

1. The verbal anchors used by Jin and Lutz (2013) with these items were not stated. They could have been strongly disagree/strongly agree as used by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

36

Attitude Toward Advertising (Informative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's opinion regarding the information value of advertising is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items. As discussed further below, the items are phrased with respect to advertising in general but they can be easily adapted for use with particular media.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jin and Lutz (2013) in Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6. Three of the items are the same or very similar to those in a scale developed by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

RELIABILITY: In Study 6, the scale's alpha was .75. Information about the scale's reliability for the other studies was not reported.

VALIDITY: Jin and Lutz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, they did factor analyze the items in the informativeness scale along with 24 other items intended to measure several other advertising-related attitudes drawn from Pollay and Mittal (1993). The authors reported that the expected factor structure was found.

COMMENTS: Although the items are phrased below in terms of advertising in general, it is easy to make the scale specific to a particular medium by inserting its name at the beginning of each sentence, e.g., Magazine advertising is informative. Jin and Lutz (2013) did just that with some of the experimental groups of Study 2. It does not appear that the items were summated to create a scale and that may be why no information about reliability was provided.

REFERENCES: Jin, Hyun Seung and Richard J. Lutz (2013), "The Typicality and Accessibility of Consumer Attitudes Toward Television Advertising: Implications for the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Advertising in General," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 343-357. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Advertising 2. Advertising 3. Advertising marketplace. 4. Advertising

is a valuable source of information about products/services. tells me which brands have the features I am looking for. helps me keep up to date about products/services available in the is informative. 37

1. The verbal anchors used by Jin and Lutz (2013) with these items were not stated. They could have been strongly disagree/strongly agree as used by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

38

Attitude Toward Advertising (Materialism) SCALE DESCRIPTION: This scale uses four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a person believes that advertising makes people buy and consume products too much. As discussed further below, the items are phrased with respect to advertising in general but they can be easily adapted for use with particular media.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jin and Lutz (2013) in Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6. It was developed by Pollay and Mittal (1993) along with several other scales in an attempt to identify the factors in consumers' belief structures about advertising. In the study by Pollay and Mittal (1993), the materialism scale was administered to two samples and the resulting alphas were .78 (college students) and .64 (consumer panel).

RELIABILITY: In Study 6, the scale's alpha was .83. Information about the scale's reliability for the other studies was not reported.

VALIDITY: Jin and Lutz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, they did factor analyze the items in this materialism scale along with 24 other items intended to measure several advertising-related attitudes drawn from Pollay and Mittal (1993). The authors reported that the expected factor structure was found.

COMMENTS: Although the items are phrased below in terms of advertising in general, it is easy to make the scale specific to a particular medium with minor modifications to the items, e.g., Television advertising makes people live in a world of fantasy. Jin and Lutz (2013) did just that with some of the experimental groups of Study 2. It does not appear that the items were summated to create a scale and that may be why no information about reliability was provided.

REFERENCES: Jin, Hyun Seung and Richard J. Lutz (2013), "The Typicality and Accessibility of Consumer Attitudes Toward Television Advertising: Implications for the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Advertising in General," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 343-357. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

39

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Advertising is making us a materialistic society, overly interested in buying and owning things. 2. Advertising makes people buy unaffordable products just to show off. 3. Advertising makes people live in a world of fantasy. 4. Because of advertising, people buy a lot of things they do not really need.

1. The verbal anchors used by Jin and Lutz (2013) with these items were not stated. They could have been strongly disagree/strongly agree as used by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

40

Attitude Toward Advertising (Social Role) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person's beliefs about advertising's ability to make one aware of social trends and what products will help one stay current. As discussed further below, the items are phrased with respect to advertising in general but they can be easily adapted for use with particular media.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jin and Lutz (2013) in Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6. Three of the items are the same or very similar to those in a scale developed by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

RELIABILITY: In Study 6, the scale's alpha was .78. Information about the scale's reliability for the other studies was not reported.

VALIDITY: Jin and Lutz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, they did factor analyze the items in the social role scale along with 24 other items intended to measure several advertising-related attitudes drawn from Pollay and Mittal (1993). The authors reported that the expected factor structure was found.

COMMENTS: Although the items are phrased below in terms of advertising in general, it is easy to make the scale specific to a particular medium by inserting its name at the beginning of each sentence, e.g., Magazine advertising tells me what to buy to impress others. Jin and Lutz (2013) did just that with some of the experimental groups of Study 2. It does not appear that the items were summated to create a scale and that may be why no information about reliability was provided.

REFERENCES: Jin, Hyun Seung and Richard J. Lutz (2013), "The Typicality and Accessibility of Consumer Attitudes Toward Television Advertising: Implications for the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Advertising in General," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 343-357. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Advertising Advertising Advertising Advertising

tells me what to buy to impress others. tells me what people with lifestyles similar to mine are using. helps me know which products will or will not reflect the sort of person I am. helps me keep up with current social trends. 41

1. The verbal anchors used by Jin and Lutz (2013) with these items were not stated. They could have been strongly disagree/strongly agree as used by Pollay and Mittal (1993).

42

Attitude Toward Consuming the Food SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's attitude toward eating a particular food is measured with three, seven-point items. The emphasis of the statements is on how tasty the food is expected to be.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Haws and Winterich (2013) in Study 4, referring to it as "consumption pleasure." They did not identify the source of the scale; it appears they created it for the study. Participants in the study were 327 adults from an online panel.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (Haws and Winterich 2013, p. 58).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Haws and Winterich (2013).

REFERENCES: Haws, Kelly L. and Karen Page Winterich (2013), "When Value Trumps Health in a Supersized World," Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 48-64.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Eating the _____ would be pleasurable. I would enjoy eating the _____. The _____ would be satisfying. The _____ would taste good.

1. The verbal anchors of the response scale used with these items were not stated explicitly in the article by Haws and Winterich (2013) but appear to have been some form of the agree/disagree, Likert-type format. The name of the food should be stated in the blanks.

43

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (Believability) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's opinion about the accuracy and truthfulness of the ads for products that are placed within video games is measured with three, five-point Likert-type items. As currently phrased, the statements are not specific to any particular game but rather, refer to in-game advertising in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale is one of several developed by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013) for their study. They drew ideas for several scales from work by Pollay and Mittal (1993), Tan and Chia (2007), and others (uncited) who had studied attitudes toward advertising. The authors generated items and, in a series of analyses, reduced the set of items used to measure multiple constructs of interest to them. The final set of participants was 708, most of whom lived in Belgium. They were recruited from a panel maintained by a research institute.

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistency (construct reliability) was .78 (Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn 2013, p. 217).

VALIDITY: Along with items being considered for measuring other constructs, those in the believability scale were examined in EFA and CFA. The final measurement model fit the data and there was evidence provided in support of the believability scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .54.

REFERENCES: Poels, Karolien, Wim Janssens, and Laura Herrewijn (2013), "Play Buddies or Space Invaders? Players’ Attitudes Toward In-Game Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 204-218. Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114. Tan, Soo Jiuan and Lily Chia (2007), “Are We Measuring the Same Attitude? Understanding Media Effects on Attitude towards Advertising,” Marketing Theory, 7 (4), 353–77.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. In general, I feel I can trust in-game advertising. 2. I believe that the information contained in in-game advertising is accurate. 3. If an in-game advertisement claims something about a certain product, this information is most likely true.

44

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (Entertaining) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure how much a person believes the product ads placed within video games are amusing and enjoyable. As currently phrased, the statements are not specific to any particular game but rather, refer to in-game advertising in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was called "hedonism" by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013) and is one of several measures developed by them for their study. The items in this scale in particular were adapted from some used by Pollay and Mittal (1993) to measure a pleasure-related facet of attitudes toward advertising in general. The final set of participants in the study by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013) was 708, most of whom lived in Belgium. They were recruited from a panel maintained by a research institute.

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistency (construct reliability) was .80 (Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn 2013, p. 217).

VALIDITY: Along with items being considered for measuring other constructs, those in the entertaining scale were examined in EFA and CFA. The final measurement model fit the data and there was evidence provided in support of the entertaining scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .57.

REFERENCES: Poels, Karolien, Wim Janssens, and Laura Herrewijn (2013), "Play Buddies or Space Invaders? Players’ Attitudes Toward In-Game Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 204-218. Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

In general, in-game advertising is enjoyable. In general, in-game advertising is amusing and entertaining. Sometimes I take pleasure in what I see, hear or read in in-game advertising.

45

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person has a positive opinion of product ads placed within video games. As currently phrased, the statements are not specific to any particular game or facet of the advertising but apply to ingame advertising in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The items in this scale were adapted by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013) from some used by Pollay and Mittal (1993) to measure attitudes toward advertising in general. The final set of participants in the study by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013) was 708, most of whom lived in Belgium. They were recruited from a panel maintained by a research institute.

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistency (construct reliability) was .91 (Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn 2013, p. 218).

VALIDITY: Along with items being considered for measuring other constructs, those in the attitude toward in-game advertising scale were examined in EFA and CFA by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013). The final measurement model fit the data and there was evidence provided in support of the attitude scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .78.

REFERENCES: Poels, Karolien, Wim Janssens, and Laura Herrewijn (2013), "Play Buddies or Space Invaders? Players’ Attitudes Toward In-Game Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 204-218. Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

Overall, I like in-game advertising. Overall, I consider in-game advertising a good thing. My general opinion toward in-game advertising is unfavorable. (r)

46

Attitude Toward In-Game Advertising (Realism Enhancement) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, five-point Likert-type items to measure how much a person believes the ads for products placed within video games makes the experience more realistic. As currently phrased, the statements are not specific to any particular game but rather, refer to in-game advertising in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale is one of several developed by Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn (2013) for their study. They drew ideas for several scales from work by Pollay and Mittal (1993), Tan and Chia (2007), and others (uncited) who had studied attitudes toward advertising. The authors generated items and, in a series of analyses, reduced the set of items used to measure multiple constructs of interest to them. The final set of participants was 708, most of whom lived in Belgium. They were recruited from a panel maintained by a research institute.

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistency (construct reliability) was .80 (Poels, Janssens, and Herrewijn 2013, p. 218).

VALIDITY: Along with items being considered for measuring other constructs, those in the realism enhancement scale were examined in EFA and CFA. The final measurement model fit the data, in particular, and there was evidence provided in support of the realism scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .58.

REFERENCES: Poels, Karolien, Wim Janssens, and Laura Herrewijn (2013), "Play Buddies or Space Invaders? Players’ Attitudes Toward In-Game Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 204-218. Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99–114. Tan, Soo Jiuan and Lily Chia (2007), “Are We Measuring the Same Attitude? Understanding Media Effects on Attitude towards Advertising,” Marketing Theory, 7 (4), 353–77.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. In-game advertising makes games more realistic. 2. A digital game environment can appear more realistic because of the integration of ingame advertisements. 3. Real brands contribute more to the realism of a game than fictitious brands.

47

Attitude Toward Offshoring SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has five semantic differentials and measures a person's opinion of whether it is damaging and unnecessary or beneficial and favorable for domestic companies to move business functions to other countries.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) in Study 2. Data were gathered in Italy and the final sample used in the analysis appears to have been 407 participants. The survey instrument was back-translated (English-Italian) and revised as needed. The items in the attitude toward offshoring scale were taken from a seven-item measure of the construct created by Durvasula and Lysonski (2009).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi 2013, p. 693).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that the attitude toward offshoring scale was not part of the thorough analyses that Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) conducted on the variables composing the models they tested. Instead, this scale was used separately to help provide evidence of another scale's discriminant validity (perceived risk of offshoring). Evidence was provided in support of that validity. The AVE for the offshoring scale was .62.

REFERENCES: Durvasula, Srinivas and Steven Lysonski (2009), "How Offshore Outsourcing is Perceived: Why Do Some Consumers Feel More Threatened?" Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(1), 17–33. Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard Bagozzi (2013), "The Effects of Company Offshoring Strategies on Consumer Responses," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (6), 683-704.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Offshore outsourcing is:2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

harmful / beneficial unnecessary / necessary bad / good unfavorable / favorable negative / positive

1. The number of points on the response scale was not explicitly stated by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013). It appears to have been seven. 2. The scale stem/instructions used with the scale were not stated by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013). This stem was used by Durvasula and Lysonski (2009).

48

Attitude Toward Personalized Advertising (Benefits) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief that personalized advertising has benefits such as being treated as an individual and receiving relevant information is measured in this scale with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Baek and Morimoto (2012) is a slight adaptation of a scale that was created by Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu (2002) for use with websites. Baek and Morimoto (2012) called the scale perceived personalization and used it with four media types: direct mail, unsolicited commercial e-mail, telephone calls, and text messages. Reliability and validity were evaluated with the data combined from the four ad media.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Baek and Morimoto 2012).

VALIDITY: Baek and Morimoto (2012) performed CFA on the items composing the several scales in their study. Loadings of the items on their respective factors were statistically significant and the AVEs were greater than .50, providing evidence of the scales' convergent validities. Likewise, all AVEs were higher than the squared correlations with the other scales, providing evidence of their discriminant validities. The AVE of the benefits scale was .731.

REFERENCES: Baek, Tae Hyun and Mariko Morimoto (2012), "Stay Away From Me: Examining the Determinants of Consumer Avoidance of Personalized Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59-76. Srinivasan, Srini S., Rolph Anderson, and Kishore Ponnavolu (2002), “Customer Loyalty in Ecommerce: An Exploration of its Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 78 (1), 41-50.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. This personalized advertising on __________ makes purchase recommendations that match my needs. 2. I think that this personalized advertising on __________ enables me to order products that are tailor-made for me. 3. Overall, this personalized advertising on __________ is tailored to my situation. 4. This personalized advertising on __________ makes me feel that I am a unique customer. 5. I believe that this personalized advertising on __________ is customized to my needs.

1. The name of the focal medium should be placed in the blanks, e.g., e-mail.

49

Attitude Toward Personalized Advertising (Irritating) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Eight uni-polar items are used to measure a person's belief that receiving advertising that has been personalized for him/her in some way is unpleasant and disgusting.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Baek and Morimoto (2012) was borrowed from Frtiz (1979). Baek and Morimoto (2012) slightly adapted the scale for use with four media types: direct mail, unsolicited commercial e-mail, telephone calls, and text messages. Reliability and validity were evaluated with the data combined from the four ad media.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .91 (Baek and Morimoto 2012).

VALIDITY: Baek and Morimoto (2012) performed CFA on the items composing the several scales in their study. Loadings of the items on their respective factors were statistically significant and the AVEs were greater than .50, providing evidence of the scales' convergent validities. Likewise, all AVEs were higher than the squared correlations with the other scales, providing evidence of their discriminant validities. The AVE of the irritation scale was .572.

REFERENCES: Baek, Tae Hyun and Mariko Morimoto (2012), "Stay Away From Me: Examining the Determinants of Consumer Avoidance of Personalized Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59-76. Fritz, Nancy K. (1979), “Claim Recall and Irritation in Television Commercials: An Advertising Effectiveness Study,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7 (1), 1–13.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

negative irritating pointless unappealing regressive unattractive vulgar awful

1. The scale stem that Baek and Morimoto (2012) used with these items was "When I receive personalized advertising on _____, I think it is . . . ." The blank was filled with the name of the focal medium, e.g., e-mail. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

50

Attitude Toward Puzzles SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's enjoyment of puzzles as well as his/her belief that their usage can improve one's analytical ability is measured using three, eleven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Mourali and Yang (2013) in Study 2 of the four main studies reported in the article. More specifically, the authors used the scale in both Study 2 (n = 202) as well as its pilot study (n = 48). In both cases, the participants were students at the University of Calgary (Canada).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .87 (pilot) and .91 (Study 2) (Mourali and Yang 2013, pp. 544, 545).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Mourali and Yang (2013).

COMMENTS: The scale may be amenable for use with "tools" and exercises other than puzzles that have the potential to enhance analytical skills. Of course, further testing will be called for if the scale is modified.

REFERENCES: Mourali, Mehdi and Zhiyong Yang (2013), "The Dual Role of Power in Resisting Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 539-554.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How effective a tool do you think the puzzles are at improving analytical ability? How much do you like the puzzles? How interesting do you find the puzzles to be?

1. The extreme anchors that Mourali and Yang (2013, p. 544) used with these items were not at all (1) and extremely (11).

51

Attitude Toward Reading SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures a person's attitude about reading (in general) and its benefits with five, seven-point semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012) used the scale in Study 2 of the six reported in their article. It is original to them (Avnet 2014). Data were gathered in the study from 52 students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .87 (Avnet, Pham, and Stephen 2012, p. 725).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012) about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Avnet, Tamar (2014), personal correspondence. Avnet, Tamar, Michel Tuan Pham, and Andrew T. Stephen (2012), "Consumers’ Trust in Feelings as Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 720-735.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I could benefit a lot from reading / I could not benefit much from reading 2. I have a favorable opinion about reading / I have an unfavorable opinion about reading 3. Reading would not make me a better person / Reading would make me a better person 4. Reading books is a worthwhile investment of my time / Reading books is not a worthwhile investment of my time 5. I believe reading is very important / I believe reading is not important

1. The items were provided by Avnet (2014).

52

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Aesthetics) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three statements, the scale measures a consumer's belief that the look and feel of shopping-related websites affect the sense of their quality. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to shopping sites in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Rose et al. (2012). The authors gathered data using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .754 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .508.

REFERENCES: Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The aesthetics of Internet shopping websites promotes a perception of quality. 2. The branding of Internet shopping websites should be consistent with my current perceptions of these companies. 3. The look and feel of the website is important when Internet shopping.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

53

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Community) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three statements to measure the degree to which a consumer likes Internet shopping sites to facilitate the connection of shoppers so they can share ideas and help each other. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to shopping sites in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Rose et al. (2012) and referred to as connectedness. The authors gathered data using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .879 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .709.

REFERENCES: Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Being able to connect with other consumers who share similar interest in the same products is a positive feature of Internet shopping. 2. Being able to share comments about my experiences of the products with other consumers on Internet shopping websites is an important feature to me. 3. Viewing the product recommendations of other consumers who use Internet shopping websites is helpful.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

54

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Customization) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses four statements to measure a consumer's belief that Internet shopping websites should treat shoppers as individuals, allowing them to personalize their experiences. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to shopping sites in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Rose et al. (2012). The authors gathered data using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .805 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .514.

REFERENCES: Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Internet shopping websites should feel like they are talking to me personally as a customer. 2. The requirement to log into an Internet shopping website makes me feel recognized as a customer. 3. It is important to me that an Internet shopping website feels like my personal area when I use it. 4. I like it when I am able to customize the Internet shopping web pages to my own liking.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

55

Attitude Toward Shopping Websites (Information Benefits) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Composed of four items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes that there are benefits to browsing through shopping-related websites, with an emphasis on the ease with which information can be gathered to help make purchase decisions. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to shopping sites in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Rose et al. (2012) in a web survey with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires. In creating the scale, the authors borrowed a few phrases and ideas from the single-item measures used by Teo (2002).

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .833 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .558.

REFERENCES: Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322. Teo, Thompson S.H. (2002), “Attitudes Towards Online Shopping and the Internet,” Behaviour and Information Technology, 21 (4), 259–71.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I can learn which products are suitable for my needs in comparison to other competitor products by browsing Internet shopping websites. 2. With Internet shopping websites I can find out what I want to know before I purchase online. 3. By reviewing the information provided by Internet shopping websites I can be confident that I have made the best purchase decision. 4. The convenience of Internet shopping is a key benefit. 1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

56

Attitude Toward the Ad (Affective) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point items are used to measure the degree to which a person believes an advertisement was pleasing. Given that one of the items has the phrase "to watch," the scale is most appropriate for commercials in video form rather than those in print or audio only.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) created the scale by drawing inspiration and key terms from past measures of the same or similar constructs. The authors referred to the measure as emotional engagement. The scale was used in an experiment with a national sample of 270 adults drawn from a Qualtrics panel.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel 2013, p. 299).

VALIDITY: The authors did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The The The The

ad ad ad ad

was entertaining. made me happy. made me pleased. was a pleasure to watch.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not stated by Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013). They appear to have been Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

57

Attitude Toward the Ad (Deceptive) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person not only thinks that an advertisement is unbelievable, but that it is also misleading, is measured in this scale with three, nine-point semantic-differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kirmani and Zhu (2007) used the scale in Study 1 in which data were gathered from 129 undergraduate students. The scale appears to have been used in Study 2 as well (n = 82 undergraduate students). They did not state the source of the scale and it is assumed that they created it. Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013) used the scale in her second study in which analyses were based on data gathered from 99 undergraduate students from a large, urban university.

RELIABILITY: In Study 1 by Kirmani and Zhu (2007, p. 690), the scale's alpha was .83. (They did not report an alpha for Study 2.) The scale's alpha was .94 in Study 2 by Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013, p. 376).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kirmani and Zhu (2007) or Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013).

COMMENTS: The items seem to be amenable for use with stimuli other than ads such as people.

REFERENCES: Aguirre-Rodriguez, Alexandra (2013), "The Effect of Consumer Persuasion Knowledge on Scarcity Appeal Persuasiveness," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 371-379. Kirmani, Amna, and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2007), “Vigilant Against Manipulation: The Effect of Regulatory Focus on the Use of Persuasion Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (4), 688–701.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

believable / unbelievable truthful / not truthful nondeceptive / deceptive

58

Attitude Toward the Ad (Humorous) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person considers a particular commercial to have been funny or, at least, attempting to be amusing is measured with six, five-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Swani, Weinberger, and Gulas (2013) created the Likert-type version of the scale by taking five key descriptors from a semantic-differential measure of the same construct that was used by Zhang (1996). That author, in turn, had borrowed the five semantic differentials from a scale created by Chattopadhyay and Basu (1990). The sixth item in the scale created by Swani, Weinberger, and Gulas' (2013) is assumed to have been created by them.

RELIABILITY: Alphas of .82 (Study 1) and .89 (Study 2) were reported for the scale by Swani, Weinberger, and Gulas (2013).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Swani, Weinberger, and Gulas (2013).

COMMENTS: Although the statements composing the scale are phrased in terms of "commercials," they can be easily rephrased to make them appropriate for print ads. They might be adapted for use with other things as well such as speeches, books, movies, and people though the psychometric quality of modified scale should be examined closely.

REFERENCES: Chattopadhyay, Amitava and Kunal Basu (1990), “Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (November), 466-76. Swani, Kunal, Marc G. Weinberger, and Charles S. Gulas (2013), "The Impact of Violent Humor on Advertising Success: A Gender Perspective," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 308-319. Zhang, Yong (1996), “Responses to Humorous Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (Spring), 15-32.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I I I I I I

found the commercial humorous. found the commercial funny. found the commercial playful. found the commercial amusing. found the commercial dull. (r) believe the commercial was making a humor attempt. 59

Attitude Toward the Ad (Relevance) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person relates to the message in an ad and believes the ad provided information of interest is measured using four, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) created the scale by drawing inspiration and key terms from past measures of the same or similar constructs. The authors referred to the measure as personal engagement. The scale was used in an experiment with a national sample of 270 adults drawn from a Qualtrics panel.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .95 (Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel 2013, p. 299).

VALIDITY: The authors did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I connected with this ad. The ad highlighted aspects about the product that are good for me to know. The ad made me wonder what it would be like to own or use the product/brand. The ad message was relevant to me.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not stated by Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013). They appear to have been Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

60

Attitude Toward the Ad (Trustworthiness) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of four, seven-point items that measure how credible and authentic a particular advertisement is believed to be.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) used the scale in an experiment with a national sample of 270 adults from a Qualtrics panel. They created the scale using key terms from the ad believability scale by Beltramini (1982).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (Lawrence 2014).

VALIDITY: The authors did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Beltramini, Richard F. (1982), “Advertising Perceived Believability Scale,” in Proceedings of the Southwest Marketing Association, Daniel R. Corrigan, Frederic B. Kraft, and Robert H. Ross. Cape Girardeau, MO: Southeast Missouri State University, 1-3. Lawrence, Benjamin (2014), personal correspondence, Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I trust what this ad has to say. The ad is trustworthy. The claims made in this ad are credible. The ad felt authentic.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not stated by Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013). They appear to have been Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

61

Attitude Toward the Brand Extension SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's attitude about the use of a brand name with a product in a different category than it has been known for is measured in this scale with three, nine-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Puligadda, Ross, and Grewal (2012). Their article presents the results of seven studies but the brand extension scale appears to have been used in just Studies 5 and 6, with reliability statistics only provided for Study 5 (n = 119 college students).

RELIABILITY: In Study 5 of Puligadda, Ross, and Grewal (2012), the scale was used with four different brand extensions and the alphas associated with them ranged from .92 to .96.

VALIDITY: Puligadda, Ross, and Grewal (2012) did not address the scale's validity. They did say, however, that factor analyses of the four administrations of the scale showed in each case there was one factor and it explained the overwhelming majority of the variance.

REFERENCES: Puligadda, Sanjay, William T. Ross Jr., and Rajdeep Grewal (2012), "Individual Differences in Brand Schematicity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 115-130.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. How good or bad is the extension idea?1 2. How likeable is the extension idea?2 3. How pleased did the extension make you feel?3

1. The verbal anchors used with this item were bad idea (1) and good idea (9). 2. The verbal anchors used with this item were not at all likeable (1) and very likeable (9). 3. The verbal anchors used with this item were not at all pleased (1) and very pleased (9).

62

Attitude Toward the Brand Extension SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures how positive an attitude a person has toward a particular brand extension. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or with one in development.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) in Studies 3, 4A, 4B, and 4C to establish boundaries and help understand the predictive power of the Brand Extension Authenticity construct. The measure of brand extension attitude was apparently developed by the Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) by drawing ideas for items from several sources (Broniarcyk and Alba 1994; McCarthy, Health, and Milberg 2001; Meyers-Levy, Louie, and Curran 1994).

RELIABILITY: An alpha of .91 was reported for the scale by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012, p. 983). Although the reliability was probably assessed in each of the several studies in which it was used, the authors did not indicate whether the reported alpha was an average or if it was linked to just one particular study.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012).

REFERENCES: Broniarcyk, Susan M. and Joseph W. Alba (1994), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 214–28. McCarthy, Michael S., Timothy B. Heath, and Sandra J. Milberg (2001), “New Brands Versus Brand Extensions, Attitudes Versus Choice: Experimental Evidence for Theory and Practice,” Marketing Letters, 12 (1), 75–90. Meyers-Levy, Joan, Theresa A. Louie, and Mary T. Curran (1994), “How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect the Evaluation of Brand Name Extension?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (1), 46–53. Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

My reaction to this extension is positive. I am unfavorable toward this extension. (r) The extension is appealing to me. Relative to other brands of category extension, this proposed extension is one of the best.

63

Attitude Toward the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: This five item scale measures how much a consumer likes a brand and is glad to be seen with it. Given the phrasing of the items, the scale makes the most sense to use when respondents are very familiar with the brand rather than it being new, proposed, or fictitious.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not identified by Aggarwal and McGill (2012). It may have been created by them for use in the several studies discussed in the article. A three item version of the scale was used in Study 1A (n = 73) and 1B (n = 70) while all five items were used in Studies 2A (n = 164), 2B(n = 188), and 3 (n = 194). The participants in each study were students at the University of Toronto.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the three item version of the scale were .82 and .72 in Study 1A and B, respectively. In Studies 2A and 2B, the alphas for the full five item version were .83 and .82, respectively. The alpha for the full scale used in Study 3 was .83.

VALIDITY: Aggarwal and McGill (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Aggarwal, Pankaj and Ann L. McGill (2012), "When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act Like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorphism," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 307-323.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I like the brand. I admire the brand. The brand fits in my life. It is embarrassing to be seen with the brand. (r) I avoid being with the brand. (r)

1. The article only provided abbreviated versions of the items. Based on those phrases, complete sentences have been re-created here. Also, the format of the response scale was not described in the article. It appears to have been a seven-point scale with Likerttype verbal anchors, e.g., strongly disagree / strongly agree.

64

Attitude Toward the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The desirability of a brand and likelihood of shopping for it is measured in this scale with five semantic-differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The index was created by Sirianni et al. (2013) and called overall brand evaluation. They used the scale in the four studies described in the article. The index was created by drawing items from a scale by Dawar and Pillutla (2000) meant to measure multiple dimensions of brand equity.

RELIABILITY: Over the four studies in which the scale was used by Sirianni et al. (2013), the scale's reported alphas ranged from .93 to .98.

VALIDITY: The validity of the index was not addressed by Sirianni et al. (2013). However, they did provide the results of a factor analysis conducted on data gathered in Study 1 with items in this scale and another one (customer-based brand equity). The items loaded well on their expected factors.

COMMENTS: Despite the high alphas reported for the scale and the good performance in the EFA, there is no doubt that the items are typically used to measure several different constructs rather than an amalgamation of them. Further, it is strange that the items were drawn from a measure of brand equity and yet were shown in the EFA to be distinct from items measuring brand equity. Ultimately, it should be determined if this set of items measures one construct or many. Is it distinct from brand equity or not? Care should be taken in using the scale to test theory until these issues are addressed satisfactorily.

REFERENCES: Dawar, Niraj and Madan M. Pillutla (2000), “Impact of Product-Harm Crisis on Brand Equity: The Moderating Role of Consumer Expectations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May), 215–26. Sirianni, Nancy J., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, and Naomi Mandel (2013), "Branded Service Encounters: Strategically Aligning Employee Behavior with the Brand Positioning," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 108-123.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Overall, how do you feel about _____?

65

1. 2. 3. 4.

Dislike / Like Not at all trustworthy / Very trustworthy Very low quality / Very high quality Not at all desirable / Very desirable

How likely are you to shop for _____? 5.

Not at all likely / Very likely

1. The name of the focal brand should be placed in the blanks. The number of points on the scale were not stated by Sirianni et al. (2013).

66

Attitude Toward the Cause SCALE DESCRIPTION: With five, seven-point items, this scale measures a person's reaction to an appeal made by a charitable cause he/she has just read. Four of the five items could be viewed as an affective response to the appeal but the fifth item taps more into the cognitive facet of the attitude. Further, given the phrasing of the items, the scale would be most appropriate for use in those situations where it is possible for at least some respondents to be "upset" by what they have read.

SCALE ORIGIN: Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) used the scale in Study 3 (n = 89 adults) of the several studies described in their article. The scale was created by Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic (2007) and its alpha in that case was .87. The context in which the scale was used by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) was where participants read about some animals that had been victimized and would benefit from actions by a charitable organization. It is unknown how well the scale would perform in contexts where very few if any of those in the sample viewed the situation as "upsetting" or where emotion did not play a major role in participants' attitudes.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) was .93.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013).

REFERENCES: Small, Deborah A., George Loewenstein, and Paul Slovic (2007), “Sympathy and Callousness: The Impact of Deliberative Thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 143–53. Smith, Robert W., David Faro, and Katherine A. Burson (2013), "More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 961-976.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

How upsetting is this situation to you? How sympathetic did you feel while reading the description of the cause? How much do you feel it is your moral responsibility to help out with this cause? How touched were you by the situation described? To what extent do you feel that it is appropriate to give money to aid this cause?

1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and extremely (7). The instructions Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) gave to participants with the scale were not provided in the article.

67

Attitude Toward the Company (Social Responsibility) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Five, seven-point Likert-type items are used in this scale to measure a person's belief that a company really cares about people and is honest with its customers.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013; Folse 2015) who used it in Pilot Test 3 (n = 80) before Experiment 1. They referred to the scale as organizational values. Although not cited as a source of inspiration, Dean (1999) created a scale with three items that are very similar to ones used by Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013).

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale was .90 (Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer 2013, p. 334).

VALIDITY: Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Dean, Dwane Hal (1999), “Brand Endorsement, Popularity, and Event Sponsorship as Advertising Cues Affecting Consumer Pre-Purchase Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 1-12. Folse, Judith Anne Garretson (2015), personal correspondence. Folse, Judith Anne Garretson, Scot Burton, and Richard G. Netemeyer (2013), "Defending Brands: Effects of Alignment of Spokescharacter Personality Traits and Corporate Transgressions on Brand Trust and Attitudes," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 331-342.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The The The The The

company company company company company

is most likely a good "corporate citizen." appears to be socially responsible. appears to be honest with its customers. seems to really care about its customers. cares about people.

1. The items were provided by Folse (2015).

68

Attitude Toward the Company's Communications SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's attitude about the informativeness and believability of communications from a company is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. While the communication activities referred to in the scale items can refer to advertising, the phrasing is broad enough to include those of a PR nature as well such as press releases.

SCALE ORIGIN: Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013) used the scale in a cross-sectional study (Study 1) with a final sample of 5,600 people from 30 cities in which a corporation had stores of the same name. Although not explicitly stated, the data collection appears to have been in Germany. The authors developed the scale by adapting phrases from items suggested by Kelly and Stephenson (1967).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .845 in the study by Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013).

VALIDITY: A tremendous amount of effort was expended by Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013) to examining the validity of the measures they used. The fit of the measurement model was satisfactory and evidence was provided of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the company's communication scale, its AVE was .650.

REFERENCES: Kelly, Robert F. and Ronald Stephenson (1967), “The Semantic Differential: An Information Source for Designing Retail Patronage Appeals,” Journal of Marketing, 31 (4), 43–47. Swoboda, Bernhard, Bettina Berg, and Hanna Schramm-Klein (2013), "Reciprocal Effects of the Corporate Reputation and Store Equity of Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 89 (4), 447-459.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Communication on company issues by _____ is informative. I frequently see corporate communication activities from _____. Information on what happens in the company of _____ is believable.

1. The name of the focal business chain should be placed in the blanks.

69

Attitude Toward the Experience SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using six items, this scale measures how positively a person evaluates a particular experience he/she has had.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by Moore (2012) was not identified and appears to have been created by her. She used it in Study 2 (n = 102 graduate and professional students), 3A (n = 72 undergraduates), and 3B (n = 70 undergraduates). The "experience" in Study 2 was any hedonic event participants could recall and wished to describe in one sentence. In Study 3A, participants were asked to recall a dining experience.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported by Moore (2012) for the scale were .99, .97, and .96 in Studies 2, 3A, and 3B, respectively.

VALIDITY: Moore (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, she did indicate that the items loaded on the same factor in EFAs run on data in Studies 2 and 3A and did not load on another dimension (understanding of the experience).

REFERENCES: Moore, Sara G. (2012), "Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid: How Word of Mouth Influences the Storyteller," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1140-1154.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

good / bad appealing / unappealing positive / negative liked / disliked What is the likelihood of you repeating the experience?2 What is the recommending the experience to others?

1. The response scale Moore (2012) used with the first four items had nine points. For items #5 and #6, she used a seven-point scale with not at all likely (1) and very likely (7) as extreme anchors. Due to the mixture of points on the response scales, item scores were standardized before being combined into a scale score. 2. The exact phrasings of this item and #6 were not provided in the article by Moore (2012). The phrasings shown here were constructed based on the descriptions provided in the article (p. 1145).

70

Attitude Toward the Game SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's opinion of a particular game is measured in this scale with six, seven-point, bi-polar adjectives.

SCALE ORIGIN: Waiguny, Nelson, and Marko (2013) said that the scale they used in an experiment was adapted from a measure by MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). However, a close examination of the items in both scales shows there is little overlap. There is far greater overlap with a scale by Muehling (1987). The final sample used by Waiguny, Nelson, and Marko (2013) in their analyses was 107 college students who were invited online to participate in the study. The type of game that the subjects evaluated was an online "advergame" (a video game in which a brand is strategically placed).

RELIABILITY: Waiguny, Nelson, and Marko (2013) reported the scale's alpha to be .90.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Waiguny, Nelson, and Marko (2013).

COMMENTS: As noted above, the scale was used by Waiguny, Nelson, and Marko (2013) with respect to a game played by participants in the study. The items appear to be amenable for use with a game more likely to be watched than played such as professional football. If use of the scale is made in such a different context, the psychometric properties of the scale should be pretested and re-examined.

REFERENCES: MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65. Muehling, Darrel D. (1987), “Comparative Advertising: The Influence Attitude-Toward-The-Ad on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Advertising, 16 (4), 43-49. Waiguny, Martin K.J., Michelle R. Nelson, and Bernhard Marko (2013), "How Advergame Content Influences Explicit and Implicit Brand Attitudes: When Violence Spills Over," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 155-169.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

unappealing / appealing unpleasant / pleasant monotonous / dynamic unattractive / attractive 71

5. 6.

not entertaining / entertaining depressing / beneficial

1. Appropriate instructions or a scale stem must be used with these items to focus participants' attention on a particular game.

72

Attitude Toward the Game SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three simple, seven-point items are used in the scale to measure a person's opinion of how interesting and fun a game is.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kinard and Hartman (2013) created the scale by borrowing and adapting some items from the measure of attitude toward advertising by Henthorne, LaTour, and Nataraajan (1993). The final sample in the study was composed of 326 people, 18 years or older. The scale was administered along with others in an online setting after participants played a video game.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .917 (Kinard and Hartman 2013, p. 199).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Kinard and Hartman (2013).

COMMENTS: As noted above, the scale was used by Kinard and Hartman (2013) with respect to a video game. The scale is assumed to be appropriate for use with other types of in-door games that are played primarily for entertainment, e.g., cards, board games, guessing games. It is unknown how well the scale is appropriate for use with activities which involve physical exertion and which are played for reasons other than entertainment such as tennis, basketball, and soccer.

REFERENCES: Henthorne, Tony L., Michael S. LaTour, and Rajan Nataraajan (1993), “Fear Appeals in Print Advertising: An Analysis of Arousal and Ad Response,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (June), 59– 69. Kinard, Brian R. and Katherine B. Hartman (2013), "Are You Entertained? The Impact of Brand Integration and Brand Experience in Television-Related Advergames," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 196-203.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

good interesting fun to play

1. The scale was merely described as "Likert-type" by Kinard and Hartman (2013, p. 199). Given that, it is assumed that the extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were something like strongly disagree and strongly agree.

73

Attitude Toward the Hiking Boots SCALE DESCRIPTION: Seven, nine-point items are used in the scale to measure a person's beliefs regarding a pair of hiking boots. The emphasis is on how well the boots are thought to perform on the listed characteristics.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012) in Study 4 (n = 136 online participants). Although the source of the scale was not explicitly stated, it seems likely that the authors created it for use in their study.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .76 (Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala 2012).

VALIDITY: No evidence was provided by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012) in support of the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Ein-Gar, Danit, Baba Shiv, and Zakary L. Tormala (2012), "When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: The Positive Effect of Negative Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 846-859.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

orthopedic sole padded tongue water resistance breathability of materials availability in many colors warranty spare laces

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Ein-Gar, Shiv, and Tormala (2012) on the response scale were bad (1) and good (9).

74

Attitude Toward the Hotel SCALE DESCRIPTION: How well a person likes a hotel and wants to stay there is measured with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of this scale used by Kronrod and Danziger (2013) in Experiment 1 was not stated. It was assumed to have been created by them for the study. The participants in the online experiment were 342 residents of the U.S. who were recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Participants were asked to evaluate a hotel after reading ads about it that used either literal or figurative descriptions.

RELIABILITY: Kronrod and Danziger (2013) reported the scale's alpha to be .94.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided in the article by Kronrod and Danziger (2013).

REFERENCES: Kronrod, Ann and Shai Danziger (2013), "'Wii Will Rock You!' The Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption," Journal Of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 726-739.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

Would you like to stay at this hotel? definitely not / definitely yes How would you evaluate this hotel? very bad / very good How much do you like this hotel? don’t like it at all / like it very much

75

Attitude Toward the Movie (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's evaluation of a movie that he/she has seen is measured in this scale with seven, seven-point Likert-type items. The scale is general in that it appears to be usable with any movie. It may be adaptable for use with other forms of visual entertainment as well such as an episode of a TV series, a play, or a sporting event.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Dens et al. (2012) but, no information regarding its origin or creation was provided. Data were gathered from females in Belgium after they had seen one of two movies at a special screening: Bride Wars (n = 187) or The Women (n = 103). No information about the language used in survey instrument was discussed.

RELIABILITY: The alphas were calculated for each movie individually by Dens et al. (2012). They were .945 for Bride Wars and .913 for The Women.

VALIDITY: Dens et al. (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Dens, Nathalie, Patrick De Pelsmacker, Marijke Wouters, and Nathalia Purnawirawan (2012), "Do You Like What you Recognize? The Effects of Brand Placement Prominence and Movie Plot Connection on Brand Attitude as Mediated by Recognition," Journal of Advertising, 41 (3), 3554.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I enjoyed watching __________. I don’t regret watching __________. I’m glad I saw __________. I would watch __________ again. I like the story of __________. The acting in __________ is good. __________ is a good movie.

1. The name of the movie should be placed in the blanks.

76

Attitude Toward the Object (Disgusting) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three semantic differentials and an 11-point response format, this scale measures a person's attitude about how unpleasant something is. While the scale could be used in contexts in which the focal object is likely to be viewed as positive, its creators (Smith, Faro, and Burson 2013) used the scale with respect to people and animals experiencing some sort of suffering.

SCALE ORIGIN: Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) used the scale three times in the series of studies reported in their article. The source was not identified. They are likely to have created the scale themselves. As noted above, the contexts in which the scale was used by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) were negative. In fact, they were used with people and animals portrayed as victims that would benefit from actions by a charitable organization. The point is that, it is unknown how well the scale would perform in contexts where substantial portions of the sample could view the stimuli as positive or where sympathy was not playing a major role in participants' attitudes.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013) were .78 (Study 2), .86 (Study 3), and .85 (Study 4).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Smith, Faro, and Burson (2013).

REFERENCES: Smith, Robert W., David Faro, and Katherine A. Burson (2013), "More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 961-976.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

bad / good unpleasant / pleasant disgusting / beautiful

1. The verbal anchors for the response scale were extremely bad (-5), neutral (0), and extremely good (5). The scale stem was simply "How do you imagine the _____" (Smith 2014), with a brief reference to the situation participants had read about placed in the blank.

77

Attitude Toward the Person SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, eight-point items are used to measure how much a person likes another person and considers him/her a friend. Given the way the items are phrased, the other person is someone with whom the rater already has some form of relationship, e.g., neighbor, financial adviser, physician.

SCALE ORIGIN: Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) used the scale in Experiments 1 and 2, referring to it as relational liking. The authors adapted items from a four item scale used by Wayne and Ferris (1990) to measure liking for a subordinate. The scale was used by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) as a measure of one of three types of social relationship quality.

RELIABILITY: Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) reported the scale's alpha to be .834 and .888 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) to examine the adequacy of the three scales they used as measures of the dimensions of social relationship quality. Beyond confirming that there were three dimensions, no information was provided by the authors bearing on the scales' validities.

REFERENCES: Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, André Marchand, and Paul Marx (2012), "Can Automated Group Recommender Systems Help Consumers Make Better Choices?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 89–109. Wayne, Sandy J. and Gerald R. Ferris (1990), “Influence Tactics, Affect, and Exchange Quality in Supervisor–Subordinate Interactions: A Laboratory Experiment and Field Study,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 487–99.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I like my __________ very much as a person. I think my __________ is a good friend. I get along well with my __________.

1. The type of response scale used with these items was not described by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012). Most likely, it was a Likert-type scale. Further, an appropriate role-related descriptor for the other person should be placed in the blanks, e.g., neighbor, financial adviser, physician.

78

Attitude Toward the Pricing Policy SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's opinion of a company's pricing strategy is measured in this scale with three, sevenpoint Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by McGraw, Schwartz, and Tetlock (2012) in Study 7. The source of the scale was not stated and was probably created by them for the study. Participants in that study were 237 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .81 (McGraw, Schwartz, and Tetlock 2012, p. 162).

VALIDITY: McGraw, Schwartz, and Tetlock (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: McGraw, A. Peter, Janet A. Schwartz, and Philip E. Tetlock (2012), "From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 157-173.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

This is a fair pricing strategy. I support the use of this pricing strategy. I am upset by this pricing strategy. (r)

79

Attitude Toward the Promotional Offer SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer’s response to an offer of something of value is measured with five, seven-point semantic differentials. The emphasis is on one’s affective reaction to the offer.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Palmeira and Srivastava (2013) in Study 2. The sample was described as being 200 U.S. residents who had been recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not identified. The authors referred to the scale as feelings of reciprocity. While the items reflect some aspects of reciprocity it is not called that here because the items do not capture one’s motivation to reciprocate, i.e., willingness to give something of value to the other party.

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistency (alpha) was .93 (Palmeira and Srivastava 2013, p. 649).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Palmeira and Srivastava (2013).

COMMENTS: The scale items appear to be amenable for use with a wide variety of people, organizations, and events that have offered something to an individual. Of course, testing of the scale's psychometric quality is urged if used in different contexts than described here.

REFERENCES: Palmeira, Mauricio M. (2014), personal correspondence. Palmeira, Mauricio M. and Joydeep Srivastava (2013), "Free Offer ≠ Cheap Product: A Selective Accessibility Account on the Valuation of Free Offers," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 644-656.

SCALE ITEMS:1 How does it make you feel about __________? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Not positive at all / Extremely positive Not grateful at all / Extremely grateful Not appreciative at all / Extremely appreciative Very distant to them / Very close to them Not interested in them / Very interested in them

1. The items were supplied by Palmeira (2014). The name or description of the deal, the company, the brand, et cetera being offered to the consumer should be stated in the blank.

80

Attitude Toward the Responsible Drinking Ad (Challenge Appraisals) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures a person's response to an advertisement promoting responsible drinking. Three, seven-point items are used to measure the likelihood a person will respond successfully to the ad by drinking responsibly.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012). They appear to have created the scale after drawing ideas and phrases from a scale by Skinner and Brewer (2002) and, to a lesser extent, O’Connor, Arnold, and Maurizio (2010). The Study 2 sample was composed of 92 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .71 (Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han 2012).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Duhachek, Adam, Nidhi Agrawal, and DaHee Han (2012), "Guilt Versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 928–941. O’Connor Kathleen M., Josh A. Arnold, and Andrea M. Maurizio (2010), “The Prospect of Negotiating: Stress, Cognitive Appraisal and Performance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (5), 729–35. Skinner, Natalie and Neil Brewer (2002), “The Dynamics of Threat and Challenge Appraisals Prior to Stressful Achievement Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (3), 678–92.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. This ad makes me believe that stressful situations due to drinking contain the potential for positive beliefs such as “I can drink responsibly.” 2. Overall, after seeing this ad, I expect that I will drink responsibly rather than irresponsibly. 3. This ad makes me think that I look forward to drinking responsibly when I go to the bar. 1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) with these items were not at all likely (1) and very likely (7).

81

Attitude Toward the Responsible Drinking Ad (Threat Appraisals) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The response a person has to an advertisement promoting responsible drinking is measured with three, seven-point items. Specifically, the scale focuses on the degree to which a person worries about the negative consequences that could be experienced if he/she drinks irresponsibly.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012). They appear to have created the scale after drawing concepts and phrases from a scale by Skinner and Brewer (2002) and, to a lesser extent, O’Connor, Arnold, and Maurizio (2010). The Study 2 sample was composed of 92 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .76 (Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han 2012).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Duhachek, Adam, Nidhi Agrawal, and DaHee Han (2012), "Guilt Versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 928–941. O’Connor Kathleen M., Josh A. Arnold, and Andrea M. Maurizio (2010), “The Prospect of Negotiating: Stress, Cognitive Appraisal and Performance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (5), 729–35. Skinner, Natalie and Neil Brewer (2002), “The Dynamics of Threat and Challenge Appraisals Prior to Stressful Achievement Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (3), 678–92.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

This ad makes me worry that I will say or do the wrong things if I drink irresponsibly. This ad makes me worry about the kind of impression I make when I drink irresponsibly. This ad makes me think that I will feel like a failure if I drink irresponsibly.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) with these items were not at all likely (1) and very likely (7).

82

Attitude Toward the Retailer (General Evaluative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A customer's general evaluation of a retail store is measured in this scale with four, sevenpoint semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Martin (2012) was not given. However, the items are commonly used with a wide variety of objects to measure a general attitude. More specifically, Martin's version of the scale is very similar to a measure of attitude toward a service provider by Day (1996) as well as a measure of attitude toward a hotel chain by Posavac et al. (2004).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 in the study by Martin (2012).

VALIDITY: Martin (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Martin, Brett A. S. (2012), "A Stranger’s Touch: Effects of Accidental Interpersonal Touch on Consumer Evaluations and Shopping Time," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 174-184. Posavac, Steven S., David M. Sanbonmatsu, Frank R. Kardes and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2004), "The Brand Positivity Effect: When Evaluation Confers Preference," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 643-651. Stafford, Marla Royne (1996), “Tangibility in Services Advertising: An Investigation of Verbal versus Visual Cues,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (Fall), 13-28.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

good / bad positive / negative favorable / unfavorable high quality / low quality

83

Attitude Toward the Salesperson (Informative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three statements are used in this scale to measure a customer's opinion of how much a particular salesperson provides information about new goods and services.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Rapp et al. (2013) is unclear. Anderson, Lodish, and Weitz (1987) was cited but no such scale is in that article. Perhaps Rapp et al. (2013) drew ideas from the article and created the scale themselves. They used the scale in Study 1 which appears to have had 97 consumers.

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale by Rapp et al. (2013) was .96.

VALIDITY: Rapp et al. (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Versions of the scale were also administered by Rapp et al. (2013) to retail managers with respect to their suppliers and suppliers with respect to their retail customers.

REFERENCES: Anderson, Erin, Leonard M. Lodish, and Barton A. Weitz (1987), "Resource Allocation Behavior in Conventional Channels," Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (1), 85-97. Rapp, Adam (2013), personal correspondence. Rapp, Adam, Lauren Beitelspacher, Dhruv Grewal, and Douglas Hughes (2013), "Understanding Social Media Effects Across Seller, Retailer, And Consumer Interactions," Journal of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 547-566.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

This retail salesperson brings new products to my attention. This retail salesperson explains the value of new products or services. This retail salesperson discusses new products and services.

1. The items were provided by Rapp (2013). The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not identified. Anchors typically used with Likert-type scales seem to be appropriate, e.g, strongly disagree/strongly agree.

84

Attitude Toward the Store Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a customer likes a store brand and believes its quality to be high is measured in this scale using three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Van Ittersum et al. (2013) used the scale in Study 2 which gathered data from 194 members of a panel in the United States. Participants were told that they were going to shop in an experimental online grocery store that offered both national and store brands of a variety of products. The scale's source was not stated and is probably original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .78 (Van Ittersum et al. 2013, p. 26).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Van Ittersum et al. (2013).

REFERENCES: Van Ittersum, Koert, Brian Wansink, Joost M.E. Pennings, and Daniel Sheehan (2013), "Smart Shopping Carts: How Real-Time Feedback Influences Spending," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 21-36.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I like the store brand. I believe the quality of the store brand is high. I feel confident about the quality of the store brand.

1. Although not explicitly stated in the article, other information seems to indicate that Van Ittersum et al. (2013) used a five-point response format. The anchors were not provided but could have been the same as they used with another scale: totally disagree (1) and totally agree (5).

85

Attitude Toward Touching SCALE DESCRIPTION: Twenty, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure how comfortable a person is with touching and being touched by others. The statements are gender-neutral. The emphasis is on the importance of physical contact rather than the gender of those who are touching.

SCALE ORIGIN: Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013) used the scale in what they called Quantitative Study 2. The sample was composed of 120 students, 60 a piece from France and Germany. The survey instrument was in English. This touching scale is an adaptation of the Same Sex Touching Scale by Larsen and LeRoux (1984). Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013) slightly rephrased those items so that phrases referring to "same sex" or "my sex" were replaced with something more vague such as "others" or "friends."

RELIABILITY: In the study by Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013), the scale's alpha was .91. The authors examined the subsamples (French and Germans) for differences in the scale's alphas and found they were not significant.

VALIDITY: Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013) did not discuss the validity of their modified version of the scale.

REFERENCES: Larsen, Knud S. and Jeff LeRoux (1984), “A Study of Same Sex Touching Attitudes: Scale Development and Personality Predictors,” Journal of Sex Research, 20 (3), 264–78. Orth, Ulrich R., Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Kathrin Brand (2013), "Trust during Retail Encounters: A Touchy Proposition," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 301-314.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Touch is important in my communication with others. I appreciate a hug from a person when I need comforting. I enjoy persons who are comfortable with touching. I enjoy touching some persons. I sometimes enjoy the physical contact while hugging persons. I would feel comfortable embracing a close friend while fully clothed. I am comfortable putting my arm around the shoulders of persons. I sometimes enjoy hugging friends. I sometimes like some persons putting an arm around my shoulder. I enjoy being touched by someone. Physical expression of affection between persons is healthy. I am comfortable giving a massage to someone. When I am tense, I would enjoy receiving a neck and shoulder massage from a person. 86

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

I would rather avoid touching persons. (r) I feel uncomfortable touching in a relationship with someone. (r) Touching between persons should be limited to a handshake. (r) I like the feeling of warmth I sometimes get while embracing close friends. When I have a headache, having someone massage my neck and shoulders feels good. I sometimes hug persons when I feel close to them. It pleases me to see persons hug each other in greeting.

1. Judgment was used here to indicate which items should be reverse-scored. It was not indicated in the article by Orth, BouzdineChameeva, and Brand (2013). The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not stated either but were likely to have been something like strongly disagree/strongly agree.

87

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Being Helpful) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure a person's desire to help other people be more informed consumers by providing them with his/her opinion about a certain brand.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) by drawing concepts from work by Price, Feick, and Guskey (1995) and then creating items for the word-of-mouth (WOM) context. The former referred to their scale as intention to help others. Items for this scale and several others were generated by two independent "judges," only keeping the items for which there was consensus. Following that, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed below). The authors' model was tested separately for positive and negative WOM.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .77 and .86 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

VALIDITY: As noted above, the items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some scale items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below were .59 and .69 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Price, Linda L., Lawrence F. Feick, and Audrey Guskey (1995), "Everyday Market Helping Behavior," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 14 (2), 255-67.

SCALE ITEMS: When sharing my opinion about this brand with other people, I want . . . 1. 2. 3.

to help them be better customers. to help them get the information they want/need. to help them form an opinion about the brand or related issue.

88

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Self-Appraisal) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With five, seven-point Likert-type items the scale measures the degree to which a person believes that expressing one's opinion to someone else about a brand provides insight into who one is and what is valued.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) by drawing concepts from a measure of self-appraisal by Napper, Harris, and Epton (2009) and creating items for the word-of-mouth (WOM) context. The former referred to their scale as expected satisfaction of the need for self-affirmation. Items for this scale and several others were generated by two independent "judges," only keeping the items for which there was consensus. Following that, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below). The authors' model was tested separately for positive and negative WOM.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .92 and .93 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

VALIDITY: The items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below were .70 and .73 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

COMMENTS: The scale appears to be easily adaptable for use in contexts other than WOM by simply changing the scale stem, e.g., If I attend this event . . . .

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Napper, Lucy, Peter R. Harris, and Tracy Epton (2009), “Developing and Testing a SelfAffirmation Manipulation,” Self and Identity, 8 (1), 45–62.

SCALE ITEMS: If I share my opinion about this brand in a conversation . . . 89

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

It It It It It

will will will will will

reveal who I am. reveal what I stand for. make the other person aware of what I value about myself. make the other person understand what is important to me. make me think about positive aspects of myself.

90

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Self-Enhancement) SCALE DESCRIPTION: This three item, seven-point Likert-type scale measures the degree to which a person believes that expressing his/her opinion to another person about a certain brand will create a good impression of him/herself.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) by drawing concepts from a measure of self-enhancement motives by Yun, Takeuchi, and Liu (2007) and creating items for the word-of-mouth (WOM) context. The former referred to their scale as expected satisfaction of the need for self-enhancement. Items for this scale and several others were generated by two independent "judges," only keeping the items for which there was consensus. Following that, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below). The authors' model was tested separately for positive and negative WOM.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .79 and .84 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

VALIDITY: As noted above, the items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some scale items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities,validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below were .61 and .65 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

COMMENTS: The scale appears to be easily adaptable for use in contexts other than WOM by simply changing the scale stem, e..g., If I attend this event . . . .

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Yun, Seokhwa, Riki Takeuchi, and Wei Liu (2007), "Employee Self-Enhancement Motives and Job Performance Behaviors: Investigating the Moderating Effects of Employee Role Ambiguity and Managerial Perceptions of Employee Commitment," Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 745-756.

91

SCALE ITEMS: If I share my opinion about this brand in a conversation . . . 1. 2. 3.

It will create the impression that I am a “good” person. I will receive positive feedback from others about my gesture. I will create a positive impression on others.

92

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Social Bonding) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that expressing his/her opinion about a certain brand to someone will help the relationship is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) by drawing concepts from work by Baumeister and Leary (1995) and creating items for the word-of-mouth (WOM) context. The former referred to their scale as expected satisfaction of the need for social bonding. Items for this scale and several others were generated by two independent "judges," only keeping the items for which there was consensus. Following that, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below). The authors' model was tested separately for positive and negative WOM.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .81 and .84 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

VALIDITY: As noted above, the items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some scale items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below were .59 and .62 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

COMMENTS: The scale appears to be easily adaptable for use in contexts other than WOM by simply changing the scale stem, e..g., If I attend this event, . . . .

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary (1995), "The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation," Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497-529.

SCALE ITEMS: If I share my opinion about this brand in a conversation . . . 93

1. 2. 3.

it will provide a topic for further discussion with this person. it will benefit the relationship with this person. it will help me learn more about the person I'm talking with.

94

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Social Comparison) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief that expressing his/her opinion about a certain brand to others will enable comparisons with their experiences and feelings is measured with three, seven-point Likerttype items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) by drawing concepts from work by Festinger (1954) and creating items for the word-of-mouth (WOM) context. The former referred to their scale as expected satisfaction of the need for social comparison. Items for this scale and several others were generated by two independent "judges," only keeping the items for which there was consensus. Following that, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below). The authors' model was tested separately for positive and negative WOM.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .81 and .83 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

VALIDITY: As noted above, the items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some scale items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below were .59 and .65 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

COMMENTS: The scale appears to be easily adaptable for use in contexts other than WOM by simply changing the scale stem, e..g., If I attend this event, . . . .

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Festinger, Leon (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,” Human Relations, 7 (May), 117–140.

SCALE ITEMS: If I share my opinion about this brand, it will allow me to compare . . . 95

1. 2. 3.

my opinion about the brand to others’ opinions. my feelings of the brand to the feelings of other people. my experience with this brand to the experiences of others.

96

Attitude Toward Word-of-Mouth (Teach Cultural Values) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's desire for the expression of his/her opinion about a certain brand to help someone learn the values of society is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) by drawing concepts from the social learning literature (Bandura 1969; Baumeister et al. 2004) and then creating items for the word-of-mouth (WOM) context. The former referred to their scale as intention to share social information. Items for this scale and several others were generated by two independent "judges," only keeping the items for which there was consensus. Following that, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below). The authors' model was tested separately for positive and negative WOM.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94 and .93 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

VALIDITY: The items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below were .80 and .77 for the positive and negative WOM contexts, respectively.

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Bandura, Albert (1969), "Social-learning Theory of Identificatory Processes," in Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, D. A. Goslin, ed. Chicago: Rand McNally, 213–262. Baumeister, Roy F., Liqing Zhang, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2004), "Gossip as Cultural Learning," Review of General Psychology, 8 (2), 111–121.

SCALE ITEMS: When sharing my opinion about this brand with another person, I want them . . . 1. 2. 3.

to learn the standards of other people acceptable in our society. to understand the values of our society. to understand how our society tells right from wrong. 97

4.

to learn a moral story from our lives.

98

Attractiveness (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Six, seven-point semantic-differentials are employed in this scale to measure how beautiful and appealing something is believed to be. The scale is general in the sense that it appears to be amenable for use with a wide variety of objects such as people, architecture, and art.

SCALE ORIGIN: Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013) used the scale in what they called Quantitative Study 2. The sample was composed of 120 students, 60 a piece from France and Germany. The survey instrument was in English. The authors cited Ohanian (1991) as the source, however, only 2 of the 12 bi-polar adjectives are in common. Thus, the majority of the items are from some other, unspecified source.

RELIABILITY: In the study by Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013), the scale's alpha was .88. The authors examined the scale's alphas for the subsamples (French and Germans) and found the differences were not significant.

VALIDITY: Orth, Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Brand (2013) did not discuss the validity of the scale.

COMMENTS: Caution is urged in using this scale because it may not adequately cover the construct's full conceptual domain. That is because items of the form X/not X violate the assumption that the extreme adjectives of each pair should describe semantic opposites (e.g., Dawes and Smith 1985, p. 534; Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957, pp. 29, 83). For example, believing something is "not beautiful" is not the same as believing it is "ugly."

REFERENCES: Dawes, Robyn M. and Tom L. Smith (1985), “Attitude and Opinion Measurement,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds. New York: Random House, 509-566. Ohanian, Roobina (1991), “The Impact of Celebrity Spokespersons’ Perceived Image on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (1), 46–54. Orth, Ulrich R., Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva, and Kathrin Brand (2013), "Trust during Retail Encounters: A Touchy Proposition," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 301-314. Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

99

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

attractive / not attractive beautiful / not beautiful likable / not likable interesting / not interesting pleasing / not pleasing appealing / not appealing

100

Authenticity of the Story SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person believes that a particular story and the facts stated in it are correct is measured in this scale using three, seven-point Likert-type items. The scale seems to be amenable for use with advertisements, books, and movies by simply replacing the word "story" in each item with something else if desired.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012) but, few details of its development were provided. The scale was used in Study 1 and 2 as well as the pretests for those two studies. The survey instruments that included the scale were apparently phrased in Chinese and the data were collected from students in Taiwan. Translation of the materials in preparing the questionnaire and the published article was not discussed.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .91 to .97 in the main studies and pretests conducted by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used on the data in the two main studies conducted by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012). In both cases, the models fit the data well. Evidence was found in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales used to measure the constructs in the models. With respect to authenticity in particular, its AVEs were .78 (Study 1) and .77 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Chiu, Hung-Chang, Yi-Ching Hsieh, and Yi-Chu Kuo (2012), "How to Align your Brand Stories with Your Products," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 262–275.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

The story is authentic. The story seems able to occur in the real world. There is an abundance of facts so that I believe the story is authentic.

101

Availability of Green Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: The ease with which a consumer is able to find where to purchase so-called "green products" is measured using five, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) stated that they adapted the scale from work by Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000). While the latter used a scale that measured a product's distribution intensity, it was very different from the scale reviewed here. Given that, it may be more accurate to say that Gleim et al. (2013) created the scale and were inspired in some way by the research conducted by Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .91.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. Also, evidence was found in support of the availability scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .66.

COMMENTS: The scale seems to be amenable for use with other types of products by merely replacing the phrase "green products" in each item with an appropriate phrase, e.g., fair trade goods, locally produced products, organic foods.

REFERENCES: Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61. Yoo, Boonghee, Naveen Donthu, and Sungho Lee (2000), “An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 195-211.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I can easily determine where I can purchase green products. Buying green products is convenient. Green products are easy to find. I know where to find green products. Green products are readily available.

102

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

103

Avoidance of Personalized Advertising SCALE DESCRIPTION: Five, seven-point Likert-type items are used in the scale to measure the degree to which a person has taken action to minimize exposure to personalized advertising.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Baek and Morimoto (2012) was developed by them. They adapted items primarily from several scales by Elliott and Speck (1998) with some inspiration coming from a scale by Cho and Cheon (2004). Baek and Morimoto (2012) used the scale with four media types: direct mail, unsolicited commercial e-mail, telephone calls, and text messages. Slight adjustments were made in the items depending on the medium. Reliability and validity were evaluated with the data combined from the four ad media.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .89 (Baek and Morimoto 2012).

VALIDITY: Baek and Morimoto (2012) performed CFA on the items composing the several scales in their study. Loadings of the items on their respective factors were statistically significant and the AVEs were greater than .50, providing evidence of the scales' convergent validities. Likewise, all AVEs were higher than the squared correlations with the other scales, providing evidence of their discriminant validities. The AVE of the avoidance scale was .557.

REFERENCES: Baek, Tae Hyun and Mariko Morimoto (2012), "Stay Away From Me: Examining the Determinants of Consumer Avoidance of Personalized Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59-76. Cho, Chang-Hoan, and Hongsik J. Cheon (2004), “Why Do People Avoid Advertising on the Internet?” Journal of Advertising, 33 (4), 89–97. Elliott, Michael T., and Paul S. Speck (1998), “Consumer Perceptions of Advertising Clutter and Its Impact Across Various Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (1), 29–41.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I intentionally ignore any personalized advertising on __________. 2. I hate any personalized advertising on __________. 3. It would be better if there were no personalized advertising on __________. 4. I discard (throw away, hang up) personalized advertising on __________ immediately without opening (reading, listening to) it. 5. I have asked marketers to take me off their e-mail (mailing, telephone) lists.

1. The name of the focal medium should be placed in the blanks, e.g., e-mail. The parenthetical material in #4 and #5 can be used to adapt items for the focal medium.

104

Awareness of Surroundings SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three items to measure the degree to which a person is very sensitive of his/her contextual environment. Given the way the statements are currently phrased, the scale is more a state vs. trait measure.

SCALE ORIGIN: In Study 4 (n = 88 undergraduates) of the five reported by Wilcox and Stephen (2013), the Situational Self-Awareness Scale was used (Govern and Marsch 2001). The instrument has three subscales, one of which is a measure of awareness of one's immediate surroundings. Some evidence was provided by Govern and Marsch (2001) of the subscales' unidimensionalities, internal consistencies, and some aspects of their validities.

RELIABILITY: When used by Wilcox and Stephen (2013), the alpha for the private self-awareness scale was .76.

VALIDITY: Wilcox and Stephen (2013) did not provide information about the private self-awareness scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Given the way each of the items begin, they are more a state than a trait measure of the construct. However, by dropping that beginning phrase and possibly adding a word such as "usually" in the proper place then the scale can be more of a trait measure, e.g., I am usually conscious of what is going on around me. Of course, proper re-examination of the modified scale's psychometric properties is urged.

REFERENCES: Govern, John M., and Lisa A. Marsch (2001), “Development and Validation of the Situational Self-Awareness Scale,” Consciousness and Cognition, 10 (3), 366–78. Wilcox, Keith and Andrew T. Stephen (2013), "Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 90-103.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Right now, I am keenly aware of everything my environment. Right now, I am conscious of what is going on around me. Right now, I am conscious of all objects around me.

1. Govern and Marsch (2001) used a Likert-type format with verbal anchors that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Wilcox and Stephen (2013) did not describe the response format they used with these items.

105

Behavior of Other Customers (Suitability) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a customer believes that other customers in a particular service environment acted appropriately and pleasantly.

SCALE ORIGIN: In an excellent set of studies, the suitability scale and two companion measures were created and validated by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012). They referred to the set of scales as OCP (Other Customer Perceptions) and expected it to have the properties of a reflective first order (three factors) and formative second order model. Prior to the quantitative studies, 61 items were generated for measuring the three factors and they went through two rounds of content validation with expert judges. After that, 24 items remained and were purified in Study 1, leaving 14 items for Study 2 in which the validation process led to the removal of one more item. Study 3 examined nomological validity then temporal stability was tested in Study 4.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistencies reported by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012) for the suitability scale were .86 (construct reliability) in Study 2, .89 (construct reliability for younger sample) and .91 (construct reliability for older sample) in Study 3, and .92 (Cronbach's alpha) in Study 4. The temporal stability of the scale was measured in Study 4 by re-contacting Study 3 participants. Based on 88 respondents, the one month test-retest correlation was .70.

VALIDITY: Beyond the content validation that occurred before the quantitative studies, considerable evidence was provided by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012) in support of the suitability scale's convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. The AVEs for the scale were .61 (Study 2), .67 (younger sample in Study 3), and .71 (older sample in Study 3).

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Clay M. Voorhees, and Julie Baker (2012), "Understanding the Influence of Cues from Other Customers in the Service Experience: A Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Retailing, 88 (3), 384–398.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The behavior of the other customers were appropriate for the setting. The other patrons were friendly towards me. I found that the other patrons behaved well. The other patrons’ behavior was pleasant.

106

Benefits of Organic Food SCALE DESCRIPTION: This five item, seven-point, Likert-type scale measures some of the benefits of food being grown "organically." Although not stated, the implication is that the benefits are relative to the potential negative consequences of chemically aiding the growth of food. Further, the benefits stated in the scale are about the production side of the process. No benefits in the actual consumption of organic food are referred to such as healthiness or better taste.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 1 conducted by Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2012). They referred to it as "the belief scale." Its source was not stated and is likely to have been created by the authors for the study.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .93 (Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling 2012, p. 37).

VALIDITY: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Kareklas, Ioannis, Jeffrey R. Carlson, and Darrel D. Muehling (2012), "The Role of Regulatory Focus and Self-View in 'Green' Advertising Message Framing," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 25-39.

SCALE ITEMS: Consuming organic food . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Improves the state of the environment. Reduces the use of artificial fertilizers in agriculture. Reduces the amount of chemicals that run off into lakes and watercourses. Reduces soil pollution. Reduces the use of herbicides and pesticides in agriculture.

107

Brand Anthropomorphism SCALE DESCRIPTION: The attribution of human-like qualities such as self-awareness and desires to a brand is measured in the scale using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto (2013) used the scale in several pretests and main experiments reported in the article. The source of the scale was not identified and is assumed to have been developed by the authors for use in the studies.

RELIABILITY: Over the several pretests and experiments conducted by Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto (2013), the alphas ranged from .82 to .93.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not explicitly addressed by Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto (2013). However, the scale was used as a manipulation check several times and in each case the manipulation was shown to be successful. Given that, evidence was provided of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Puzakova, Marina, Hyokjin Kwak, and Joseph F. Rocereto (2013), "When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of Brand Anthropomorphization Amid Product Wrongdoings," Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 81-100.

SCALE ITEMS: It seems almost as if _____ has:1 1. 2. 3.

its own beliefs and desires. consciousness. a mind of its own.

1. The brand name should be placed in the blank.

108

Brand Consciousness SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's tendency to buy well-known brand name products (national brands) rather than those owned by distributors (store brands) is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by by Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) based on items from scales by Donthu and Gilliland (1996) and Shim and Gehrt (1996). The analyses conducted by Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) used data from 314 people who responded to a national (U.S.) survey of customers of an Internet store specializing in women's clothing.

RELIABILITY: Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) reported the construct reliability of the scale to be .81.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) to test a model of all their scales. Given that the model fit, it provides evidence of the brand consciousness scale's unidimensionality. Further tests conducted by the authors provided explicit evidence of the scale's discriminant validity.

REFERENCES: Donthu, Naveen and David Gilliland (1996), “The Infomercial Shopper,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (March/April), 69–76. Kukar-Kinney, Monika, Nancy M. Ridgway, and Kent B. Monroe (2012), "The Role of Price in the Behavior and Purchase Decisions of Compulsive Buyers," Journal of Retailing, 88 (1), 6371. Shim, Soyeon and Kenneth C. Gehrt (1996), “Hispanic and Native American Adolescents: An Exploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (3), 307–24.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. I usually purchase brand name products. 2. The well-known national brands are best for me. 3. When given a choice between a national brand name product and a store brand product, I choose the national brand most of the time.

109

Brand Equity SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's belief in a brand's superiority over competing brands and willingness to pay more for it is measured using four statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: The index was created by Sirianni et al. (2013) and called customer-based brand equity. They used the scale in two of the four studies described in the article. The index was created by drawing one item from each of four scales by Netemeyer et al. (2004) used to measure the multiple constructs that they theorized composed brand equity.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .92 and .94 in Studies 1 and 4, respectively, conducted by Sirianni et al. (2013, pp. 112, 119).

VALIDITY: The validity of the index was not addressed by Sirianni et al. (2013). However, they did provide the results of a factor analysis conducted on data gathered in Study 1 with items in this scale and another one (overall brand evaluation). The items loaded well on their expected factors.

COMMENTS: Despite the high alphas reported for the scale and the good performance in the EFA, the considerable work by Netemeyer et al. (2004) demonstrated that the items in this scale measure several related but distinct constructs. Further work is called for to determine if this set of items measures one construct or several.

REFERENCES: Netemeyer, Richard G., Balaji Krishnan, Chris Pullig, Guangping Wang, Mehmet Yagci, Dwane Dean, Joe Ricks, and Ferdinand Wirth (2004), “Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 209–224. Sirianni, Nancy J., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, and Naomi Mandel (2013), "Branded Service Encounters: Strategically Aligning Employee Behavior with the Brand Positioning," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 108-123.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The brand is the best brand in its product class. The brand really “stands out” from other __________ brands. I am willing to pay more for the brand than other comparable __________ brands. Compared with other __________ brands, the brand is a good value for the money.

110

1. If desired, the name of the focal brand could be used in place of the phrase "the brand" in each statement. As used by Sirianni et al. (2013), the blanks contained the phrase "retail clothing." For other potential users of the scale, a phrase appropriate for the focal product category can be used, if desired. Finally, the number of points and verbal anchors used with these statements by Sirianni et al. (2013) were not stated. They could have been seven point strongly disagree/strongly agree scales as used by Netemeyer et al. (2004).

111

Brand Extension Authenticity (Avoiding Exploitation) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures the belief that a particular brand extension is not diluting what is special about the brand for profit sake. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or with one in development.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created along with three others by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012). The scales were developed to be measures of the four primary dimensions of a construct the authors called Brand Extension Authenticity (BEA). Refinement of the construct as well development of its measurement was conducted in a set of steps. In brief, four studies were used to create items and scales, purify and validate the scales, and establish boundaries of the BEA construct.

RELIABILITY: Although the reliability of the four scales was probably assessed in each study, it was only reported for Study 1 (n = 232 student and nonstudent participants). The alpha for the measure of avoiding brand exploitation was .91. The temporal stability of the full scale was measured using 118 undergraduate students. The two month test-retest correlation was .73. (The test-retest results for the four subscales were not reported.)

VALIDITY: Prior to Study 1, Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) examined the content validity of the scale items that had been developed. The latent structure of the BEA construct was tested in Study 1. A comparison of models showed that the four-factor oblique model had the best fit. In Study 2, the authors examined whether BEA was distinct from brand extension fit. The analysis showed that not only were the four BEA scales distinct from each other but they also had discriminant validity with respect to two dimensions of fit (similarity and relevance).

REFERENCES: Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The extension likely trades off the essence of _____ strictly for profit. (r) 2. This extension likely sacrifices what I think makes _____ special in exchange for commercial gain. (r) 3. With this extension, it seems that _____ was more concerned about preserving the brand rather than growing the market.

1. The brand's name should be inserted into the blanks.

112

Brand Extension Authenticity (Honoring Heritage) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures a person's belief that a particular brand extension has a legitimate connection with the original. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or with one in development. Three, seven-point Likert-type statements compose the scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created along with three others by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012). The scales were developed to be measures of the four primary dimensions of a construct the authors called Brand Extension Authenticity (BEA). Refinement of the construct as well development of its measurement was conducted in a set of steps. In brief, four studies were used to create items and scales, purify and validate the scales, and establish boundaries of the BEA construct.

RELIABILITY: Although the reliability of the four scales was probably assessed in each study, it was only reported for Study 1 (n = 232 student and nonstudent participants). The alpha for the measure of honoring brand heritage was .87. The temporal stability of the full scale was measured using 118 undergraduate students. The two month test-retest correlation was .73. (The test-retest results for the four subscales were not reported.)

VALIDITY: Prior to Study 1, Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) examined the content validity of the scale items that had been developed. The latent structure of the BEA construct was tested in Study 1. A comparison of models showed that the four-factor oblique model had the best fit. In Study 2, the authors examined whether BEA was distinct from brand extension fit. The analysis showed that not only were the four BEA scales distinct from each other but they also had discriminant validity with respect to two dimensions of fit (similarity and relevance).

REFERENCES: Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

This extension appears to connect with what I know about _____'s origins. There is no link between this extension and what I know about _____'s legacy. (r) _____ seems to have abandoned its roots with this extension. (r)

1. The brand's name should be inserted into the blanks.

113

Brand Extension Authenticity (Maintaining Standards & Style) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person believes a particular brand extension is consistent in its aesthetics and production quality with the parent brand is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type statements. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or one in development.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created along with three others by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012). The scales were developed to be measures of the four primary dimensions of a construct the authors called Brand Extension Authenticity (BEA). Refinement of the construct as well development of its measurement was conducted in a set of steps. In brief, four studies were used to create items and scales, purify and validate the scales, and establish boundaries of the BEA construct.

RELIABILITY: Although the reliability of the four scales was probably assessed in each study, it was only reported for Study 1 (n = 232 student and nonstudent participants). The alpha for the scale measuring maintenance of standards and style was .85. The temporal stability of the full scale was measured using 118 undergraduate students. The two month test-retest correlation was .73. (The test-retest results for the four subscales were not reported.)

VALIDITY: Prior to Study 1, Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) examined the content validity of the scale items that had been developed. The latent structure of the BEA construct was tested in Study 1. A comparison of models showed that the four-factor oblique model had the best fit. In Study 2, the authors examined whether BEA was distinct from brand extension fit. The analysis showed that not only were the four BEA scales distinct from each other but they also had discriminant validity with respect to two dimensions of fit (similarity and relevance).

REFERENCES: Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The standards of _____ are apparently contained in this extension. The style of this extension seems to reflect that of _____. This extension appears to reflect the quality I associate with _____.

1. The brand's name should be inserted into the blanks.

114

Brand Extension Authenticity (Preserving Essence) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person's belief that a particular brand extension upholds and perpetuates the unique meaning of the brand. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or with one in development.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created along with three others by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012). The scales were developed to be measures of the four primary dimensions of a construct the authors called Brand Extension Authenticity (BEA). Refinement of the construct as well development of its measurement was conducted in a set of steps. In brief, four studies were used to create items and scales, purify and validate the scales, and establish boundaries of the BEA construct.

RELIABILITY: Although the reliability of the four scales was probably assessed in each study, it was only reported for Study 1 (n = 232 student and nonstudent participants). The alpha for the measure of preserving brand essence was .88. The temporal stability of the full scale was measured using 118 undergraduate students. The two month test-retest correlation was .73. (The test-retest results for the four subscales were not reported.)

VALIDITY: Prior to Study 1, Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) examined the content validity of the scale items that had been developed. The latent structure of the BEA construct was tested in Study 1. A comparison of models showed that the four-factor oblique model had the best fit. In Study 2, the authors examined whether BEA was distinct from brand extension fit. The analysis showed that not only were the four BEA scales distinct from each other but they also had discriminant validity with respect to two dimensions of fit (similarity and relevance).

REFERENCES: Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

This extension is not consistent with my image of _____. (r) This extension preserves what _____ means to me. This extension captures what makes _____ unique to me.

1. The brand's name should be inserted into the blanks.

115

Brand Extension Fit (Functional) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a brand extension is similar to its parent brand in satisfying the same needs, being used in the same situations, and have common physical features.

SCALE ORIGIN: Carter and Curry (2013) created the scale, adapting one by Dacin and Smith (1994). The study conducted by Carter and Curry (2013) gathered data from adult grocery shoppers who were sampled from a nationwide (U.S.) panel maintained by a marketing research firm. The sample size used in the analyses was apparently 585 respondents.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Carter and Curry 2013, p. 267).

VALIDITY: Several steps were taken by Carter and Curry (2013) to ensure that their scales were measuring distinct constructs. They used both EFA and CFA with the items in the functional fit scale along with the items in two related scales to show that the factor solution and level of model fit met accepted guidelines. Evidence was provided in support of the discriminant validity of the three scales. The AVE for functional fit was .70.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was made and tested for use when a comparison is being made between a parent brand and an extension, the items appear to be amenable for use in other contexts such as when two competing brands are compared. However, if used for other contexts, caution should be exercised until testing confirms the scale's psychometric quality.

REFERENCES: Carter, Robert E. and David J. Curry (2013), "Perceptions versus Performance When Managing Extensions: New Evidence about the Role of Fit Between a Parent Brand and an Extension," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 253 - 269. Dacin, Peter A. and Daniel C. Smith (1994), "The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 229–242.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Are similar in terms of the situations in which they are used. Are similar in terms of the needs they satisfy. Are similar in terms of their physical features.

1. To make the scale items understandable as shown and without modification, the instructions should name the brands and describe their relationship.

116

Brand Extension Fit (Image) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has three, five-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a brand extension is consistent with its parent brand, particularly in terms of image.

SCALE ORIGIN: Carter and Curry (2013) created the scale, adapting one by Salinas and Pérez (2009) who in turn had drawn phrases from measures used by Keller and Aaker (1992) as well as Taylor and Bearden (2002). The study conducted by Carter and Curry (2013) gathered data from adult grocery shoppers who were sampled from a nationwide (U.S.) panel maintained by a marketing research firm. The sample size used in the analyses was apparently 585 respondents.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .96 (Carter and Curry 2013, p. 267).

VALIDITY: Several steps were taken by Carter and Curry (2013) to ensure that their scales were measuring distinct constructs. They used both EFA and CFA with the items in the image fit scale along with the items in two related scales to show that the factor solution and degree of model fit met accepted guidelines. Evidence was provided in support of the discriminant validity of the three scales. The AVE for image fit was .89.

REFERENCES: Carter, Robert E. and David J. Curry (2013), "Perceptions versus Performance When Managing Extensions: New Evidence about the Role of Fit Between a Parent Brand and an Extension," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 253 - 269. Keller, Kevin Lane and David A. Aaker (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50. Salinas, Eva Martinez and José Miguel Pina Pérez (2009), "Modeling the Brand Extensions’ Influence on Brand Image," Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 50–60. Taylor, Valerie A. and William O. Bearden (2002), “The Effects of Price on Brand Extension Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Extension Similarity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (2), 131-140.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

_____ is consistent with my image of the manufacturer. It is logical for the manufacturer to make _____. It is appropriate for the manufacturer to make _____.

1. The items taken from the article by Carter and Curry (2013) have been made into complete sentences to make them more usable by other researchers in their questionnaires. The name of the extension brand should be placed in the blanks. To further clarify the items for use with respondents, instructions should be provided that describe the relationship between the parent and the extension brands.

117

Brand Extension Fit (Relevance) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures a person's belief that the characteristics of a brand (its perceived benefits or concepts) are shared by a particular brand extension. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or with one in development.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) along with another scale to measure brand extension fit. Specifically, the authors generated ten items they thought would represent the similarity and the relevance dimensions of fit. As noted below, their factor analyses provided support for seven items being used to create the similarity scale and three to measure the relevance dimension. Although the two fit scales were used in several studies, information regarding their psychometric quality comes primarily from Study 2.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the relevance scale in Study 2 was .829 (Spiggle 2014).

VALIDITY: Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to examine the structure of the ten fit items they had generated. Indeed, the factor analyses showed there were two dimensions. The authors also wanted to make sure that four scales they created to measure the dimensions of Brand Extension Authenticity (BEA) were distinct from fit. The analysis showed that not only were the four BEA scales distinct from each other but they also had discriminant validity with respect to the two dimensions of fit (similarity and relevance).

REFERENCES: Spiggle, Susan (2014), personal correspondence. Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The benefits I associate with _____ are not relevant to the extension’s product category. (r) 2. The characteristics I associate with _____ are relevant to the extension’s product category. 3. The associations that I have for _____ are important to the extension’s product category.

1. The brand's name should be inserted into the blanks.

118

Brand Extension Fit (Similarity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's belief that a particular brand extension is consistent with and representative of a parent brand is measured using ten, seven-point Likert-type items. The scale can be used with an extension already on the market or with one in development.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) along with another scale to measure brand extension fit. Specifically, the authors generated ten items they thought would represent the similarity and the relevance dimensions of fit. As noted below, their factor analyses provided support for seven items being used to create the similarity scale and three to measure the relevance dimension. Although the two fit scales were used in several studies, information regarding their psychometric quality comes primarily from Study 2.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the relevance scale in Study 2 was .912 (Spiggle 2014).

VALIDITY: Spiggle, Nguyen, and Caravella (2012) used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to examine the structure of the ten fit items they had generated. Indeed, the factor analyses showed there were two dimensions. The authors also wanted to make sure that four scales they created to measure the dimensions of Brand Extension Authenticity (BEA) were distinct from fit. The analysis showed that not only were the four BEA scales distinct from each other but they also had discriminant validity with respect to the two dimensions of fit (similarity and relevance).

REFERENCES: Spiggle, Susan (2014), personal correspondence. Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), "More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 967–983.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The extension is a good fit with _____’s products. 2. The extension is inconsistent with _____’s products. (r) 3. The extension is similar to _____’s products. 4. The extension is not representative of _____. (r) 5. It is likely that one would use the extension in the same situation as I connect to _____’s products. 6. The level of similarity or overlap between the target market for the extension and the consumer group you associate with _____’s products is high. 7. _____’s product category and the extension’s product category are not similar. (r)

1. The brand's name should be inserted into the blanks.

119

Brand Extension Fit (Similarity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four items, this scale measures how similar a brand extension is to its parent brand and the appropriateness of launching it.

SCALE ORIGIN: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used the scale in two studies, one in Austria and one in Bulgaria. The scale was phrased in German for purposes of Study 1. It is assumed to have been translated into Bulgarian for Study 2 though that was not explicitly stated by the authors. Taylor and Bearden (2002) were cited by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) as the source of the scale. While some key phrases come from a scale by the former, they had drawn heavily from an even older scale by Keller and Aaker (1992). Yet, the scale shown below appears to be most similar to a version created by Salinas and Pérez (2009).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .93 and .92 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, evidence of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities was provided by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013). The scale's AVEs were .77 and .74 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

COMMENTS: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) also created a measure they called Brand origin– extension fit that was only slightly different from the scale shown below. See the footnote (below) for details.

REFERENCES: Keller, Kevin Lane and David A. Aaker (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50. Salinas, Eva Martinez and José Miguel Pina Pérez (2009), "Modeling the Brand Extensions’ Influence on Brand Image," Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 50–60. Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact Of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, And Brand Origin-Extension Fit On Brand Extension Success," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567-585. Taylor, Valerie A. and William O. Bearden (2002), “The Effects of Price on Brand Extension Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Extension Similarity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (2), 131-140.

120

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

_____ fits with the image of __________. _____ is similar to other products offered by __________. Launching _____ is logical for __________. Launching _____ is appropriate for __________.

1. The number of points on the scale were not specified but appear to have been seven. The name of the extension should be placed in the shorter blank of each sentence while the second longer blanks should contain the name of the parent brand. To measure fit with respect to a brand's national origin, the second blank of each item should have the name of the focal country. Inserted before that in items #2-#4 should be the phrase "companies located in."

121

Brand Globalness SCALE DESCRIPTION: This seven-point, semantic-differential scale measures how much a person views a brand as being sold around the world or, at the other extreme, only being consumed in a particular country or region.

SCALE ORIGIN: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used the scale in two studies, one in Austria and one in Bulgaria. The scale was phrased in German for purposes of Study 1. It is assumed to have been translated into Bulgarian for Study 2 though that was not explicitly stated by the authors. The scale was created by Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) who drew ideas from a scale by Batra et al. (2000). As used in the U.S. and Korea (translated) by Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003), the scale had alphas of .799 and .785, respectively. The authors also provided evidence in support of the scale's unidimensionality, convergent and discriminant validities, as well as its cross-national invariance.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .86 and .92 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria) by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013), respectively.

VALIDITY: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used CFA to provide evidence of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .69 and .80 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

REFERENCES: Batra, Rajeev Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana L. Alden, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000), "Effects of Brand Local/Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95. Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact Of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, And Brand Origin-Extension Fit On Brand Extension Success," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567-585. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), "How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value," Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 5365.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. To me, this is a global brand / To me, this is a local brand 2. I don't think consumers overseas buy this brand / I do think consumers overseas buy this brand 3. This brand is sold only in _____ / This brand is sold all over the world 1 122

1. The name of the focal country or region should be stated in the blank.

123

Brand Image (Conservative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses four, nine-point unipolar items to measure a person's belief that a certain brand is ordinary and typical rather than being characterized as a leader or innovative brand.

SCALE ORIGIN: Barone and Jewell (2013) used the scale in Study 3 of the studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by them. In Study 3, data were collected from 114 adults recruited from Amazon.com's mTurk service.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 3 was .73 (Barone and Jewell 2013, p. 130).

VALIDITY: Although Barone and Jewell (2013) did not address the scale's validity per se, some evidence of it can be gleaned from other tests that were conducted. First, the scale was used as a manipulation check and confirmed that the manipulation worked as intended. That provided some support for the scale's predictive validity. Second, when the items in this scale and a companion scale (innovativeness of a brand) were examined using factor analysis, the items loaded on the expected factors. That provides evidence of the scale's unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Barone, Michael J. and Robert D. Jewell (2013), "The Innovator's License: A Latitude to Deviate from Category Norms," Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 120-134.

SCALE ITEMS:1 _____ is: 1. 2. 3. 4.

conservative conformist conventional a follower

1. The name of the focal brand should be placed in the blank of the scale stem. The extreme anchors of the response scale used by Barone and Jewell (2013) were not at all descriptive (1) and very descriptive (9).

124

Brand Image (Innovative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person views a certain brand as being a leader and innovative is measured in this scale with three, nine-point unipolar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Barone and Jewell (2013) used the scale in Study 3 of the studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by them. In Study 3, data were collected from 114 adults recruited from Amazon.com's mTurk service.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 3 was .74 (Barone and Jewell 2013, p. 130).

VALIDITY: Although Barone and Jewell (2013) did not address the scale's validity per se, some evidence of it can be gleaned from other tests that were conducted. First, the scale was used as a manipulation check and confirmed that the manipulation worked as intended. That provided some support for the scale's predictive validity. Second, when the items in this scale and a companion scale (non-innovativeness of a brand) were examined using factor analysis, the items loaded on the expected factors. That provides preliminary evidence of the scale's unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Barone, Michael J. and Robert D. Jewell (2013), "The Innovator's License: A Latitude to Deviate from Category Norms," Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 120-134.

SCALE ITEMS:1 _____ is: 1. 2. 3.

innovative contemporary a leader

1. The name of the focal brand should be placed in the blank of the scale stem. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale used by Barone and Jewell (2013) were not at all descriptive (1) and very descriptive (9).

125

Brand Improvement SCALE DESCRIPTION: How familiar a consumer is with the improvements made in a brand over some specified time period and his/her approval of the changes is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale is original to Lam et al. (2013; Lam 2014). The sample used was from a European research company's online panel. Specifically, the final dataset was 635 usable responses from panel members in Spain. The questionnaire was developed in English, translated into Spanish, then back-translated. Once some revisions were made, the survey instrument was pretested. The data used for the analyses came from those participants who completed all five waves of the longitudinal study.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .81 to .90 as measured for the focal and competing brands (Lam et al. 2013, Lam 2014).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, data regarding the Brand Improvement scale appears to have been included in the EFA conducted by Lam et al. (2013). The results showed that all of the items had strong loadings on their intended factors. Further, with one exception (not involving Brand Improvement), the tests indicated there was discriminant validity between all other pairs of scales.

REFERENCES: Lam, Son (2014), personal correspondence. Lam, Son, Michael Ahearne, Ryan Mullins, Babak Hayati, and Niels Schillewaert (2013), "Exploring the Dynamics of Antecedents to Consumer–Brand Identification with a New Brand," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 234 - 252.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. During the past __________, this brand has made significant improvements. 2. I am fully aware of the new features that this brand has introduced in the past __________. 3. I really like the improvements that this brand has made in the past __________.

1. A time period should be stated in the blanks. The phrase used by Lam et al. (2013) was "two months."

126

Brand Schematicity SCALE DESCRIPTION: Ten, nine-point Likert-type items are used to measure a consumer's predisposition to attend to, organize, interpret, and use incoming information according to brand schema.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created and tested in seven studies by Puligadda, Ross, and Grewal (2012). They hypothesized that the development of brand schematicity leads to a preoccupation with brands while, at the other extreme, a consumer who is brand-aschematic processes the information some other way and views brands as mere labels.

RELIABILITY: Information about the scale's reliability was only reported by Puligadda, Ross, and Grewal (2012) for the first three of seven studies. The alphas were .90, .89, and .87 for Studies 1 (n = 312 college students), 2 (n = 160 college students), and 3 (n = 60 college students), respectively.

VALIDITY: A variety of evidence was provided by Puligadda, Ross, and Grewal (2012) as evidence of the scale's validity. Briefly, support was found for the scale's unidimensionality, convergent and discriminant validities, predictive validity, and nomological validity. Its AVE tended to be acceptable (> .50) though in one case it was much lower (.44, p. 123).

REFERENCES: Puligadda, Sanjay (2013), personal correspondence. Puligadda, Sanjay, William T. Ross Jr., and Rajdeep Grewal (2012), "Individual Differences in Brand Schematicity," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 115-130.

SCALE ITEMS: Directions: Please read the questions carefully, and answer them to the best of your ability based on your nature, habits, and behavior. Each question consists of a statement followed by a disagree/agree scale. Please indicate your level of disagreement or agreement with the statements. If you disagree strongly, select 1, and if you agree strongly, circle 9. If you are neutral or do not know, circle 5. You can also circle any other number that is closest to how you feel. Please be truthful and completely honest.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I couldn’t care less what brands people around me are using. (r) Product features are more important than brand names in my buying decisions. (r) When I go shopping, I am always scanning the environment for brand names. Brands are not at all important to me. (r) Brand name considerably influences my buying decisions. I like to surround myself with recognizable brand names at home. When I am considering products, the brand name is more important to me than any other 127

information. 8. Brands are important to me because they indicate social status. 9. The brand name is the least important information to me when I am considering a product. (r) 10. I keep abreast of the brands people around me are using.

1. The directions were provided by Puligadda (2013).

128

Brand Usage (Conspicuousness) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much another person is believed to be engaged in conspicuous consumption of a brand in order to impress others and/or gain their approval is measured with three, seven-point items. To be clear, the scale items are phrased to measure what the respondent believes motivates another person's behavior rather than one's self.

SCALE ORIGIN: Ferraro, Kirmani, and Matherly (2013) used the scale multiple times in the studies and pretests described in their article. They referred to the scale as "the target's ulterior motives." The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .93 (Study 1 pretest), .92 (Study 2), and .93 (Study 3; Ferraro, Kirmani, and Matherly 2013).

VALIDITY: Ferraro, Kirmani, and Matherly (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Ferraro, Rosellina, Amna Kirmani, and Ted Matherly (2013), "Look at Me! Look at Me! Conspicuous Brand Usage, Self-Brand Connection, and Dilution," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 477-488.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

To what extent do you think _____ uses __________ to impress other people? To what extent do you think _____ uses __________ to show off? To what extent do you think _____ uses __________ to gain the approval of others?

1. The extreme anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7). The name (or description) of the person being referred to should fill the first blank of each item while the brand name should be placed in the longer second blanks.

129

Brand Values (Openness) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The four, seven-point unipolar items are intended to measure the degree to which a person believes that a particular brand possesses human-like characteristics associated with selfdirection and stimulation.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed along with three others by Torelli and colleagues (2009, 2012a, 2012b). Following Schwartz and Boehnke (2004), the authors proposed 11 value dimensions and four higher-order types of values. The initial set of 45 items were the same ones as in the Schwartz value survey (Schwartz 1992). With data collected in eight countries, EFA resulted in four to seven factor solutions. Based on the results, five items were removed from further analyses. The remaining 40 items loaded onto their expected factors and scale reliabilities were described as satisfactory (alphas = .79–.91). It is not clear, however, why the openness scale used in Torelli et al. (2012a) used those particular four items rather than the others that apparently loaded on that factor.

RELIABILITY: Although the scale seems to have been used in several studies and multiple countries, the only reported reliability statistic came from a pretest described in Torelli et al. (2012a) where the alpha was .84 (n = 51).

VALIDITY: As noted above regarding the four value types, evidence in support of a four factor solution was found (Torelli et al. 2012b, p. 98). Although it is evident in the published material that much more testing was conducted of the four brand values scales, the details regarding the validation of those scales has not been published.

REFERENCES: Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Mark P. Zanna, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–65. Schwartz, Shalom H. and Klaus Boehnke (2004), “Evaluating the Structure of Human Values with Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Journal of Research in Personality, 38 (3), 230–55. Torelli, Carlos J. (2013), personal correspondence. Torelli, Carlos J., Alokparna Basu Monga, and Andrew M. Kaikati (2012a), "Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 948-963. Torelli, Carlos J., Ayşegül Özsomer, Sergio Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2009), “A Measure of Brand Values: Cross-Cultural Implications for Brand Preferences,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, San Francisco, 41–44. Torelli, Carlos J., Ayşegül Özsomer, Sergio W. Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2012b), "Brand Concepts as Representations of Human Values: Do Cultural Congruity and Compatibility Between Values Matter?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 92 –108. 130

SCALE ITEMS:1 Directions: Think about _________ brand as if it were a person who embodies certain values, or the values that come to mind when you think about the brand. Rate the extent to which the human values (below) are associated with _________ brand. 1. 2. 3. 4.

daring exciting life creativity freedom

1. The directions were provided by Torelli (2013). The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all associated (1) and extremely associated (7).

131

Brand Values (Self-Enhancement) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point unipolar items are used in this scale to measure the degree to which a person believes that a particular brand possesses human-like characteristics associated with power and achievement.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed along with three others by Torelli and colleagues (2009, 2012a, 2012b). Following Schwartz and Boehnke (2004), the authors proposed 11 value dimensions and four higher-order types of values. The initial set of 45 items were the same ones as in the Schwartz value survey (Schwartz 1992). With data collected in eight countries, EFA resulted in four to seven factor solutions. Based on the results, five items were removed from further analyses. The remaining 40 items loaded onto their expected factors and scale reliabilities were satisfactory (alphas = .79–.91). It is not clear, however, why the self-enhancement scale used in Torelli et al. (2012a) used those particular four items rather than the others that apparently loaded on that factor.

RELIABILITY: Although the scale seems to have been used in several studies and multiple countries, the only reported reliability statistic came from a pretest described in Torelli et al. (2012a) where the alpha was .89 (n = 51).

VALIDITY: As noted above regarding the four value types, evidence in support of a four factor solution was found (Torelli et al. 2012b, p. 98). Although it is evident in the published material that much more testing was conducted of the four brand values scales, the details regarding the validation of those scales has not been published.

REFERENCES: Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Mark P. Zanna, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–65. Schwartz, Shalom H. and Klaus Boehnke (2004), “Evaluating the Structure of Human Values with Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Journal of Research in Personality, 38 (3), 230–55. Torelli, Carlos J. (2013), personal correspondence. Torelli, Carlos J., Alokparna Basu Monga, and Andrew M. Kaikati (2012a), "Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 948-963. Torelli, Carlos J., Ayşegül Özsomer, Sergio Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2009), “A Measure of Brand Values: Cross-Cultural Implications for Brand Preferences,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, San Francisco, 41–44. Torelli, Carlos J., Ayşegül Özsomer, Sergio W. Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2012b), "Brand Concepts as Representations of Human Values: Do Cultural Congruity and Compatibility Between Values Matter?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 92 –108. 132

SCALE ITEMS:1 Directions: Think about _________ brand as if it were a person who embodies certain values, or the values that come to mind when you think about the brand. Rate the extent to which the human values (below) are associated with _________ brand. 1. 2. 3. 4.

power wealth ambition success

1. The directions were provided by Torelli (2013). The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all associated (1) and extremely associated (7).

133

Brand Values (Socially Responsible) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point unipolar items are used to measure the degree to which a person believes that a particular brand possesses human-like characteristics associated with social and environmental concerns.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed along with three others by Torelli and colleagues (2009, 2012a, 2012b). Following Schwartz and Boehnke (2004), the authors proposed 11 value dimensions and four higher-order types of values. The initial set of 45 items were the same ones as in the Schwartz value survey (Schwartz 1992). With data collected in eight countries, EFA resulted in four to seven factor solutions. Based on the results, five items were removed from further analyses. The remaining 40 items loaded onto their expected factors and scale reliabilities were described as satisfactory (alphas = .79–.91). It is not clear, however, why the scale (socially responsible) used in Torelli et al. (2012a) used those particular three items rather than the others that apparently loaded on that factor.

RELIABILITY: Although the scale seems to have been used in several studies and multiple countries, the only reported reliability statistic came from a pretest described in Torelli et al. (2012a) where the alpha was .86 (n = 51).

VALIDITY: As noted above regarding the four value types, evidence in support of a four factor solution was found (Torelli et al. 2012b, p. 98). Although it is evident in the published material that much more testing was conducted of the four brand values scales, the details regarding the validation of those scales has not been published.

REFERENCES: Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Mark P. Zanna, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–65. Schwartz, Shalom H. and Klaus Boehnke (2004), “Evaluating the Structure of Human Values with Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Journal of Research in Personality, 38 (3), 230–55. Torelli, Carlos J. (2013), personal correspondence. Torelli, Carlos J., Alokparna Basu Monga, and Andrew M. Kaikati (2012a), "Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 948-963. Torelli, Carlos J., Ayşegül Özsomer, Sergio Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2009), “A Measure of Brand Values: Cross-Cultural Implications for Brand Preferences,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, San Francisco, 41–44. Torelli, Carlos J., Ayşegül Özsomer, Sergio W. Carvalho, Hean Tat Keh, and Natalia Maehle (2012b), "Brand Concepts as Representations of Human Values: Do Cultural Congruity and Compatibility Between Values Matter?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 92 –108. 134

SCALE ITEMS:1 Directions: Think about _________ brand as if it were a person who embodies certain values, or the values that come to mind when you think about the brand. Rate the extent to which the human values (below) are associated with _________ brand. 1. 2. 3.

social justice equality environmental protection

1. The directions were provided by Torelli (2013). The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all associated (1) and extremely associated (7).

135

Cause Participation Via Purchase SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person believes that by purchasing a particular product, he/she would be helping a particular charitable cause is measured with three, seven-point items. The implication is that the person is already aware or has been made aware that the company marketing the product has a formal relationship with the cause.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Robinson, Irmak, and Jayachandran (2012) in Studies 2 (n = 95 college students), 3 (n = 112 undergraduate students), and 4 (n = 90 undergraduate students). The authors referred to the scale as perceived personal role. The source of the scale was not identified. It appears to have been created by the authors for use in their studies.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale as used in Studies 2, 3, and 4 were .95, .95, and .88 (Robinson, Irmak, and Jayachandran 2012, pp. 132, 133, 135).

VALIDITY: Robinson, Irmak, and Jayachandran (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Robinson, Stefanie Rosen, Caglar Irmak, and Satish Jayachandran (2012), "Choice of Cause in Cause-Related Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 126 –139.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. If you purchase the _____, to what extent would you feel that you added value to the cause? 2. If you purchase the _____, to what extent would you feel that you helped the cause? 3. If you purchase the _____, to what extent would you feel that you contributed to the cause?

1. The name of the product should be placed in the blanks, e.g., shampoo. The extreme verbal anchors used with the items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

136

Change (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The direction and relative amount that something is expected to change is measured with three semantic differentials. This very simple scale appears to be amenable for use in a wide variety of situations when paired with the proper instructions.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not identified. Beyond a general indication that they adapted it from previous research along with all of their other scales, the specific source of the items for this scale were not given. The authors used the scale in two studies with customers of a national (United States) grocery store chain. Study 1 (507 usable responses) was composed of users of the chain's self-service checkout while those in Study 2 (331 usable responses) were non-users of that technology. Prior to Study 1, the authors conducted a pretest with 209 users of the chain's checkout technology in order to purify the scales and refine them if need be.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale were .96 and .97 when used in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012, p. 255).

VALIDITY: White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of the scales in their two studies. In both cases, there was an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Further, evidence was provided of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs were .91 (Study 1) and .94 (Study 2).

COMMENTS: As used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012), the scale measured how consumers thought their future spending would change if the number of full service checkout channels was reduced and the self-service channels were increased in a particular store. By rephrasing the scale stem, however, the scale seems to be capable of measuring all sorts of constructs from behavioral (I plan to . . .) to attitudinal (I expect the government to . . .).

REFERENCES: White, Allyn, Michael Breazeale, and Joel E. Collier (2012), "The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250–261.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

decrease / increase much less / much more lower / higher 137

1. The scale stem used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) with these items asked participants how their spending would change due to the change in checkout options. The number of points on the response scale was not stated but appears to have been seven.

138

Charitable Behaviors (Social Reinforcement) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person has been encouraged by friends and/or co-workers to donate more and to engage in charitable behaviors is measured using eight, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Winterich, Mittal, and Aquino (2013) in Study 3 which had a sample composed of 267 adults from an online panel in the United States. The authors adapted a scale which was created by Lieberman et al. (2001).

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale by Winterich, Mittal, and Aquino (2013) was .76.

VALIDITY: There was no information about the scale's validity provided in the article by Winterich, Mittal, and Aquino (2013).

REFERENCES: Lieberman, Melissa, Lise Gauvin, William Bukowski, and Donna White (2001), “Interpersonal Influence and Disordered Eating Behaviors in Adolescent Girls: The Role of Peer Modeling, Social Reinforcement, and Body-Related Teasing,” Eating Behaviors, 2 (3), 215–36. Winterich, Karen Page, Vikas Mittal, and Karl Aquino (2013), "When Does Recognition Increase Charitable Behavior? Toward a Moral Identity-Based Model," Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 121134.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

My friends and/or coworkers and I talk about our charitable behaviors quite often. My friends and/or coworkers encourage me to donate. My friends and/or coworkers often point out opportunities to make donations. My friends and/or coworkers have shown me ways I could use to donate more. My friends and/or coworkers have told me that I should donate more. My friends and/or coworkers and I rarely talk about charitable behaviors. (r) My friends and/or coworkers encourage me to be charitable. I feel my friends and/or coworkers expect me to donate.

139

Choice Difficulty SCALE DESCRIPTION: The frustration and hesitancy which a person experienced with respect to a particular decision is measured in this scale with three, nine-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) created the scale with inspiration for two of the items coming from a measure by Iyengar and Lepper (2000). The scale was used by Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) in Experiment 1 with data from 107 undergraduates attending a large public university in China.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .81 (Xu, Jiang, and Dhar 2013, p. 551).

VALIDITY: Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) did not provide any information about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995– 1006. Xu, Jing, Zixi Jiang, and Ravi Dhar (2013), "Mental Representation and Perceived Similarity: How Abstract Mindset Aids Choice from Large Assortments," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 548-559.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How difficult was it for you to choose the _____ you wanted?2 How frustrated did you feel when making the choice? How hesitant did you feel when making the choice?

1. The extreme anchors used with these items by Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) were not at all (1) and very much (9). 2. The name for the focal product should be placed in the blank.

140

Choice Maximization SCALE DESCRIPTION: One's chronic desire to make the optimal choice when making decisions is measured with four, nine-point items. The construct attempting to be measured is the opposite of what is sometimes referred to as satisficing.

SCALE ORIGIN: Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) created the scale by drawing some inspiration and phrases from a measure by Schwartz et al. (2002). The scale was used by Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) in Experiment 2 with data from 139 undergraduates attending a large public university in China.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .82 (Xu, Jiang, and Dhar 2013, p. 552).

VALIDITY: Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) did not provide any information about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Schwarz, Barry, Andrew Ward, John Monterosso, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Katherine White, and Darrin R. Lehman (2002), “Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5), 1178–97. Xu, Jing, Zixi Jiang, and Ravi Dhar (2013), "Mental Representation and Perceived Similarity: How Abstract Mindset Aids Choice from Large Assortments," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 548-559.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I would not settle for the second-best option I’ve seen. 2. It is important for me to get the best option among those I’ve seen. 3. While choosing, I try to figure out which option is the best. 4. No matter how satisfied I am with my current choice, it’s only right for me to be on the lookout for better alternatives.

1. The extreme anchors used with these items by Xu, Jiang, and Dhar (2013) were not stated. They may have been typical Likert-type anchors such as strongly disagree/strongly agree.

141

Cognitive Resource Demands SCALE DESCRIPTION: This semantic differential scale is intended to measure the ease and clarity with which a person has processed something, e.g., an ad, a movie, a speech. The construct is sometimes referred to as fluency.

SCALE ORIGIN: Torelli et al. (2012) said the version they used was "adapted" from Fang, Singh, and Ahluwalia (2007). Since that scale had just one item, the authors must have also drawn upon other, uncited sources. Keller and Block (1997) as well as Lee and Aaker (2004) are likely sources. The article by Chae and Hoegg (2013) implied the items in their version of the scale came from Lee and Aaker (2004). Chae (2014) clarified that four of the items were initially selected to measure "perception structure" but factor analysis showed they loaded with the two-item scale borrowed from Lee and Aaker (2004). Given that, the authors decided to merge the items to make one measure of fluency.

RELIABILITY: The scale was used at least twice in the set of main studies and pretests conducted by Torelli et al. (2012). The alphas were .85 in Study 2 (n = 279 college students) and .94 in Study 4 (n = 218 online panel members). The alpha for the version used Chae and Hoegg (2013) was .90 in Study 2 (194 native Englishspeaking participants from a national subject pool).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Torelli et al. (2012) or Chae and Hoegg (2013).

REFERENCES: Chae, Boyoun (Grace) (2014), personal correspondence. Chae, Boyoun (Grace) and JoAndrea Hoegg (2013), "The Future Looks 'Right': Effects of the Horizontal Location of Advertising Images on Product Attitude," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 223-238. Fang, Xiang, Surendra Singh, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2007), “An Examination of Different Explanations for the Mere Exposure Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (1), 97–103. Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), “Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion,” Journal of personality and Social psychology, 86 (2), 205–218. Keller, Punam Anand and Lauren G. Block (1997), “Vividness Effects: A Resource-Matching Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (December), 295–304.

142

Torelli, Carlos J., Alokparna Basu Monga, and Andrew M. Kaikati (2012), "Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 948-963.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

very difficult to understand / very easy to understand very difficult to imagine / very easy to imagine very difficult to process / very easy to process required a lot of effort / required very little effort not at all organized / well organized not at all structured / well structured illogical / logical unclear / clear

1. The version of the scale used by Torelli et al. (2012) was composed of items #1 to #4 with a seven-point response scale. Items #1, #3, and #5-#8 were used by Chae and Hoegg (2013) with a nine-point scale.

143

Cognitive Resource Demands SCALE DESCRIPTION: The ease of comprehending a stimulus such as a message is measured in this scale with seven, seven-point semantic differentials. The construct is sometimes referred to as fluency.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) used the scale in Studies 3 and 4. The sample in Study 3 was composed of 142 undergraduate business students from the University of Kentucky while in Study 4, participants were described as 154 undergraduate students recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk. The authors stated that they "adapted" the scale from Lee and Labroo (2004) and White et al. (2011). While the construct was, indeed, studied in those articles, none of the items in the scale (listed below) are in those sources. Given that, it seems more likely that the scale used by Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) was developed by them based on inspiration from the cited sources.

RELIABILITY: The alphas calculated for the scale were .86 and .74 for Studies 3 and 4, respectively (Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty 2013, pp. 354, 360).

VALIDITY: Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Kidwell, Blair, Adam Farmer, and David M. Hardesty (2013), "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 350-367. Lee, Angela Y. and Aparna A. Labroo (2004), “Effects of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (2), 151–65. White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and Darren W. Dahl (2011), “It’s the Mindset that Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 472–85.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

unclear / clear not compelling / compelling not credible / credible did not flow / flowed well difficult to follow / easy to follow not plausible / plausible not easy to relate to / easy to relate to

144

Commercial Friendship Likelihood SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three questions are used in this scale to measure the degree to which a customer believes he/she has a close relationship with a retail salesperson.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Rapp et al. (2013) was composed of three items from a scale by Grayson (2007). The latter used a four-item version in a business-to-business context. Rapp et al. (2013) dropped an item and made slight changes to the remaining three to fit the retail context. They used the scale in Study 1 which appears to have had 97 consumers.

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale by Rapp et al. (2013) was .79.

VALIDITY: Rapp et al. (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Versions of the scale were also administered by Rapp et al. (2013) to retail managers with respect to their suppliers and suppliers with respect to their retail customers.

REFERENCES: Grayson, Kent (2007), "Friendship versus Business in Marketing Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 71 (October), 121–139. Rapp, Adam (2013), personal correspondence. Rapp, Adam, Lauren Beitelspacher, Dhruv Grewal, and Douglas Hughes (2013), "Understanding Social Media Effects Across Seller, Retailer, And Consumer Interactions," Journal of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 547-566.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Suppose you were facing a difficult personal problem. How likely is it that you would discuss this problem with your retail salesperson?2 2. How likely is it that you would spend a free afternoon with your retail salesperson? 3 3. How much of an obligation do you feel to your retail salesperson to purchase their products?4

1. The items were provided by Rapp (2013). 2. The extreme verbal anchors used with this item by Rapp et al. (2013) were not identified. The ones used by Grayson (2007) were would definitely NOT mention it (1) and would definitely mention it (7). 3. The extreme verbal anchors used with this item by Rapp et al. (2013) were not identified. The ones used by Grayson (2007) were would definitely NOT spend a free afternoon (1) and would definitely spend a free afternoon (7).

145

4. The extreme verbal anchors used with this item by Rapp et al. (2013) were not identified. The ones used by Grayson (2007) were no obligation at all (1) and a very strong obligation (7).

146

Commitment to Sustainability in a Social Medium (Internalization) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person benefits "internally" (accomplishment, participation, enjoyment) from using a particular social medium that facilitates sustainability and its discussion is measured with a set of six, nine-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Minton et al. (2012) is an adaptation of previous work by one of the coauthors (Kahle, Kambara, and Rose 1996). Minton et al. (2012) used the scale along with two companion measures in a cross-cultural study with data gathered from participants in the U.S. (n = 337), Germany (n = 358), and South Korea (n = 323). The scale items were adequately translated and back-translated for the versions used in Germany and South Korea as confirmed by three multilingual experts for each country.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in the study by Minton et al. (2012) was .908.

VALIDITY: Using EFA with the items in this scale and those used to measure the two companion scales, Minton et al. (2012) found that there were three factors. CFA confirmed that same structure. The AVE for the internalization scale was .628.

REFERENCES: Kahle, Lynn R., Kenneth M. Kambara, and Gregory M. Rose (1996), “A Functional Model of Fan Attendance Motivations for College Football,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5 (4), 51–60. Minton, Elizabeth, Christopher Lee, Ulrich Orth, Chung-Hyun Kim, and Lynn Kahle (2012), "Sustainable Marketing and Social Media," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 69-84.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. When I participate in discussion on __________, I imagine myself influencing sustainability in the future. 2. I feel a sense of accomplishment when __________ helps to encourage sustainable behaviors. 3. __________ allows me to share ways that I am uniquely sustainable. 4. Viewing sustainable companies and ads on __________ is more enjoyable than off __________. 5. I consider myself more knowledgeable about sustainability than most other people on __________. 6. __________ is a good place to follow my favorite sustainable companies. 1. The name of the focal social medium should be inserted into the blanks, e.g., Facebook, Twitter.

147

Commitment to Sustainability in a Social Medium (Involvement) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has four, nine-point Likert-type items that are intended to measure a person's likelihood of using a particular social medium if sustainability-related issues are important to it.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Minton et al. (2012) is an adaptation of previous work by one of the coauthors (Kahle, Kambara, and Rose 1996). Minton et al. (2012) used the scale along with two companion measures in a cross-cultural study with data gathered from participants in the U.S. (n = 337), Germany (n = 358), and South Korea (n = 323). The scale items were adequately translated and back-translated for the versions used in Germany and South Korea as confirmed by three multilingual experts for each country.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in the study by Minton et al. (2012) was .952.

VALIDITY: Using EFA with the items in this scale and those used to measure the two companion scales, Minton et al. (2012) found that there were three factors. CFA confirmed that same structure. The AVE for the involvement scale was .837.

REFERENCES: Kahle, Lynn R., Kenneth M. Kambara, and Gregory M. Rose (1996), “A Functional Model of Fan Attendance Motivations for College Football,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5 (4), 51–60. Minton, Elizabeth, Christopher Lee, Ulrich Orth, Chung-Hyun Kim, and Lynn Kahle (2012), "Sustainable Marketing and Social Media," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 69-84.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I’d be more likely to visit __________ if I knew it contained interesting postings relating to sustainability. 2. I’d be more likely to visit __________ if there were more sustainability-related activities that allowed me to contribute to the spirit of the site. 3. I’d be more likely to visit __________ consistently if it had better coverage of sustainable issues than other media. 4. I’d be more likely to visit __________ if it won awards as a sustainable business.

1. The name of the focal social medium should be inserted into the blanks, e.g., Facebook, Twitter.

148

Commitment to Sustainability in a Social Medium (Responsibility) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, nine-point Likert-type items are used in this scale to measure the degree to which a person believes it is important to follow organizations in a particular social medium that support sustainability.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Minton et al. (2012) is an adaptation of previous work by one of the coauthors (Kahle, Kambara, and Rose 1996). Minton et al. (2012) used the scale along with two companion measures in a cross-cultural study with data gathered from participants in the U.S. (n = 337), Germany (n = 358), and South Korea (n = 323). The scale items were adequately translated and back-translated for the versions used in Germany and South Korea as confirmed by three multilingual experts for each country.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in the study by Minton et al. (2012) was .915.

VALIDITY: Using EFA with the items in this scale and those used to measure the two companion scales, Minton et al. (2012) found that there were three factors. CFA confirmed that same structure. The AVE for the responsibility scale was .738.

REFERENCES: Kahle, Lynn R., Kenneth M. Kambara, and Gregory M. Rose (1996), “A Functional Model of Fan Attendance Motivations for College Football,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5 (4), 51–60. Minton, Elizabeth, Christopher Lee, Ulrich Orth, Chung-Hyun Kim, and Lynn Kahle (2012), "Sustainable Marketing and Social Media," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 69-84.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I only follow sustainable companies on __________ because it fills my news feed with sustainable news, making me appear a more sustainable person. 2. I’d be more likely to visit __________ if friends and relatives were to see me interacting with sustainable companies. 3. People have an obligation to support sustainability organizations or causes on __________. 4. __________ represents my friends and me, and our values for sustainability.

1. The name of the focal social medium should be inserted into the blanks, e.g., Facebook, Twitter.

149

Communication Encouragement (Parent/Child) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a parent believes that he/she along with other parents should be open to children's opinions and encourage them to speak up.

SCALE ORIGIN: Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013) created the scale from items that had been used previously in other scales. One item came from a scale called "encouraging verbalization" by Schaefer and Bell (1958). Another item came from the Child Rearing Practices Report (Block 1965) as tested and modified by Rickel and Biasatti (1982). The third item was part of a measure of authoritarian parental style by Baumrind (1971). Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013) used the scale with 214 people who were "a geographically diverse sample of parents of children ages 7 to 11" (p. 232).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .79 (Evans, Carlson, and Hoy 2013, p. 234).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013). However, some support for the scale's unidimensionality comes from a factor analysis performed on the items in this scale along with 23 other items which, in total, were expected to measure seven aspects of parenting style. Apparently, the items in this scale loaded together on the same factor and not on other factors.

COMMENTS: Evans, Carlson, and Hoy (2013) called this scale "authoritarian," referring to the authoritarian style of parenting. That name only seems to make sense if all of the items are reverse coded.

REFERENCES: Baumrind, Diana (1971), “Current Patterns of Parental Authority,” Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 (January), 1-103. Evans, Nathaniel J., Les Carlson, and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2013), "Coddling Our Kids: Can Parenting Style Affect Attitudes Toward Advergames?" Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 228240. Rickel, Annette U. and Lawrence L. Biasatti (1982), “Modification of the Child Rearing Practices Report,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (January), 129-134. Schaefer, Earl S., and Richard Q. Bell (1958), “Development of a Parental Attitude Research Instrument,” Child Development, 29 (3), 339–361.

150

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

A child’s ideas should be seriously considered before making family decisions. Parents should take seriously the opinions of their young children. I respect my child’s opinion and encourage him or her to express it.

151

Company Profit-Maximization SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a consumer's belief that a particular marketer wants to make a profit at the expense of customers.

SCALE ORIGIN: Sela, Simonson, and Kivetz (2013) used the scale in a pretest for Experiment 4 (n = 61). The source of the scale was not identified and was probably created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .79 (Sela, Simonson, and Kivetz 2013).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not directly addressed by Sela, Simonson, and Kivetz (2013). However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check and the results showed the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

COMMENTS: Little information about the scale is provided in the article itself. It is available in Web Appendix B which is not directly accessible.

REFERENCES: Sela, Aner, Itamar Simonson, and Ran Kivetz (2013), "Beating the Market: The Allure of Unintended Value," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (6), 691-705.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

The seller wants to profit. The seller wants to get as much value as possible out of potential buyers. The seller wants to make a profit at my expense.

152

Company Reputation (Dependability) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's attitude about the steadfast, trustworthiness of a company is measured with five items. The scale seems to be adaptable for a variety of business entities such as a store, a multi-store chain, a website, or a brand.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Rapp et al. (2013) is a combination of items from two scales created by Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) to measure what the latter called long-term brand reputation. The two individual scales were called brand reputation and sustainable image. It appears that Rapp et al. (2013) used the combined items just in Study 2. Its sample was 445 subscribers to a magazine related to a particular retail category. The study also gathered data from supplier salespeople and retail managers associated with the retail category. (The category was not clearly identified but appears to have been athletic footwear.)

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale when used with consumers in Study 2 by Rapp et al. (2013) was .97.

VALIDITY: Rapp et al. (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Those participants received a slightly modified version of the scale and completed it with reference to their supplier's brand reputation.

REFERENCES: Rapp, Adam, Lauren Beitelspacher, Dhruv Grewal, and Douglas Hughes (2013), "Understanding Social Media Effects Across Seller, Retailer, And Consumer Interactions," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 547-566. Veloutsou, Cleopatra and Luiz Moutinho (2009), "Brand Relationships Through Brand Reputation and Brand Tribalism," Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 314-322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

This __________ is trustworthy. This __________ is reputable. This __________ makes honest claims. This __________ has a long lasting nature In the past, today, and in the future, the values behind this __________ will not change.

153

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Rapp et al. (2013) with these items were not identified. Anchors typically used with Likert-type scales seem to be appropriate, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree. A generic term for what is being evaluated should be placed in the blanks. As used by Rapp et al. (2013), the term was "store."

154

Competitive Intensity of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree of brand competition in the market, with an emphasis on the fierceness of the advertising among a set of brands.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Malär et al. (2012) was not identified. The authors said that most of the scales they used were based on measures from previous studies but no explicit source was provided for this scale. Participants in the study came from a variety of sources. Ultimately, there were 3,048 usable responses, about 22.2 for each of 137 brands.

RELIABILITY: The tests conducted by Malär et al. (2012) indicated the scale was internally consistent. Cronbach's alpha was .79 and composite reliability was .80.

VALIDITY: Along with several other scales, this one was tested by Malär et al. (2012) using CFA. The model fit the data well and evidence was provided in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .58.

REFERENCES: Malär, Lucia, Bettina Nyffenegger, Harley Krohmer, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), "Implementing an Intended Brand Personality: A Dyadic Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 728-744.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

There is high advertising pressure in the market of _____. There are many competitors advertising in the market of _____. There are several strong brands in the market of _____.

1. The blank in each item should be filled with the name of the focal brand.

155

Competitive Interpersonal Interaction SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person views the interaction that occurred between him/herself and another person as being competitive and businesslike is measured using four, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) used the scale in Experiment 2 (n = 91 college students). The source of the scale was not stated but appears to have been created by the authors based on ideas from previous work by one of them (Kay, Wheeler, and Smeesters 2008; Smeesters, Wheeler, and Kay 2009).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .82 in Experiment 2 by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

REFERENCES: Kay, Aaron C., S. Christian Wheeler, and Dirk Smeesters (2008), “Situationally Embedded Social Cognition: The Interplay of Construct Accessibility, Situational Construal, and Person Perception,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (2), 275–91. Liu, Jia, Dirk Smeesters, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2012), "Reminders of Money Elicit Feelings of Threat and Reactance in Response to Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1030-1046. Smeesters, Dirk, S. Christian Wheeler, and Aaron C. Kay (2009), “The Role of Interpersonal Perceptions in the Prime-to-Behavior Pathway,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (2), 395–414.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

How How How How

competitive was __________? businesslike did __________ seem? competitive would you rate your interaction with __________? businesslike would you rate your interaction with __________?

1. The name or description of the other member of the business interaction should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) were not at all (1) and very much (7).

156

Compliance with Norms to Purchase Green Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's expressed likelihood of buying so-called "green" products because relevant others have said he/she should is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) created the scale based on ideas found in the work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). The scale was used in Study 2 by Gleim et al. (2013) in which data were gathered from a panel of consumers in the United States. Ultimately, usable data came from 581 respondents.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .90.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. In particular, evidence was found in support of the compliance scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .74.

COMMENTS: The scale seems to be amenable for use with other types of products by merely replacing the phrase "green products" in each item with an appropriate phrase, e.g., fair trade goods, locally produced products, organic foods.

REFERENCES: Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, MA: Addison-Wesley Reading. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. When it comes to buying green products, how likely are you to do what your friends or family say you should do? 2. How likely are you to buy green products because other people think you should? 3. How likely are you to listen to what other people say you should do when buying green products?

1. The response format used with these items was not described in the article. It appears to have been a seven-point scale with extreme verbal anchors something like very unlikely and very likely.

157

Composting Intention SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three statements to measure a person's likelihood of cooperating with a particular organization in its program to convince people to engage in composting.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by White and Simpson (2013) in Studies 3 (n = 358) and 4 (n = 133) was a modification of a measure that the lead author had used in a previous study to measure volunteer intention (White and Peloza 2009). The samples used in the studies were composed of undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistencies (Cronbach's alphas) were .88 and .87 for Studies 3 and 4, respectively (White and Simpson 2013).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by White and Simpson (2013).

REFERENCES: White, Katherine and John Peloza (2009), "Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support," Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 109-24. White, Katherine and Bonnie Simpson (2013), "When Do (and Don't) Normative Appeals Influence Sustainable Consumer Behaviors?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 78-95.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How likely are to take part in ________’s composting program?2 2. How inclined are you to take part in ________’s composting program?3 3. How willing are you to take part in ________’s composting program? 4

1. The name of the organization should be placed in the blanks. 2. The extreme verbal anchors and number of points for the response scale were not stated by White and Simpson (2013) but were probably something like very unlikely (1) and very likely (7). 3. The extreme verbal anchors and number of points for the response scale were not stated by White and Simpson (2013) but were probably something like not inclined at all (1) and very inclined (7). 4. The extreme verbal anchors and number of points for the response scale were not stated by White and Simpson (2013) but were probably something like not willing at all (1) and very willing (7).

158

Conceptual Fluency of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The clarity with which a consumer understands what a brand represents to customers and the ease with which it can be described is measured with three statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: The index was created by Sirianni et al. (2013) and used by them in two of the four studies described in their article.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .95 and .94 in Studies 2 and 4, respectively, conducted by Sirianni et al. (2013, pp. 116, 119).

VALIDITY: The validity of the index was not addressed by Sirianni et al. (2013).

REFERENCES: Sirianni, Nancy J., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, and Naomi Mandel (2013), "Branded Service Encounters: Strategically Aligning Employee Behavior with the Brand Positioning," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 108-123.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I have a clear understanding of what this brand stands for. It was easy for me to identify what this brand represents to customers. It was easy for me to describe what this brand represents to customers.

1. The number of points and verbal anchors used with these statements by Sirianni et al. (2013) were not stated. It seems that they used a seven-point, strongly disagree/strongly agree response format.

159

Congruence (Self with Product) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is intended to measure the strength of the connection between a person's selfconcept and a product. Six, seven-point items compose the scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: Dommer and Swaminathan (2013) adapted the scale from those of others and called it possession-self link strength. The scale was used in Study 2 with a sample composed of undergraduate students attending the University of Pittsburgh. Although the authors cited Escalas and Bettman (2005) as the source of the scale, they seem to have drawn even more heavily from a scale used previously by one of the authors (Swaminathan, Page, and GürhanCanli 2007).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Dommer and Swaminathan 2013, p. 1039).

VALIDITY: Dommer and Swaminathan (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Dommer, Sara Loughran and Vanitha Swaminathan (2013), "Explaining the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 1034-1050. Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (December), 378-389. Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen L. Page, and Zeynep Gürhan-Canli (2007), “‘My’ Brand or ‘Our’ Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 248-259.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

This This This This This This

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

makes me feel connected to others. is a statement about how I am a part of a group. reminds me of who I am. is a part of me. says a lot about the kind of person I would like to be. is a statement of who I want to be.

1. The generic name of a product should be placed in the blanks. Dommer and Swaminathan (2013, p. 1039) used the phrase "tote bag." The verbal anchors used with the response scale were not explicitly described by Dommer and Swaminathan (2013) but they appear to have been the typical Likert-type anchors such as strongly disagree/strongly agree.

160

Consequences of Unhealthy Eating (Severity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Composed of three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person's belief that unhealthy eating patterns can have serious harmful effects on one's overall health.

SCALE ORIGIN: Talukdar and Lindsey (2013, p. 133) stated that the severity scale as well as a companion measure (the vulnerability dimension of unhealthy eating consequences) used in Study 2b were "modified from Witte (1992)." However, that article is a theoretical piece; no multi-item scales were used to collect data. Given this, it is more accurate to describe the two scales as having been created by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) with ideas for the items coming from the theoretical work by Witte (1992).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 (Talukdar and Lindsey 2013, p. 133).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013). They did comment that the severity scale had a correlation of .61 with the companion measure created to measure the "vulnerability" dimension of unhealthy eating consequences. While we would expect these two dimensions of the construct to be correlated, the concern is whether or not the two scales have discriminant validity with respect to each other. If these scales are used again together, this issue should be addressed.

REFERENCES: Talukdar, Debabrata and Charles Lindsey (2013), "To Buy or Not to Buy: Consumers' Demand Response Patterns for Healthy Versus Unhealthy Food," Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 124-138. Witte, Kim (1992), “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model,” Communication Monographs, 59 (December), 329–34.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I believe that the health consequences of unhealthy eating can be severe. I believe that unhealthy eating can have serious health consequences. I believe that unhealthy eating can be extremely harmful to a person’s health.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) were highly disagree (1) and highly agree (7).

161

Consequences of Unhealthy Eating (Vulnerability) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that he/she will suffer physically if he/she has unhealthy eating patterns is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Talukdar and Lindsey (2013, p. 133) stated that the vulnerability scale as well as a companion measure (the severity dimension of unhealthy eating consequences) used in Study 2b were "modified from Witte (1992)." However, that article is a theoretical piece; no multi-item scales were used to collect data. Given this, it is more accurate to describe the two scales as having been created by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) with ideas for the items coming from the theoretical work by Witte (1992).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 (Talukdar and Lindsey 2013, p. 133).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013). They did comment that the vulnerability scale had a correlation of .61 with the companion measure created to measure the "severity" dimension of unhealthy eating consequences. While we would expect these two dimensions of the construct to be correlated, the concern is whether or not the two scales have discriminant validity with respect to each other. If these scales are used again together, this issue should be examined.

REFERENCES: Talukdar, Debabrata and Charles Lindsey (2013), "To Buy or Not to Buy: Consumers' Demand Response Patterns for Healthy Versus Unhealthy Food," Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 124-138. Witte, Kim (1992), “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model,” Communication Monographs, 59 (December), 329–34.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

It is likely that I will experience unfavorable health consequences if I eat unhealthy. I am at risk for experiencing negative health consequences if I eat unhealthy. It is possible that I will experience negative health consequences if I eat unhealthy.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) were highly disagree (1) and highly agree (7).

162

Conservation Behavior SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's self-reported conservation-related actions are measured with seven items. The emphasis of the statements is on non-purchase activities such as minimizing use of resources and disposal of products and packaging.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) in a study with a final sample of 301 students attending a Portuguese university. The source of the scale was Pickett, Kangun, and Grove (1995). The latter referred to the scale as ENVIROCON and, in their study, the alpha was .75. They reported that the scale was unidimensional as well as the items having acceptable loadings on the factor and item-total correlations.

RELIABILITY: In the study by Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012), the alpha for the scale was .712.

VALIDITY: Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Finisterra do Paço, Arminda Maria and Rosa Reis (2012), "Factors Affecting Skepticism Toward Green Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 147-155. Pickett, G.M., N. Kangun, and S. J. Grove (1995), “An Examination of the Conservative Consumer: Implications for Public Formation Policy in Promoting Conservation Behavior,” in Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory and Research, Michael J. Polonsky and Alma T. Mintu-Wimsatt, eds., New York: Haworth Press, 77–99.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How often do you separate your household garbage (i.e., glass, papers) for either curbside pickup or to take to the nearest recycling center? 2. How often do you use reusable containers to store food in your refrigerator rather than wrapping food in aluminum foil or plastic wrap? 3. How often do you conserve water while washing dishes? 4. How often do you conserve energy by turning off light switches when leaving a room, turning down the thermostat when leaving home, and so forth? 5. How often do you conserve water while brushing your teeth, shaving, washing your hands, bathing, and so forth? 6. When disposing of durables such as appliances, furniture, clothing, linens, and so forth, how often do you either give that item to someone else, sell it to someone else, or donate the item to a charitable organization? 7. How often do you refuse to buy products that you feel have extensive packaging? 1. The response scale used by Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) was not described. Pickett, Kangun, and Grove (1995) used a five point scale with never (1) and always (5) as the extreme anchors.

163

Conservation Intention (Paper) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's likelihood and interest in engaging in behaviors that will conserve paper, with an emphasis on refraining from use of disposable paper plates and cups, is measured in this scale using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) cited Passyn and Sujan (2006) but since there is no similar scale in that article, the latter was probably just a source of some inspiration for Yoon and Tinkham (2013) when they developed their scale. They used the scale in Study 1 in which data were gathered from 88 undergraduate students attending an American university.

RELIABILITY: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) reported the scale to have an alpha of .78.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Yoon and Tinkham (2013).

COMMENTS: Although Yoon and Tinkham (2013) used the scale with regard to conserving paper, the items may be flexible enough for use with other resources. If substantial modification is made, however, pretesting the revised scale is urged to confirm its psychometric quality.

REFERENCES: Passyn, Kirsten and Mita Sujan (2006), “Self-Accountability Emotions and Fear Appeals: Motivating Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 583-589. Yoon, Hye Jin and Spencer F. Tinkham (2013), "Humorous Threat Persuasion in Advertising: The Effects of Humor, Threat Intensity, and Issue Involvement," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 30-41.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How likely is it that you will refrain from buying disposable paper cups or paper plates in the near future? 2. How likely is it that you will refrain from buying disposable paper cups or paper plates every time? 3. How interested are you in learning more about the different ways you can conserve paper? 1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Yoon and Tinkham (2013) with the response scale were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

164

Conspicuous Logo Preference SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's preference for products with noticeable brand logos is measured using four, nine-point bi-polar adjectives.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Rucker and Galinsky (2009). They used it in Experiment 5 and its alpha was .71 (n = 31 undergraduate students). Lee and Shrum (2012) borrowed the scale and used it in Experiments 1, 3, and 4 with data collected from 80, 164, and 76 undergraduate students. The authors used the scale with respect to clothing and accessories but, it appears to be applicable to other product categories as well.

RELIABILITY: Alphas of .87 (Experiment 1), .94 (Experiment 2), and .98 (Experiment 3) were reported for the scale by Lee and Shrum (2012).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Lee and Shrum (2012).

REFERENCES: Lee, Jaehoon and L. J. Shrum (2012), "Conspicuous Consumption versus Charitable Behavior in Response to Social Exclusion: A Differential Needs Explanation," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 530-544. Rucker, Derek D. and Adam D. Galinsky (2009), “Conspicuous Consumption versus Utilitarian Ideals: How Different Levels of Power Shape Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (3), 549–55.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

visible / nonvisible big / small noticeable / unnoticeable conspicuous / inconspicuous

1. The exact phrasing of the instructions used with this scale by Lee and Shrum (2012) were not provided in the article. The authors did say, however, that they directed participants to imagine that they were purchasing an item of clothing and to indicate their preference for something with a conspicuous brand logo (p. 534).

165

Consumption Experiences (Confidence Building) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, nine-point items, the scale measures how much a person anticipates that some particular experiences would help him/her be more certain of preferences with regard to a certain product category. The scale was made to be used with sensory-related experiences but might be flexible enough for use in other contexts as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: The measure was created by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013) and was used in Experiments 2b and 2c. In Experiments 2b (n = 89) and 2c (n = 81), the experiences were listening to novel music.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .88 and was apparently calculated based on the combined data from Experiments 2b and 2c (Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli 2013, p. 1320).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013).

REFERENCES: Clarkson, Joshua J., Chris Janiszewski, and Melissa D. Cinelli (2013), "The Desire for Consumption Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1313-1329.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How much would these experiences resolve any uncertainty in your preferred _____? 2. How much would these experiences increase your confidence in your particular _____ preferences? 3. How much would these experiences increase your ability to defend your particular _____ preferences?

1. The name of the topic or product category to be experienced should be stated in the blanks, e.g., music. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (9).

166

Consumption Experiences (Novelty Seeking) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person expects that some particular experiences would provide the opportunity to explore what is new in a product category is measured with three, nine-point items. The scale was made to be used with sensory-related experiences but might be flexible enough for use in other contexts as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: The measure was created by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013) and was used in Experiments 2b and 2c. In Experiments 2b (n = 89) and 2c (n = 81), the experiences were listening to novel music.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .84 and was apparently calculated based on the combined data from Experiments 2b and 2c (Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli 2013, p. 1320).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013).

REFERENCES: Clarkson, Joshua J., Chris Janiszewski, and Melissa D. Cinelli (2013), "The Desire for Consumption Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1313-1329.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How much would these experiences allow you to seek out changes in your _____ preferences? 2. How much would these experiences allow you to increase your exploration of _____? 3. How much would these experiences allow you to try something merely for the sake of novelty?

1. The name of the product category to be experienced should be stated in the blanks of items #1 and #2, e.g., music. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (9).

167

Consumption Experiences (Social Benefits) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, nine-point items to measure how much a person expects that some particular experiences would enhance his/her sociability, at least when it comes to interacting with others with respect to a certain topic. The scale was made to be used with sensoryrelated experiences but might be flexible enough for use in other contexts as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: The measure was created by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013) and was used in Experiments 2b and 2c. In Experiments 2b (n = 89) and 2c (n = 81), the experiences were listening to novel music.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .88 and was apparently calculated based on the combined data from Experiments 2b and 2c (Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli 2013, p. 1320).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013).

REFERENCES: Clarkson, Joshua J., Chris Janiszewski, and Melissa D. Cinelli (2013), "The Desire for Consumption Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1313-1329.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How much would these experiences enhance your ability to have more informed conversations about _____? 2. How much would these experiences increase your confidence to interact with others about _____? 3. How much would these experiences help you fit in with others?

1. The name of the topic or product category to be experienced should be stated in the blanks of items #1 and #2, e.g., music. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (9).

168

Consumption Knowledge (Breadth) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, nine-point items are used to measure the degree to which a person believes that a sensory experience with a product from a category would provide him/her with a better understanding of the different types within the category. To be clear, this scale focuses on the differences between product types across a category (breadth) rather than the similarity within one type of product (depth).

SCALE ORIGIN: The measure was created by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013) along with a companion scale that measured depth knowledge. It was used in the pretest for Experiment 1 as well as Experiments 2b and 2c (clarified by Clarkson 2014). In Experiment 1 (n = 50), the experience was tasting a vinaigrette while in Experiments 2b (n = 89) and 2c (n = 81), it was hearing some music.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .68 (Experiment 1 pretest) and .90 (apparently calculated based on the combined data from Experiments 2b and 2c).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013).

REFERENCES: Clarkson, Joshua J. (2014), personal correspondence. Clarkson, Joshua J., Chris Janiszewski, and Melissa D. Cinelli (2013), "The Desire for Consumption Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1313-1329.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How much would __________ this _____ help you to understand the differences between various types of _____s? 2. How much would __________ this _____ help you to categorize new _____s within the broad types of _____s? 3. How much would __________ this _____ increase your familiarity with the various types of _____?

1. The sense being used should be stated in the first blank of each item, e.g., tasting, smelling, hearing. The name of the product category should be placed in the other blanks such that the name is singular in the second blank of each item and plural in the third set of blanks. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (9).

169

Consumption Knowledge (Depth) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person anticipates that his/her sensory experience with a product would familiarize him/her with the common aspects of products of that type is measured with three, nine-point items. To be clear, this scale is intended to measure the similarity within one type of a product (the person's preferred type) rather than measuring the differences between types across a category.

SCALE ORIGIN: The measure was created by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013) along with a companion scale that measured breadth knowledge. It was used in the pretest for Experiment 1 as well as Experiments 2b and 2c (clarified by Clarkson 2014). In Experiment 1 (n = 50), the experience was tasting a vinaigrette while in Experiments 2b (n = 89) and 2c (n = 81), it was hearing some music.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .70 (Experiment 1 pretest) and .85 (apparently calculated based on the combined data from Experiments 2b and 2c).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli (2013).

REFERENCES: Clarkson, Joshua J. (2014), personal correspondence. Clarkson, Joshua J., Chris Janiszewski, and Melissa D. Cinelli (2013), "The Desire for Consumption Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1313-1329.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How much would __________ this _____ help you to understand the similarities between _____s within your preferred type of _____s? 2. How much would __________ this _____ help you to categorize new _____s within your preferred type of _____s? 3. How much would __________ this _____ increase your familiarity with the assortment of _____s available within your preferred type of _____s?

1. The sense being used should be stated in the first blank of each item, e.g., tasting, smelling, hearing. The name of the product category should be placed in the other blanks such that the name is singular in the second blank of each item and plural in the third and fourth sets of blanks. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (9).

170

Controllability of Shopping Websites SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four statements, the scale measures a consumer's belief that he/she is able to control Internet shopping websites in terms of getting the information needed to make purchase decisions. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to shopping sites in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Rose at al. (2012). The authors gathered data using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .823 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .541.

REFERENCES: Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I feel in control of what I am doing when I purchase from Internet shopping websites. 2. I can easily control the information that is provided on Internet shopping websites. 3. I feel I can control my use of information on Internet shopping websites. 4. The level of information provided by Internet shopping websites helps me to feel in control of my purchase decision.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

171

Country’s Need for Help SCALE DESCRIPTION: The severity of a country's need for help to alleviate a plight or other unfortunate condition is measured in the scale with four statements. Because one of the items contains the term "unjust," the scale is most appropriate for use in contexts where the problem is man-made, e.g., social injustice.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) in a pretest prior to Study 1. The source of the scale was not stated, thus, it is likely to have been created by the authors. There were 44 participants in the pretest (not described). Caution is urged in using the scale in hypothesis testing until its psychometric quality can be confirmed with a much larger sample.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .88 (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2012, p. 107).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, the scale was used as a manipulation check and, to the extent the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

What degree of need exists in __________? How severe is the need for help in __________? How unjust is the situation in __________? How dire is the need for help in __________?

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012). It might have been some sort of a seven-point low/high scale. Further, the name of the focal country should be placed in the blanks.

172

Country-of-Origin Product Image (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point uni-polar items compose the scale and are intended to measure a consumer's overall opinion of the products that are manufactured in a particular country.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) in three experiments. The source of the scale was Roth and Romeo (1992). In that study, the authors examined past studies for the primary dimensions of country of origin product image. One of their main observations was that the construct was multi-dimensional. However, to their surprise, when they used CFA to analyze four key dimensions with data they gathered from three countries, a one-factor model fit best. When analyzed for the three countries separately, the one factor model fit best for two countries (the U.S. and Mexico) while a two-factor model fit best for Ireland. Cronbach's alphas ranged from .815 (Ireland) to .898 (Mexico) for the three countries. Based on their findings, they suggested more research be done to determine the impact of unidimensional versus multidimensional country images on product evaluations. Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used the scale in two studies, one in Austria and one in Bulgaria. They referred to the scale as brand origin image. The scale was phrased in German for purposes of Study 1. It is assumed to have been translated into Bulgarian for Study 2 though that was not explicitly stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .72, .81, .71 for Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively, conducted by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013). As used by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013), the alphas were .82 and .90 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

VALIDITY: Although Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) did not provide the exact results of testing the country of origin product image scale's validity, they did state that all of their scales had AVEs that were greater than .50. Further, explicit tests of discriminant validity showed the highest amount of shared variance between each pair of measures was lower than the individual AVEs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used CFA to provide evidence of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .52 and .70 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

REFERENCES: Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39-50. Herz, Marc Florian and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "Activation of Country Stereotypes: Automaticity, Consonance, and Impact," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (4), 400-417. 173

Roth, Martin S. and Jean B. Romeo (1992), "Matching Product Category and Country-of-Origin Effects," Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (2), 251–269. Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact Of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, And Brand Origin-Extension Fit On Brand Extension Success," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567-585.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Design Workmanship Prestige Innovativeness

1. Besides listing these items, Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013, p. 415) described the extreme anchors for the response scale being very low (1) and very high (7).

174

Country-of-Origin Product Image (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has three, seven-point items that measure a person's overall attitude toward a country as well as the products that are made there.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) in three experiments. The source of the items composing the scale was Liu and Johnson (2005). They used the items in a small pretest and viewed them as measuring "different levels" of "country stereotype" (p. 91).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .69, .82, .91 for Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively, conducted by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013).

VALIDITY: Although Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) did not provide the exact results of testing the country of origin product image scale's validity, they did state that all of their scales had AVEs that were greater than .50. Further, explicit tests of discriminant validity showed the highest amount of shared variance between each pair of measures was lower than the individual AVEs (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

COMMENTS: Despite the evidence provided by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) in support of the scale's reliability and validity, the items appear on their face to measure different constructs or, at least, different "levels" of a higher-order factor. Caution is urged in assuming these items form a unidimensional scale until further research confirms it.

REFERENCES: Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39-50. Herz, Marc Florian and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "Activation of Country Stereotypes: Automaticity, Consonance, and Impact," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (4), 400-417. Liu, Scott S. and Keith F. Johnson (2005), "The Automatic Country-of-Origin Effects on Brand Judgments," Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 87–97.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Country as a whole The products made in the country in general The __________ manufactured in the country2 175

1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale used by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013, p. 415) with these items were very low (1) and very high (7). 2. The name of a particular product category of interest should be placed in the blank.

176

Creativity (Personal) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's description of his/her level of innovativeness and originality is measured with three, five-point uni-polar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Weiss and Johar (2013) in Experiment 2 of the four main studies reported in their article. The sample for Experiment 2 was 112 students attending Columbia University (New York). The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .78 (Weiss and Johar 2013, p. 193).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Weiss and Johar (2013).

COMMENTS: The items are amenable for use with persons besides one's self, e.g., the product designer. They might even be used with respect to products though caution is urged until the psychometric quality of the scale can be confirmed for use in that context.

REFERENCES: Weiss, Liad and Giat V. Johar (2013), "Egocentric Categorization and Product Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in What You Own (and Their Opposite in What You Don't)," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 185-201.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

creativity innovativeness originality

1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were not at all (1) and very much so (5). The scale stem/instructions were not stated by Weiss and Johar (2013) but could have been something like the following: "Using the traits listed below, please indicate how well each one describes you."

177

Creativity (Personal) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure the degree to which a person views himself/herself as being creative.

SCALE ORIGIN: Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013) used the scale in Study 2 of the three discussed in their article. The sample was described as 420 members of a nation-representative Internet panel. The source of the scale was not stated and is assumed to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig 2013, p. 324).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013).

REFERENCES: Rosengren, Sara, Micael Dahlén, and Erik Modig (2013), "Think Outside the Ad: Can Advertising Creativity Benefit More Than the Advertiser?" Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 320330.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I feel creative. My creativity level is high. I can be creative. I see myself as creative.

1. The extreme anchors used by Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013) with these items were do not agree (1) and totally agree (7).

178

Creativity of the Product SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four semantic differentials are used to measure how fresh and original a product is believed to be. The scale seems to be flexible for use with a wide variety of products and other objects.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Weiss and Johar (2013) in Experiment 2 of the four main studies reported in their article. The sample for Experiment 2 was 112 students attending Columbia University (New York). The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .90 (Weiss and Johar 2013, p. 193).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Weiss and Johar (2013).

REFERENCES: Weiss, Liad and Giat V. Johar (2013), "Egocentric Categorization and Product Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in What You Own (and Their Opposite in What You Don't)," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 185-201.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

not not not not

creative / creative original / original unique / unique fresh / fresh

1. Weiss and Johar (2013) described the response scale as ranging from "-3 to 3" (p. 193), but it isn't clear if they used a neutral point or not.

179

Credibility of Brand-Related Communications SCALE DESCRIPTION: The veracity of the promotion about a brand is measured in this scale with three, five-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Malär et al. (2012) was not identified. The authors said that most of the scales they used were based on measures from previous studies but, no explicit source was provided for this scale. Participants in the study came from a variety of sources. Ultimately, there were 3,048 usable responses, about 22.2 for each of 137 brands.

RELIABILITY: The tests conducted by Malär et al. (2012) indicated the scale was internally consistent. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability were both .89.

VALIDITY: Along with several other scales, this one was tested by Malär et al. (2012) using CFA. The model fit the data well and evidence was provided in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .74.

REFERENCES: Malär, Lucia, Bettina Nyffenegger, Harley Krohmer, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), "Implementing an Intended Brand Personality: A Dyadic Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 728-744.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The claims in the ads of _____ are true. Brand-related communication activities of _____ are credible. I think brand-related communication activities of _____ are honest.

1. The blank in each item should be filled with the name of the focal brand.

180

Currency Conversion Ease SCALE DESCRIPTION: How easily a person is able to convert an amount of money in an unfamiliar currency to an equivalent amount in a familiar currency is measured in this scale using four, seven-point semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Raghubir, Morwitz, and Santana (2012) for use in Study 4 of the six discussed in the article.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .77 (Raghubir, Morwitz, and Santana 2012).

VALIDITY: Raghubir, Morwitz, and Santana (2012) did not address the scale's validity. They did, however, note that the items loaded on the same factor in an EFA.

REFERENCES: Raghubir, Priya (2012), personal correspondence. Raghubir, Priya, Vicki G. Morwitz, and Shelle Santana (2012), "Europoly Money: How Do Tourists Convert Foreign Currencies to Make Spending Decisions?" Journal of Retailing, 88 (1), 7-19.

SCALE ITEMS:1 How do you feel about your __________ estimate?2 1. Not at all confident that it is accurate / Very confident that it is accurate 2. Not at all comfortable / Very comfortable How do you feel about the estimation task? 1. 2.

Not at all easy to do / Very easy to do Not at all similar to tasks I have done before / Very similar to tasks I have done before

1. The phrasing of the questions and items were provided by Raghubir (2012). 2. The name of the familiar currency should be placed in this blank, e.g., U.S. dollar.

181

Decision Closure SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person believes that he/she has completely finished making a decision about something that involved making a choice among alternatives is measured with seven, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gu, Botti, and Faro (2013) developed the scale for use in Study 1 (n = 142 students from different London universities). Three of seven items in their scale were adapted from sentences in the measure of closure by Beike and Wirth-Beaumont (2005). The latter, in turn, had drawn key phrases for two of the items from a measure of the construct by Savitsky, Medvec, and Gilovich (1997). The other four items in Gu, Botti, and Faro's (2013) scale were created by them.

RELIABILITY: An alpha of .82 was reported for the scale by Gu, Botti, and Faro (2013, p. 273).

VALIDITY: Although Gu, Botti, and Faro (2013) did not address the scale's validity they did conduct an EFA on the seven items along with two items intended to measure another construct of interest. The seven items expected to measure closure loaded together and separate from the items measuring the other construct.

REFERENCES: Beike, Denise R. and Erin Wirth-Beaumont (2005), “Psychological Closure as a Memory Phenomenon,” Memory, 13 (6), 574–93. Gu, Yangjie, Simona Botti, and David Faro (2013), "Turning the Page: The Impact of Choice Closure on Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 268-283. Savitsky, Kenneth, Victoria Husted Medvec, and Thomas Gilovich (1997), "Remembering and Regretting: The Zeigarnik Effect and the Cognitive Availability of Regrettable Actions and Inactions," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (March), 248-257.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. To what extent do you feel you have reached closure about your choice of __________? 2. To what extent are you still thinking about your decision of __________? (r) 3. After choosing your __________, to what extent did you perceive that decision as settled? 4. People sometimes use expressions such as "I have turned my back on" or "I have closed the door on" something. To what extent do you think such expressions describe how you feel about your decision of __________? 5. After choosing your __________, to what extent did you perceive that decision as "unfinished business?" (r) 6. After choosing your __________, to what extent did you perceive that decision as a "closed book?" 182

7. After choosing your __________, to what extent did you think of that decision as behind you?

1. A word or phrase that describes the decision should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors for the seven-point response scale used by Gu, Botti, and Faro (2013) with these items were not at all (1) and completely (7).

183

Decision Importance SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure how important a particular choice-related decision is to a person.

SCALE ORIGIN: Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) used the scale in Experiment 3 (n = 187 undergraduate students). The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .86 in Experiment 3 by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

VALIDITY: Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Liu, Jia, Dirk Smeesters, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2012), "Reminders of Money Elicit Feelings of Threat and Reactance in Response to Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1030-1046.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

This decision means a lot to me. This choice is unimportant. (r) I care a lot about this decision.

184

Diet Restriction SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, six-point items are used in the scale to measure how often a person engages in dietary control behaviors, particularly those that limit the intake of calories, sugar, and fat.

SCALE ORIGIN: Mohr, Lichtenstein, and Janiszewski (2012) called the scale dietary concern. They borrowed three items from the negative diet restriction scale by Moorman and Matulich (1993) and added a fourth item of their own. The scale was used in Studies 1 (n = 151) and 2 (n = 87) of the three discussed by Mohr, Lichtenstein, and Janiszewski (2012). Participants in both studies came from an online survey panel.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .83 and .78 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Mohr, Lichtenstein, and Janiszewski 2012).

VALIDITY: Mohr, Lichtenstein, and Janiszewski (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Mohr, Gina S., Donald R. Lichtenstein, and Chris Janiszewski (2012), "The Effect of MarketerSuggested Serving Size on Consumer Responses: The Unintended Consequences of Consumer Attention to Calorie Information," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 59-75. Moorman, Christine and Erika Matulich (1993), “A Model of Consumers’ Preventive Health Motivation and Health Ability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (September), 208-28.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

How How How How

often often often often

do do do do

you you you you

watch the amount of calories you consume? moderate your sugar intake? cut back on snacks and treats? watch the amount of fat you consume?

1. The extreme verbal anchors on the six-point scale used by Mohr, Lichtenstein, and Janiszewski (2012) were none of the time and all of the time.

185

Dieting Expertise SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of knowledge and personal experience a person reports having with dieting is measured in this scale using ten items with a seven-point response format.

SCALE ORIGIN: Ülkümen and Thomas (2013) created the scale specifically for a study they conducted involving dieting (Study 2B). Participants in that study were only described as 95 "undergraduate students who were fluent in English" (p. 199).

RELIABILITY: Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .95 (Ülkümen and Thomas 2013, p. 199).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Ülkümen and Thomas (2013).

REFERENCES: Ülkümen, Gülden and Manoj Thomas (2013), "Personal Relevance and Mental Simulation Amplify the Duration Framing Effect," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 194-206.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. How knowledgeable are you about dieting? not knowledgeable / very knowledgeable 2. How knowledgeable are you about different diets out there? not knowledgeable at all / very knowledgeable 3. How much experience do you have with dieting? I am not experienced at all / I have a lot of experience 4. How frequently are you on a diet? almost never / almost always 5. How frequently do you restrict your calorie intake? almost never / almost always 6. How experienced are you with the difficulties of being on a diet? I am not experienced at all / I have a lot of experience 7. How knowledgeable are you about the amount of effort dieting requires? not knowledgeable at all / very knowledgeable 8. How familiar are you with the challenges that can come up during a diet? not familiar at all / very familiar 9. How well do you understand the process of being on a diet? not very well / extremely well 10. To what extent do you relate to the challenges of being on a diet? not at all / to a great extent

186

Difficulty Writing about the Experience SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree of difficulty a person reports having when writing about a particular experience he/she has had is measured using four, nine-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by Moore (2012) was not identified but seems to have been created by her. She used it in Study 2 (n = 102 graduate and professional students). The "experience" was a hedonic event (positive or negative) participants could recall and were willing to describe in one sentence.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported by Moore (2012) for the scale was .85.

VALIDITY: Moore (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: A two-item measure of this construct was used by Moore (2012) in Studies 3A and 3B. The items were phrased somewhat differently from those in the four-item scale and adapted for a slightly different exercise in which participants were asked to engage (Moore 2013). Although the scale was used with respect to writing about an experience, the items appear to be adaptable to talking about an experience, e.g., it was difficult for me to talk about my experience. This could be a particularly useful measure when studying traumatic events that people might be reluctant to discuss. Of course, examining the revised scale's psychometric quality would be called for in that case.

REFERENCES: Moore, Sara G. (2012), "Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid: How Word of Mouth Influences the Storyteller," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1140-1154. Moore, Sara G. (2013), personal correspondence.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

It was difficult to write about my experience. I had a hard time finding words to express my experience. I found writing about my experience easy. (r) Expressing my experience in words was easy. (r)

1. The items were provided by Moore (2013).

187

Discomfort (Physical) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person' expressed feeling of physical discomfort while performing a certain task is measured in this scale with three statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: Larson and Billeter (2013) used the scale in Experiment 2 of the six described in their article. Data were collected from 79 undergraduate students. The source of the scale was not stated and it is assumed to have been created for the experiment by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .84 (Larson and Billeter 2013, p. 541).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not addressed by Larson and Billeter (2013).

REFERENCES: Larson, Jeffrey S. and Darron M. Billeter (2013), "Consumer Behavior in 'Equilibrium': How Experiencing Physical Balance Increases Compromise Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 535-547.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I felt physical discomfort performing the __________ task.2 Doing the task made me physically uncomfortable. Doing the task made me feel physically at ease. (r)

1. The response format used with these items was not described by Larson and Billeter (2013). It appears to have been Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree. 2. The name or brief description of the task should be placed in the blank, e.g., video game.

188

Discomfort (Social) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person feels awkward in a certain social context is measured in this scale with three uni-polar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) in each of the four studies they described in their article. The social situation examined in each of the studies was a customer receiving preferential treatment in the presence of others. The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing items from past research of affective reactions experienced as a result of heightened self-consciousness (Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005; Edelmann 1981; Miller and Leary 1992).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) ranged from .94 (Study 2) to .87 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Argo, Jennifer L., Darren W. Dahl, and Rajesh V. Manchanda (2005), “The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a Retail Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 207–12. Edelmann, Robert J. (1981), “Embarrassment: The State of Research,” Current Psychological Reviews, 1 (May–August), 125–38. Jiang, Lan, JoAndrea Hoegg, and Darren W. Dahl (2013), "Consumer Reaction to Unearned Preferential Treatment," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 412-427. Miller, Rowland S., and Mark R. Leary (1992), “Social Sources and Interactive Functions of Emotion: The Case of Embarrassment,” in Emotion and Social Behavior, ed. Margaret S. Clark, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 202–21.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

uncomfortable uneasy awkward

1. The number of points and the verbal anchors used by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) with the response scale were not specified. A typical set of extreme anchors used for these items would be not at all and very much.

189

Discount Calculation Ease SCALE DESCRIPTION: This scale uses four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure how easily a shopper is able to use the necessary math to compute a discount offered by a retailer. The scale makes sense to use when a discount is not explicit but rather must be calculated by the consumer by using the information provided, e.g., regular price and sale price.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used in Study 3B by Biswas et al. (2013) was not identified. It seems to have been created by them. Data for the study were gathered from 171 undergraduate students attending a large university in the Midwestern United States.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .91 (Biswas et al. 2013, p. 64).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Biswas et al. (2013) regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Biswas, Abhijit, Sandeep Bhowmick, Abhijit Guha, and Dhruv Grewal (2013), "Consumer Evaluations of Sale Prices: Role of the Subtraction Principle," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 4966.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I found it easy to figure out the percentage discount. The retailer made it easy to figure out the percentage discount. The price display made it easy to figure out the percentage discount. A typical consumer would have found it easy to figure out the percentage discount.

1. The extreme anchors that Biswas et al. (2013) used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The authors reverse-scored the items to make the scale a measure of difficulty rather than ease.

190

Distraction During the Study SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of distraction a person experiences in a room used for an experiment is measured with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Experiment 3 (n = 95 undergraduate students) and Experiment 4 (n = 42 undergraduate students) conducted by Mehta, Zhu, and Cheema (2012). The source of the scale was not stated but is likely to have been developed by them. The authors used the scale to measure what they called processing disfluency in order to see how various levels of ambient noise affected creativity.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .78 and .74 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively (Mehta, Zhu, and Cheema 2012).

VALIDITY: Mehta, Zhu, and Cheema (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Mehta, Ravi, Rui (Juliet) Zhu, and Amar Cheema (2012), "Is Noise Always Bad? Exploring the Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative Cognition," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 784799.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How distracting did you find the room ambiance while completing the study? How well were you able to concentrate while completing the study? (r) How comfortable was the experimental room to complete the study? (r)

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

191

Donation Intention SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures a person's expressed likelihood of donating to a particular cause.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Shanahan et al. (2012) has some similarity to many used to measure various types of intended behavior. In particular, the authors cited Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991). While some key terms were borrowed from that scale, the scale by Shanahan et al. (2012) seems to be more similar to the one used by Oliver and Swan (1989). To adapt it to the donation context, the Shanahan et al. (2012) modified the stem and added a unique item (#3). The data they collected came from a panel managed by a large university in the United States. Usable responses were received from 264 panel members.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .82 (Shanahan et al. 2012, p. 64).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, the scales measuring the constructs in the model proposed by Shanahan et al. (2012) were examined for their psychometric quality. Multiple forms of evidence were provided for the donation intention scale in support of its convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .79.

REFERENCES: Oliver, Richard L. and John E. Swan (1989), “Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 21-35. Shanahan, Kevin J., Christopher D. Hopkins, Les Carlson, and Mary Anne Raymond (2012), "Depictions of Self-Inflicted Versus Blameless Victims for Nonprofits Employing Print Advertisements," Journal of Advertising, 41 (3), 55-74.

SCALE ITEMS: After viewing the ad, my intent to donate to __________ is:1 1. 2. 3.

Not at all likely / Very likely Much less probable / Very probable Likely to be greatly reduced / Likely to be greatly increased

1. This is the scales stem used by Shanahan et al. (2012). The name of the charity or cause should be placed in the blanks. If exposure to an ad is not relevant to the measure in a study, reference to it can be easily changed or deleted.

192

Ease of Justifying a Moral Position SCALE DESCRIPTION: This Likert-type scale measures the degree of comfort and confidence a person feels regarding a statement he/she has written defending a moral stance taken on a subject.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) did not state the source of the scale. It seems likely to have been created by them. A five-item version was used in Study 4 (n = 62) and a sixitem version was used in Study 5 (n = 213). (The two versions of the scale have four items in common.)

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .91 and .86 for the versions used in Studies 4 and 5, respectively (Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed 2013).

VALIDITY: The authors did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Americus Reed II (2013), "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1167-1184.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The statement I chose was easy to justify. I would feel comfortable defending my argument to others. I feel good about the statement I chose and the reasons I wrote down. I am confident that I chose the best statement. I felt uneasy writing my argument. (r) It feels wrong to support this governor (r). Supporting this statement felt morally wrong. (r)

1. Items #1 to #4 were used in Studies 4 and 5. Item #5 was only used in Study 4 while items #6 and #7 were only used in Study 5. The extreme verbal anchors used on the response scale in both studies were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

193

Eating Behavior (Emotional) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Thirteen items are used in this scale to measure a person's motivation to eat as a result of experiencing negative emotions such as frustration, anxiety, and boredom.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 3a (n = 97 undergraduate students) by Briers and Laporte (2013). It is one of the scales in the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire developed by Van Strien et al. (1986). The factor analysis the latter conducted on data from 1169 Dutch residents showed that the thirteen items in this scale loaded on two factors. Alphas for the thirteen item scale were calculated for the overall sample as well as for several subgroups (obese/non-obese, male/female). It all cases the alphas were very high (> 0.91). Alphas for the nine-item subscale were at or above .90 for the various groups. Internal consistency was a bit lower for the 4-item subscale with alphas ranging from .82 to .86.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .91 in Study 3a by Briers and Laporte (2013; Briers 2015).

VALIDITY: Briers and Laporte (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: As described above, the results of the study by the scale's creators (Van Strien et al. 1986) clearly showed that the thirteen items represent two factors. That is problematic because a fundamental criterion of summated scales is that they be unidimensional (e.g., Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003, p. Ch. 2; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994, Ch. 6). If it can be shown that the two factors score high on the same higher order factor then it may be acceptable to sum the items in the two subscales. Until then, caution is urged in using the full scale rather than the two subscales separately.

REFERENCES: Briers, Barbara (2015), personal correspondence. Briers, Barbara and Sandra Laporte (2013), "A Wallet Full of Calories: The Effect of Financial Dissatisfaction on the Desire for Food Energy," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (6), 767781. Netemeyer, Richard G., William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Nunnally, Jum C. and Ira H. Bernstein (1994) Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. Van Strien, Tatjana, Jan E.R. Frijters, Gerard P.A. Bergers, and Peter B. Defares (1986), “The Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) for Assessment of Restrained, Emotional and External Eating Behavior,” International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5 (2), 747–55.

194

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Do you have the desire to eat when you are irritated? 2. Do you have a desire to eat when you have nothing to do? 3. Do you have a desire to eat when you are depressed or discouraged? 4. Do you have a desire to eat when you are feeling lonely? 5. Do you have a desire to eat when somebody lets you down? 6. Do you have a desire to eat you are cross? 7. Do you have a desire to eat when you are approaching something unpleasant to happen? 8. Do you get the desire to eat when you are anxious, worried or tense? 9. Do you have a desire to eat when things are going against you or when things have gone wrong? 10. Do you have a desire to eat when you are frightened? 11. Do you have a desire to eat when you are disappointed? 12. Do you have a desire to eat when you are emotionally upset? 13. Do you have a desire to eat when you are bored or restless?

1. Briers and Laporte (2013) did not describe the response format used with these items. As for Van Strien et al. (1986), they used a five-point scale with the following anchors: never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and very often (5). Additionally, a not relevant response option was provided for all of the items except #7, #8, and #9. The items composing the 4-item subscale are #2, #4, #5, and #13. The other items compose the nine-item subscale.

195

Eating Behavior (Restraint) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which people regulate their food intake to maintain or lose weight is measured with ten items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 3b (n = 122) by Briers and Laporte (2013). (It may have been used in Study 4 as well). It is one of the scales in the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire developed by Van Strien et al. (1986). The factor analysis conducted by the latter on data from 1169 Dutch residents showed that the ten items in this scale loaded well on the same factor and had low loadings on the other factors. Alphas were calculated for the overall sample as well as for several subgroups (obese/non-obese, male/female). It all cases the alphas were very high (> 0.91).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 in Study 3b by Briers and Laporte (2013; Briers 2015).

VALIDITY: Briers and Laporte (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Briers, Barbara (2015), personal correspondence. Briers, Barbara and Sandra Laporte (2013), "A Wallet Full of Calories: The Effect of Financial Dissatisfaction on the Desire for Food Energy," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (6), 767781. Van Strien, Tatjana, Jan E.R. Frijters, Gerard P.A. Bergers, and Peter B. Defares (1986), “The Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ) for Assessment of Restrained, Emotional and External Eating Behavior,” International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5 (2), 747–55.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. If you have put on weight, do you eat less than you usually do? 2. Do you try to eat less at mealtimes than you would like to eat? 3. How often do you refuse food or drink offered because you are concerned about your weight? 4. Do you watch exactly what you eat? 5. Do you deliberately eat foods that are slimming? 6. When you have eaten too much, do you eat less than usual the following days? 7. Do you deliberately eat less in order not to become heavier? 8. How often do you try not to eat between meals because you are watching your weight? 9. How often in the evening do you try not to eat because you are watching your weight? 10. Do you take into account your weight with what you eat?

196

1. Briers and Laporte (2013) did not describe the response format used with these items. As for Van Strien et al. (1986), they used a five-point scale with the following anchors: never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and very often (5). Additionally, a not relevant response option was provided for items #1 and #6.

197

Eating Control Behavior SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person consciously attempts to control his/her food intake is measured in this scale with six, five-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Argo and White (2012) in a pretest that was apparently conducted prior to the five main studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated. The sample used in the pretest was 52 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .89 (Argo and White 2012, p. 69).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Argo and White (2012).

REFERENCES: Argo, Jennifer J. and Katherine White (2012), "When Do Consumers Eat More? The Role of Appearance Self-Esteem and Food Packaging Cues," Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 67-80.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I I I I I I

often try to control how much I eat. often try to control my portion sizes when eating. often consciously eat less than I want. often try to regulate how much I eat. am constantly controlling how much I eat. am constantly monitoring how much I eat.

1. Beyond indicating that the response scale had five points, Argo and White (2012) did not indicate what verbal anchors were used. Anchors typically used with Likert-type scales appear to be appropriate, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

198

Eating Control Confidence SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses five items to measure a person's level of confidence in regulating his/her food consumption.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Argo and White (2012) in a pretest that was apparently conducted prior to the five main studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated. The sample used in the pretest was 52 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (Argo and White 2012, p. 69).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Argo and White (2012).

REFERENCES: Argo, Jennifer J. and Katherine White (2012), "When Do Consumers Eat More? The Role of Appearance Self-Esteem and Food Packaging Cues," Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 67-80.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I I I I I

am am am am am

confident that I can be successful in controlling my food intake. confident in my abilities to control how much I eat. certain that I will be able to regulate my food intake. certain that I will be able to meet my weight management goals. certain that I will be able to regulate how much food I eat.

1. Argo and White (2012) did not describe the response format they used with these items. The scale may have had five points. Verbal anchors typically used with Likert-type scales would be appropriate, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

199

Ecocentrism SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person is more nature-centered in his/her system of values, as opposed to human-centered, is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) used a scale composed of items taken from the Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitude Scale by Thompson and Barton (1994). Not only were the items selected by Yoon and Tinkham (2013) related to ecocentrism but they were chosen because they referred to general issues rather than specific ones. The scale was used in Study 1 in which data were gathered from 88 undergraduate students attending an American university.

RELIABILITY: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) reported the scale to have an alpha of .78.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Yoon and Tinkham (2013).

REFERENCES: Thompson, Suzanne C. Gagnon and Michelle A. Barton (1994), “Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward the Environment,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14 (2), 149–57. Yoon, Hye Jin and Spencer F. Tinkham (2013), "Humorous Threat Persuasion in Advertising: The Effects of Humor, Threat Intensity, and Issue Involvement," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 30-41.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Nature is valuable for its own sake. 2. It makes me sad to see natural environments destroyed. 3. One of the worst things about overpopulation is that many natural areas are getting destroyed for development.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Yoon and Tinkham (2013) with the response scale were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

200

Edibility of the Product SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes a certain product is ingestible and is likely to consume it is measured in this scale using three statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013) in the pretest (n = 93) for Study 4. The source of the scale was not stated and is likely to have been developed by the authors as a manipulation check for the study. As used in the pretest, participants were asked to indicate the edibility of two groups of products: one expected to be viewed as ingestible and one that was not.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .91 (Castro, Morales, and Nowlis 2013, p. 129).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013). However, since the scale was used as a manipulation check and it confirmed that the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Castro, Iana A., Andrea C. Morales, and Stephen M. Nowlis (2013), "The Influence of Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity on Consumer Purchase," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 118-133.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How likely are you to ingest this product? How likely are you to eat this product? How edible is this product?

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013). The extreme verbal anchors for items #1 and #2 might have been not at all likely and very likely while the anchors for the third item were probably something like not edible at all and very edible. The points on the scale appear to have been either five or seven.

201

Effectiveness of the Treatment for a Lethal Condition SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items compose the scale and measure how much a person believes a particular treatment would prevent serious health consequences, including a life-threatening condition.

SCALE ORIGIN: Samper and Schwartz (2013) used the scale in Study 1 in which 111 participants were recruited from a national online panel. They called the measure the death prevalence index. The source of the scale was not stated and it appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .92 (Samper and Schwartz 2013, p. 1346).

VALIDITY: Samper and Schwartz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Samper, Adriana and Janet A. Schwartz (2013), "Price Inferences for Sacred versus Secular Goods: Changing the Price of Medicine Influences Perceived Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1343-1358.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How common is death due to consequences of this condition? not at all common / very common 2. To what extent do you believe that using this treatment is a matter of life or death? not at all / very much so 3. To what extent do you believe that using this treatment would prevent serious health consequences? not at all / very much so

1. In the survey instrument, a serious health threat as well as a particular treatment should be stated/described before these scale items are presented to participants.

202

Efficacy of Another's Response to One's Participation SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses four, five-point Likert-type items to measure a person's belief in the capabilities of another person to respond effectively to one's own participation in a relationship. Although the statements are not specific to any particular activity or context, instructions could be used with the scale to make it more focused.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) was developed by them based on phrases and concepts in a scale by Riggs et al. (1994). The analyses involving the scale were based on data from 223 unique customer-employee dyads of a large multinational bank in Hong Hong. The survey instrument was initially prepared in English and was then translated into Chinese using the typical back-translation method. It was then pretested with people similar to those in the main study. No major changes were made.

RELIABILITY: Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .90 and the composite reliability was .91 (Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012, p. 136).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .72 and the analyses supported its unidimensionality.

COMMENTS: See Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) for the version of this scale made for use with employees.

REFERENCES: Riggs, Matt L., Jette Warka, Bernadette Babasa, Rence Betancourt, and Stephenie Hooker (1994), “Development and Validation of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Scales for JobRelated Applications,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (3), 793–802. Yim, Chi Kin (Bennett), Kimmy Wa Chan, and Simon S.K. Lam (2012), "Do Customers and Employees Enjoy Service Participation? Synergistic Effects of Self- and Other-Efficacy," Journal of Marketing, 76 (6), 121–140.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I have confidence in his/her ability to respond to my participation effectively. I do not doubt his/her ability to respond to my participation effectively. He/She has excellent skills and ability in responding to my participation. I am proud of his/her skills and ability in responding to my participation.

203

E-Mail Forwarding Ability SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses five items to measure a person's self-confidence in his/her ability to forward email messages to others if the content is considered to have value for them.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) is not clear. Huang, Lin, and Lin (2009) were cited parenthetically. San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) used the scale in a survey of people who used e-mail (n = 308). It is not clear in what country or language the survey was conducted. It appears to be Spain. If so, the details regarding the translation of the scales into Spanish for the survey and into English for the article were not provided.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 and the composite reliability was .93 (San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo 2012, p. 104).

VALIDITY: Using the PLS approach, San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) found evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other reflective variables in their model. The scale's AVE was .77.

REFERENCES: Huang, Chien-Chih, Tung-Ching Lin, and Kuei-Ju Lin (2009), “Factors Affecting Pass-Along Email Intentions (PAEIs): Integrating the Social Capital and Social Cognition Theories,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8 (3), 160–169. San José-Cabezudo, Rebeca and Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo (2012), "Determinants of Opening-Forwarding E-Mail Messages," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 97-112.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I have confidence in my ability to . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

pass pass pass pass pass

along along along along along

valuable messages to my contacts. interesting messages to my contacts. helpful messages to my contacts. important messages to my contacts. messages correctly.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012). It appears to have been a five-point scale with verbal anchors typically used with Likert-type scales such as agree/disagree.

204

E-Mail Opening Ability SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's self-confidence in his/her ability to open e-mail messages if so desired is measured using five items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) is not clear. Huang, Lin, and Lin (2009) were cited parenthetically. San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) used the scale in a survey of people who used e-mail (n = 308). It is not clear in what country or language the survey was conducted. It appears to be Spain. If so, the details regarding the translation of the scales into Spanish for the survey and into English for the article were not provided.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .87 and the composite reliability was .90 (San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo 2012, p. 104).

VALIDITY: Using the PLS approach, San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) found evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other reflective variables in their model. The scale's AVE was .69.

REFERENCES: Huang, Chien-Chih, Tung-Ching Lin, and Kuei-Ju Lin (2009), “Factors Affecting Pass-Along Email Intentions (PAEIs): Integrating the Social Capital and Social Cognition Theories,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8 (3), 160–169. San José-Cabezudo, Rebeca and Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo (2012), "Determinants of Opening-Forwarding E-Mail Messages," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 97-112.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I have confidence in my ability to . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

open open open open open

messages messages messages messages messages

that are valuable to me. that are interesting for me. that are helpful to me. that are important to me. correctly.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012). It appears to have been a five-point scale with typical Likert-type verbal anchors such as agree/disagree.

205

Empathy SCALE DESCRIPTION: The four, seven-point items composing this scale attempt to measure a person's trait-like tendency to feel compassion and/or sympathy for others, particularly those who are suffering.

SCALE ORIGIN: In Study 3 (n = 62 college students) by Kurt and Inman (2013), the authors measured two facets of empathetic tendency: cognitive and emotional. The one reviewed here, emotional empathy, was also measured in Study 4 (n = 145 college students). The items for the two scales were borrowed from the slightly longer versions of the scales that are part of Davis' (1983) Interpersonal Interactivity Index.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .71 and .64 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively (Kurt and Inman 2013, p. 83).

VALIDITY: Kurt and Inman (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Davis, Mark H. (1983), “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 113–26. Kurt, Didem (2014), personal correspondence. Kurt, Didem and J. Jeffrey Inman (2013), "Mispredicting Others' Valuations: Self-Other Difference In the Context Of Endowment," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 78-89.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe you: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. Sometimes I don’t feel sorry for other people when they are having problems. (r) I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.

1. Per Kurt (2014), the extreme verbal anchors used on the response scale with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

206

Engagement (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person is draw into and focuses on something is measured in this scale with four, seven-point semantic differentials. The scale is general in the sense that the items are amenable for use in a wide variety of situations when participants are given the proper instructions.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) that they called attention to media is the same as the one called focused attention by Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000). In turn, that scale was taken from one by Ghani and Deshpande (1994) that those authors called concentration. Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used the scale in both studies discussed in their article. Study 1 was composed of 85 undergraduate students at a U.S. university while the sample in Study 2 was 108 students at a different U.S. university.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 which was based, apparently, on the combined samples from both studies (Yim 2013).

VALIDITY: Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used CFA to assess the psychometric quality of several, if not all, of their scales. The implication was that support was found for their convergent and discriminant validities. However, no specific statistics were provided for the engagement (aka attention to media) scale and it is not clear that it was included in the CFA.

REFERENCES: Ghani, Jawaid A. and Satish P. Deshpande (1994), "Task Characteristics and the Experience of Optimal Flow in Human-Computer Interaction," Journal of Psychology, 128 (4), 381-391. Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Yiu-Fai Yung (2000), “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach,” Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22–42. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon (2013), personal correspondence. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Vincent J. Cicchirillo, and Minette E. Drumwright (2012), "The Impact of Stereoscopic Three-Dimensional (3-D) Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 113-128.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

not deeply engrossed / deeply engrossed not absorbed intently / absorbed intently my attention was not focused / my attention was focused I did not concentrate fully / I concentrated fully 207

Engagement with the Program SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person paid attention to and was excited about the first half of a program is measured with eight, five-point items. The scale appears like it could be used not only with a televised sporting event (as Moorman et al. 2012 did) but also a movie or TV program, and possibly other presentations and events (e.g., lectures, parades, debates).

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Moorman et al. (2012) is a much longer version of a scale the authors had used previously (Moorman, Neijens, and Smit (2007). Ideas for the additional items apparently came from even older work of theirs and other sources (e.g., Bryant and Comisky 1978; Moorman, Neijens, and Smit 2002; Norris and Colman 1993). Moorman et al. (2012) referred to the scale as program involvement and used it with respect to the FIFA World Cup soccer championship. The sample was composed of 1,952 Dutch viewers of the game recruited from an Internet panel.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Moorman et al. 2012, p. 29).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed in detail by Moorman et al. (2012). They did say, however, that the items loaded on one factor and the scale's explained variance was 72.37%.

REFERENCES: Bryant, Jennings, and Paul W. Comisky (1978), "The Effect of Positioning a Message Within Differentially Cognitively Involving Portions of a Television Segment on Recall of the Message," Human Communication Research, 5 (1), 63-75. Moorman, Marjolein, Peter C. Neijens, and Edith G. Smit (2002), “The Effects of MagazineInduced Psychological Responses and Thematic Congruence on Memory and Attitude Toward the Ad in a Real-Life Setting,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 27–40. Moorman, Marjolein, Peter C. Neijens, and Edith G. Smit (2007), "The Effects of Program Involvement on Commercial Exposure and Recall in a Naturalistic Setting," Journal of Advertising, 36 (1), 121—137. Moorman, Marjolein, Lotte M. Willemsen, Peter C. Neijens, and Edith G. Smit (2012), "Program Involvement Effects on Commercial Attention and Recall of Successive Embedded Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 25-37. Norris, Claire E. and Andrew M. Colman (1993), "Context Effects on Memory for Television Advertisements," Social Behavior and Personality, 21 (4), 279-286.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I was fascinated by the first half of the _____. My thoughts wandered off during the first half of the _____. (r) I thought the first half of the _____ was exciting. 208

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I I I I I

was distracted during the first half of the _____. (r) thought the first half of the _____ was boring. (r) paid attention to the first half of the _____. thought of other things during the first half of the _____. (r) thought the first half of the _____ was interesting.

1. The article did not identify which items were to be reverse-coded. The ones noted here are assumed to need reverse-coding based on their content. The extreme verbal anchors used by Moorman et al. (2012) with the items were not at all (1) and very much (5).

209

Environmentalism (Activist Behavior) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of pro-environment activism a person reports being part of is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Tucker et al. (2012) and appears to have been created by them based on inspiration received from various measures used by Kinnear and Taylor (1973), Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991), and Schwepker and Cornwell (1991). Participants for the study (n = 420) came from several sources in a Midwestern U.S. state.

RELIABILITY: Tucker et al. (2012) reported the alpha for the scale to be .75.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Tucker et al. (2012) to examine the measurement model. The model fit the data well. Additionally, the analyses provided evidence in support of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the activist scale was .52.

REFERENCES: Ellen, Pam Scholder, Joshua Lyle Wiener, and Cathy Cobb-Walgren (1991), “The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (2), 102–117. Kinnear, Thomas C. and James R. Taylor (1973), “The Effect of Ecological Concern on Brand Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (May), 191–197. Schwepker, Charles H., Jr., and T. Bettina Cornwell (1991), “An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (2), 77–101. Tucker, Elizabeth M., Nora J. Rifon, Eun Mi Lee, and Bonnie B. Reece (2012), "Consumer Receptivity to Green Ads," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 9-23.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I have worked for environmental groups or causes. I have donated money to an environmental protection group. I have signed a petition in favor of protection of some part of the environment.

210

Environmentalism (Apathy) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the extent to which a person believes environmentally-related problems have been exaggerated, particularly as it pertains to conservation.

SCALE ORIGIN: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) used a scale composed of items taken from the Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitude Scale by Thompson and Barton (1994). Not only were the items selected by Yoon and Tinkham (2013) related to apathy but they were chosen because they referred to general issues rather than specific ones. The scale was used in Study 1 in which data were gathered from 88 undergraduate students attending an American university.

RELIABILITY: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) reported the scale to have an alpha of .84.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Yoon and Tinkham (2013).

REFERENCES: Thompson, Suzanne C. Gagnon and Michelle A. Barton (1994), “Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward the Environment,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14 (2), 149–57. Yoon, Hye Jin and Spencer F. Tinkham (2013), "Humorous Threat Persuasion in Advertising: The Effects of Humor, Threat Intensity, and Issue Involvement," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 30-41.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Too much emphasis has been placed on conservation. 2. I do not think the problem of depletion of natural resources is as bad as many people make it out to be. 3. I find it hard to get too concerned about environmental issues.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Yoon and Tinkham (2013) with the response scale were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

211

Environmentalism (Purchasing Behavior) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer tries to choose products that have the least negative impact on the environment is measured with ten statements. The emphasis is on products that are energy-efficient or that can be recycled.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) in a study with a final sample of 301 students attending a Portuguese university. The source of the full 22-item scale was Roberts (1991). Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) used a ten-item subset. The rationale for the selection of the items in the subset was not explained.

RELIABILITY: In the study by Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012), the alpha for the scale was .895.

VALIDITY: Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Finisterra do Paço, Arminda Maria, and Rosa Reis (2012), "Factors Affecting Skepticism toward Green Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 147-155. Roberts, J.A. (1996), "Will the Real Socially Responsible Consumer Please Step Forward?'' Business Horizons, 36 (January-February), 79-83.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I try to buy energy-efficient products and appliances. 2. I avoid buying products that have excessive packaging. 3. When there is a choice, I choose the product that causes the least pollution. 4. I have switched products/brands for ecological reasons. 5. I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper. 6. I use environmentally friendly soaps and detergents. 7. I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products that are harmful to the environment. 8. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers. 9. I try to buy products that can be recycled. 10. I buy high-efficiency light bulbs to save energy.

1. The response scale used by Finisterra do Paço and Reis (2012) was not described. Roberts (1991) used a five point scale with never true (1) and always true (5) as the extreme anchors.

212

Environmentalism (Purchasing Behavior) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure how much a person chooses to buy products that are considered the least harmful for people and the environment.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Cervellon (2012) is a subset of items from part of the Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior (ECCB) instrument by Roberts (1991, Roberts and Bacon 1997). Specifically, Cervellon (2012) pretested the full set of 12 items composing factor 4 of the ECCB. Based on the results, the 3 items with the highest loadings were selected by Cervellon (2012) to compose the scale used in his two studies.

RELIABILITY: Alphas of .70 and .82 were reported by Cervellon (2012) for his use of the scale in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Cervellon (2012).

REFERENCES: Cervellon, Marie-Cécile (2012), "Victoria's Dirty Secrets: Effectiveness of Green Not-for-Profit Messages Targeting Brands," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 133-145. Roberts, James A. (1991), The Development of a Profile of the Socially Responsible Consumer for the 1990s and Its Marketing Management and Public Policy Implications, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. Roberts, James A. and Donald R. Bacon (1997), “Exploring the Subtle Relationships Between Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Business Research, 40 (1), 79–89.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources. 2. I have switched products for ecological reasons. 3. When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one that is less harmful to other people and the environment.

213

Environmentalism (Reducing Air Pollution) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of importance a person places on personally helping to decrease air pollution is measured in this scale with four statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) created the scale with inspiration from measures of involvement and issue importance. The authors used the scale in three studies: Study 1 (n = 71 undergraduate students), Study 2A (n = 244 undergraduate students), and Study 2B (n = 113 undergraduate students). The reported studies were conducted in Israel and the scales were phrased in Hebrew (Kronrod 2013).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .83 to .93 in the three studies in which it was used by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012).

REFERENCES: Kronrod, Ann, personal correspondence. Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu (2012), "Go Green! Should Environmental Messages Be So Assertive?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 95-102.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

It is important for me to help reduce air pollution. I think a lot about ways to help reduce air pollution. Helping reduce air pollution is not at the top of my priorities list. (r) I try to help reduce air pollution.

1. The response format was a seven-point scale with not at all true and very true as the extreme verbal anchors (Kronrod 2013).

214

Environmentalism (Reducing Pollution) SCALE DESCRIPTION: One's attitude regarding the ability of an individual to have an effect on the environment, particularly in the form of reducing pollution, is measured in this scale with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) called the scale perceived consumer effectiveness and stated that they adapted it from Webster (1975). The latter had a two-item scale by the same name which Gleim et al. (2013) modified somewhat and added a third item.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .84.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. Evidence was found in support of the pollution reduction scale's discriminant validity with respect to most of the other scales but was mixed in its relationship with a scale measuring the obligation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (called personal norms by the authors). Specifically, the two scales did not pass one test of discriminant validity but did pass another. The pollution reduction scale's AVE was .63.

REFERENCES: Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61. Webster Frederick, E. (1975), “Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December), 188–96.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

It is worthwhile for the individual consumer to do something about pollution. When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect the environment. Since one person can have an effect on pollution, it makes a difference what I do.

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

215

Environmentalism (Social Norms) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures the degree to which a consumer knows people who engage in pro-environmental activities, particularly recycling and buying "green" products. To be clear, the scale does not measure a person's own environmentallyrelated thoughts or behaviors.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) slightly modified a scale created by Spangenberg et al. (2003) that totally focused on recycling. The revised scale was used in Study 2 by Gleim et al. (2013) in which data were gathered from a panel of consumers in the United States. Ultimately, usable data came from 581 respondents.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .89.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. Also, evidence was found in support of the social norms scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .66.

REFERENCES: Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61. Spangenberg, Eric R., David E. Sprott, Bianca Grohmann, and Ronn J. Smith (2003), “MassCommunicated Prediction Requests: Practical Application and Cognitive Dissonance Explanation for Self-Prophecy,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (July), 47-62.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

People People People People

I I I I

know know know know

buy green products. are concerned about issues related to the environment. think it’s important to buy green products. recycle those items that can be recycled.

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

216

Environmentalism (Solid Waste Reduction) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three items, this scale measures a person's concern about the environmental problem of solid waste reduction, particularly as it pertains to the need for reduced packaging and purchase of recycled paper products.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Tucker et al. (2012) was apparently created by the authors based on inspiration they received from various measures used by Kinnear and Taylor (1973), Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991), and Schwepker and Cornwell (1991). Participants for the study (n = 420) came from several sources in a Midwestern U.S. state.

RELIABILITY: Tucker et al. (2012) reported the alpha for the scale to be .82.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Tucker et al. (2012) to examine the measurement model. The model fit the data well. Additionally, the analyses provided evidence in support of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the solid waste reduction scale was .60.

REFERENCES: Ellen, Pam Scholder, Joshua Lyle Wiener, and Cathy Cobb-Walgren (1991), “The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (2), 102–117. Kinnear, Thomas C., and James R. Taylor (1973), “The Effect of Ecological Concern on Brand Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (May), 191–197. Schwepker, Charles H., Jr., and T. Bettina Cornwell (1991), “An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10 (2), 77–101. Tucker, Elizabeth M., Nora J. Rifon, Eun Mi Lee, and Bonnie B. Reece (2012), "Consumer Receptivity to Green Ads," Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 9-23.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

It is important to purchase recycled paper products to help preserve our forests. I believe the industry could reduce packaging for some consumer items. The _____ is facing a serious solid waste disposal problem.1

1. The nature of the response scale used with these items was not described by Tucker et al. (2012). It may have been a seven-point, Likert-type format. 2. The name of the focal city, country, or other geographic area should be placed in the blank.

217

Environmentalism (Sustainability Importance) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person values caring for the environment and believes in making environmentally responsible decisions is measured with four, seven-point questions.

SCALE ORIGIN: Peloza, White, and Shang (2013) used the scale in Study 1 (n = 86) as well as its pretest (n = 88). The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .97 and .79 for the Study 1 pretest and the main study, respectively (Peloza, White, and Shang 2013, pp. 107-108).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Peloza, White, and Shang (2013).

REFERENCES: Peloza, John, Katherine White, and Jingzhi Shang (2013), "Good and Guilt-Free: The Role of Self-Accountability in Influencing Preferences for Products with Ethical Attributes," Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 104-119.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

To what degree do you value taking care of the environment? How much do you value making environmentally sustainable choices? To what degree do you value conserving our natural resources? To what degree do you think it is important to consider our impact on the environment?

1. The verbal anchors for the response scale were not described by Peloza, White, and Shang (2013). They may have been something like not at all / a lot.

218

Envy SCALE DESCRIPTION: Nine-point semantic-differentials are used to measure how envious and frustrated a person feels with respect to another person.

SCALE ORIGIN: Chan and Sengupta (2013) used a two-item version of the scale in Experiments 1 and 4 while a three-item version was used in Experiments 2 and 3. The scale appears to be original with inspiration for the third item explicitly stated as Smith and Kim (2007).

RELIABILITY: Internal consistencies (correlations) were .69 and .72 for the two-item version of the scale used in Experiments 1 and 4, respectively. For the three item version used in Experiments 2 and 3, the internal consistencies (alphas) were .73 and .81, respectively.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Chan and Sengupta (2013).

REFERENCES: Chan, Elaine and Jaideep Sengupta (2013), "Observing Flattery: A Social Comparison Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 740-758. Smith, Richard H., and Sung Hee Kim (2007), “Comprehending Envy,” Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 46–64.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

not at all envious / extremely envious bad / good not at all frustrated / extremely frustrated

219

Exchange Equity (Across Customers) SCALE DESCRIPTION: This scale uses four, nine-point semantic differentials to measure a customer's attitude regarding the fairness of his/her treatment in a purchase transaction compared to what other customers were thought to have received. The emphasis is on the quality of the deal received relative to what other customers got.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brady, Voorhees, and Brusco (2012). They drew ideas from measures of exchange inequity developed by Oliver and Swan (1989). The study by Brady, Voorhees, and Brusco (2012) included a sample of employees and a sample of customers. Only the customer sample (610 usable responses) completed the exchange equity scale.

RELIABILITY: The scale's reliability was .96 (Brady, Voorhees, and Brusco 2012, p. 87).

VALIDITY: Brady, Voorhees, and Brusco (2012) used CFA to assess their measurement model. There was a good fit to the data. Additionally, they stated that support was found for the convergent and discriminant validities of their scales. With respect to the equity scale, its AVE was .86.

REFERENCES: Brady, Michael K., Clay M. Voorhees, and Michael J. Brusco (2012), "Service Sweethearting: Its Antecedents and Customer Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 81-98. Oliver, Richard L. and John E. Swan (1989), “Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 21-35.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Other Other Other Other

customers got a better deal than me / I got a better deal than other customers customer got more than they deserved / I got more than I deserved customers got more benefits than me / I got more benefits than other customers customers received greater outcomes / I received greater outcomes

220

Expertise (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Five, seven-point uni-polar items are used in this scale to measure how much a person describes someone or something as being skilled and reliable.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013) and used it in their first pilot test (n = 60) before Experiment 1. They referred to the scale as competence. In developing the scale, the authors drew some inspiration from work by Aaker (1997) regarding brand personality.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .89 (Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer 2013, p. 334).

VALIDITY: While Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013) did not directly discuss the scale's validity, some limited support for its predictive validity was provided. A graphic artist was asked to create a spokescharacter with two variations such that one version would be interpreted as more "competent" than the other. Indeed, the version expected to be viewed as more competent was rated as significantly more competent than the other version.

COMMENTS: As used by Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013), the focus of the measure was a graphicallycreated spokesperson in an ad. However, with the proper instructions, the items appear to be amenable for use when asking participants to describe real people, including themselves. They scale may even be appropriate for use when describing a company, particularly a service provider.

REFERENCES: Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347-356. Folse, Judith Anne Garretson (2015), personal correspondence. Folse, Judith Anne Garretson, Scot Burton, and Richard G. Netemeyer (2013), "Defending Brands: Effects of Alignment of Spokescharacter Personality Traits and Corporate Transgressions on Brand Trust and Attitudes," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 331-342.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Rate the extent to which the following personality traits describe __________. 2 1. 2.

expertise skilled 221

3. 4. 5.

qualified experienced reliable

1. As clarified by Folse (2015), the extreme verbal anchors used with these items were strongly disagree/strongly agree. 2. The focal person or object should be stated in the blank. In the pilot test conducted by Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013), the phrase was "the character in the ad."

222

Expertise with Green Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer reports having a lot of knowledge and experience with socalled "green products" is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) stated that they adapted their scale from work by Sharma and Patterson (2000). While the latter used a scale they called "product-norm experience," it was different from the scale reviewed here. Given that, it may be more accurate to say that Gleim et al. (2013) created the scale and were inspired in some way by the research conducted by Sharma and Patterson (2000).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .93.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. Also, evidence was found in support of the expertise scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .75.

COMMENTS: The scale seems to be amenable for use with other types of products by merely replacing the phrase "green products" in each item with an appropriate phrase, e.g., fair trade goods, locally produced products, organic foods.

REFERENCES: Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61. Sharma, Neeru and Paul G. Patterson (2000), “Switching Costs, Alternative Attractiveness and Experience as Moderators of Relationship Commitment in Professional, Consumer Services,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11 (5), 470–90.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

have a great deal of knowledge about green products. consider myself an expert on green products. have a great deal of experience with green products. generally know more than my friends about green products.

223

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

224

Expertise with Video Games SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three semantic differentials are used in this scale to measure ones self-expressed level of skill and competence with respect to playing video games.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Gangadharbatla, Bradley, and Wise (2013) based on items that had been used in past studies of Internet-related expertise. Participants in the study were 60 undergraduate students attending a large university in the southwestern United States.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .977 (Gangadharbatla, Bradley, and Wise 2013, p. 260).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not explicitly discussed by Gangadharbatla, Bradley, and Wise (2013). However, the authors did comment that they compared the mean score of gamers on the expertise scale with the mean score of non-gamers. As expected, the mean for gamers was much higher and significantly different from the mean score of non-gamers. This provides support for the scale's known-group validity.

COMMENTS: Although Gangadharbatla, Bradley, and Wise (2013) created the scale for use with playing video games, the items themselves appear to be amenable for use with a wide variety of activities.

REFERENCES: Gangadharbatla, Harsha, Samuel Bradley, and Wesley Wise (2013), "Psychophysiological Responses to Background Brand Placements in Video Games," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 251-263.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

beginner / expert bad / very good novice / very skilled

1. The instructions or context should make it clear to participants what activity these items refer to. Also, the number of points on the response scale used with these items was not stated by Gangadharbatla, Bradley, and Wise (2013).

225

Fairness of the Return Shipping Policy SCALE DESCRIPTION: A customer's belief regarding the fairness of a particular retailer's return shipping policy is measured in this scale using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bower and Maxham (2012) created the scale, drawing upon concepts and phrases from measures by Smith, Bolton, and Wagner (1999) as well as Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran (1998). Bower and Maxham (2012) called their scale "cost fairness" because some customers were reimbursed for shipping expenses while others were not. The authors conducted a longitudinal study with data collected at six time periods from online customers who had returned products to a leading retailer of home, garden, and personal items. The fairness scale appears to have been used in what the authors called T3 (time 3) of Studies 1 and 2. The analysis of Study 1 was based on 334 (T3) completed surveys. As for Study 2, analyses were based on 1296 (T3) completed surveys.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .96, averaged across Studies 1 and 2 (Bower and Maxham 2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Bower and Maxham (2012) to provide evidence which supported the discriminant validities of the scales they used. The exact results of the tests with respect to the fairness scale were not stated.

REFERENCES: Bower, Amanda B. and James G. Maxham III (2012), "Return Shipping Policies of Online Retailers: Normative Assumptions and the Long-Term Consequences of Fee and Free Returns," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 110–124. Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999), “A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 356–73. Tax, Stephen S., Stephen W. Brown, and Murali Chandrashekaran (1998), “Customer Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 60–76.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. fair 2. 3.

With respect to the return shipping policy outcome, __________ handled the return in a manner. I believe __________ applies return shipping policies fairly when handling returns. The final return shipping policy outcome I received from __________ was unfair. (r)

1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks.

226

Fear of Disapproval SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person is worried about what another person thinks of him/her, with an emphasis on being judged unfavorably, is measured in this scale with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) in Study 2 and possibly in Study 4 as well. The social situation examined in each of the studies was a customer receiving preferential treatment in the presence of others. The authors slightly adapted two of the items from Leary (1983) who, in turn, had developed a short form of the Fear of Negative Evaluation index by Watson and Friend (1969). The third item in Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl's (2013) scale was created by them based on ideas in the Fear of Negative Evaluation index.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale used in Study 2 by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) was .89. (The alpha for the scale as used in Study 4 was not provided.)

VALIDITY: Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Leary, Mark R. (1983), “A Brief Version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9 (September), 371–75. Jiang, Lan, JoAndrea Hoegg, and Darren W. Dahl (2013), "Consumer Reaction to Unearned Preferential Treatment," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 412-427. Watson, David and Ronald Friend (1969), “Measurement of Social-Evaluative Anxiety,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33 (4), 448-57.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I worry about what the other person will think of me. I am concerned that the other person is forming an unfavorable impression of me. I feel I am being judged by the other person.

1. The verbal anchors for the response scale used by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) with these items were not stated. Leary (1983) used the following: Not at all characteristic of me (1), Slightly characteristic of me (2), Moderately characteristic of me (3), Very characteristic of me (4), and 5 = Extremely characteristic of me (5).

227

Financial Well-Being SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's attitude regarding his/her financial position relative to peers and to the previous year is measured using a three-item, nine-point scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Sharma and Alter (2012) was created by the first author as part of her dissertation research from which the article was developed (Sharma 2014).

RELIABILITY: The scale was apparently used by Sharma and Alter (2012) in each of the five studies described in the article, however, information about its reliability was only provided for three of them. The alphas were .81 (Study 1), .87 (Study 3), and .84 (Study 4).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Sharma and Alter (2012).

REFERENCES: Sharma, Eesha (2014), personal correspondence. Sharma, Eesha and Adam L. Alter (2012), "Financial Deprivation Prompts Consumers to Seek Scarce Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 545-560.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Compared to my financial position last year, my financial position this year is: 2. In comparison to most of my peers, I am financially: 3. Compared to my material possessions last year, my material possessions this year are generally: 4. In comparison to most of my peers’ material possessions, my material possessions are: 5. In comparison to last year, my ability to spend money freely is:

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with items #1 to #4 were much worse (1) and much better (9). More constrained and less constrained were used with item #5.

228

Fit (Ad with Product) SCALE DESCRIPTION: This three item, Likert-type scale measures how well a person believes the advertisement for a certain product is suited for that product.

SCALE ORIGIN: Three of the items in the scale used by Chang and Yen (2013) were borrowed from the fouritem scale by Putrevu (2008). In the two uses of the scale by the latter, the internal consistency was high (.95 and .88). The study in which Chang and Yen (2013) used the scale (the follow-up for Study 2) had a final sample of 145 participants who were merely described as part-time undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: In the study conducted by Chang and Yen (2013), the scale's alpha was .86.

VALIDITY: Chang and Yen (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Chang, Chun-Tuan and Ching-Ting Yen (2013), " Missing Ingredients in Metaphor Advertising: The Right Formula of Metaphor Type, Product Type, and Need for Cognition," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 80-94. Putrevu, Sanjay (2008), “Consumer Responses Toward Sexual and Nonsexual Appeals: The Influence of Involvement, Need for Cognition (NFC), and Gender,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (2), 57–69.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The ad is appropriate for the product. The ad highlights the product's features. The ad is a good match with the product depicted.

1. The scale was merely described as "Likert" by Chang and Yen (2013). Given that, it is assumed that the extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were something like strongly disagree and strongly agree. Also, based on the means indicated in the analyses, it appears to have been a seven-point scale.

229

Fit (Brand-Brand) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person views two brands as being similar in image and usable together is measured with four statements. The scale was created for use with clothing brands and two of the statements will need to be rephrased if used with products other than clothing.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Netemeyer, Heilman, and Maxham (2012) who drew upon work by Berens, van Riel, and van Bruggen (2005) as well as Kumar (2005). As used by Netemeyer, Heilman, and Maxham (2012), the scale referred to a parent clothing brand and a new clothing brand. The scale was used in two studies, the first based on data from 5,629 complete survey responses and the second based 4,979 complete responses. The participants were randomly drawn from customers of a chain of clothing stores who had joined a "Shopping Insights" panel.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale as used in Study 1 was .96 (Netemeyer, Heilman, and Maxham 2012, p. 466). The internal consistency of the scale was not stated for Study 2.

VALIDITY: Netemeyer, Heilman, and Maxham (2012) used EFA and CFA in both Studies 1 and 2 to provide evidence of the scale's unidimensionality and its discriminant validity with respect to satisfaction. The AVE for the scale was .87 in both studies.

REFERENCES: Berens, Guido, Cees B.M. van Riel, and Gerrit H. van Bruggen (2005), “Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses: the Moderating Role of Corporate Brand Dominance,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 35-48. Kumar, Piyush (2005), “The Impact of Cobranding on Customer Evaluation of Brand Counterextensions,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 1-18. Netemeyer, Richard G., Carrie M. Heilman, and James G. Maxham III (2012), "The Impact of a New Retail Brand In-Store Boutique and its Perceived Fit with the Parent Retail Brand on Store Performance and Customer Spending," Journal of Retailing, 88 (4), 462-475.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How similar are _____ and __________ clothes in terms of how/when they are used? very dissimilar / very similar 2. How likely is it that you would wear _____ and __________ clothing at the same time? highly unlikely / highly likely 3. How well does the image of the _____ “fit” with the image of the __________? fits poorly / fits very well 4. The _____ satisfies needs similar to those satisfied by the __________. strongly disagree / strongly agree 230

1. The number of points on the response scales was not explicitly stated but it appears to have been seven. The name for the new brand should be placed in the short, first blank of each statement while the name for the parent (or more familiar) brand should be placed in the longer, second blank. Slight rephrasing of items #1 and #2 will be necessary if the scale is used with non-clothing brands.

231

Focus on Friends SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure how much a person thought about his/her friends. The scale makes most sense to use when the researcher wants to know to what extent respondents thought about friends in a certain context or while engaging in a certain activity.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not stated by Wilcox and Stephen (2013) but it was probably developed by them. It was used in Study 1 which had a sample of 100 Facebook users from a U.S. panel.

RELIABILITY: When used by Wilcox and Stephen (2013), the alpha for the scale was .95.

VALIDITY: Wilcox and Stephen (2013) did not provide information about the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Since the items themselves do not specify a particular context, instructions must be provided so as to direct respondents to a time in the past or to a task they have engaged in.

REFERENCES: Wilcox, Keith and Andrew T. Stephen (2013), "Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 90-103.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I thought about my close friends. I thought about friends whose opinions matter. I thought about friends who are influential to me.

1. Wilcox and Stephen (2013) did not provide the directions they used with the scale. Most likely they instructed participants to respond to the items with reference to the task in which they had just engaged.

232

Food Salience SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person views a food as being visible, desirable, and easy to access at a particular point in time is measured with six, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Deng and Srinivasan (2013) used this scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3. Four of the six items were borrowed verbatim from work by Wansink, Painter, and Lee (2006) while the other two items were their own.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .80 and .79 for Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Deng and Srinivasan 2013, pp. 109). (The reliability of the scale as used in Study 1 was not stated.)

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not directly discussed by Deng and Srinivasan (2013). However, a factor analysis conducted by the authors on the items in this scale and a related measure (consumption monitoring) showed the items loaded on their intended factors. This provides a modicum of evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities as well as its unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Deng, Xiaoyan and Raji Srinivasan (2013), "When Do Transparent Packages Increase (or Decrease) Food Consumption?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 104-117. Wansink, Brian (2004), James E. Painter, and Yeon-Kyung Lee (2006), “The Office Candy Dish: Proximity’s Influence on Estimated and Actual Candy Consumption,” International Journal of Obesity, 30 (5), 871–75.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

They were visible. They were attractive. They were easy to eat. They kept attracting my attention. I thought of eating them all the time. It was difficult to resist eating them.

1. The instructions should focus participants' attention on the food object they were exposed to previously.

233

Gambling Decision Difficulty SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's reported difficulty in making a decision regarding a gambling-related risk is measured in this scale with three, seven-point questions.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not identified by Cheema and Patrick (2012). It appears to have been created by them. In a pilot study (n = 120), the scale was used with regard to a lottery ticket purchase while in Study 1 (n = 120), participants were asked to choose between different gambling options.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in the pilot study by Cheema and Patrick (2012) was .77 and it was .85 in Study 1.

VALIDITY: Cheema and Patrick (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, in both the pilot study and Study 1, there were conditions that were expected to be more difficult for participants and they used the scale to provide evidence that the conditions were, indeed, viewed as more difficult. This provides some evidence of the scale's concurrent validity.

REFERENCES: Cheema, Amar and Vanessa M. Patrick (2012), "Influence of Warm Versus Cool Temperatures on Consumer Choice: A Resource Depletion Account," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 984–995.

SCALE ITEMS:1 How difficult was/is it for you to: 1. 2. 3.

make a decision about gambling? learn the expected value? judge the risk associated with the gamble?

1. The phrasing of the scale is constructed here based on descriptions provided by Cheema and Patrick (2012). The extreme verbal anchors used by the authors on the response scale were not at all (1) and very difficult (7). In the pilot study, the scale items referred to purchase of a lottery ticket.

234

Game Playing Arousal SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of intensity and activity a person reports feeling while playing a particular game is measured in this scale with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Besharat et al. (2013) drew items for their scale from a six item, general measure of arousal by Raju and Unnava (2006). The latter, in turn, borrowed items from Thayer's (1978, 1989) Activation-Deactivation Adjective Checklist (Thayer 1978).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .88 (Besharat 2014).

VALIDITY: Examination of the scale's validity was not reported by Besharat et al. (2013).

COMMENTS: Although developed for use with video games, the scale appears to be amenable for use with other games or activities simply by replacing the phrase "video games" in the scale stem. Certainly, the psychometric properties of the scale should be re-examined if such adaptations are made.

REFERENCES: Besharat, Ali (2014), personal correspondence. Besharat, Ali, Anand Kumar, John R. Lax, and Eric J. Rydzik (2013), "Leveraging Virtual Attribute Experience in Video Games to Improve Brand Recall and Learning," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 170-182. Raju, Sekar, and H. Rao Unnava (2006), “The Role of Arousal in Commitment: An Explanation for the Number of Counterarguments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 173–78. Thayer, Robert E. (1978), “Toward a Psychological Theory of Multidimensional Activation (Arousal),” Motivation and Emotion, 2 (1), 1–33. Thayer, Robert E. (1989), The Biopsychology of Mood and Arousal, London: Oxford University Press.

SCALE ITEMS:1 When I was playing the _____ game, I was . . . 1. 2. 3.

active. energetic. vigorous. 235

1. The response scale used with these items by Besharat et al. (2013) had the following extreme verbal anchors: Definitely not (1) and Definitely yes (7). The name for the type of game being played should be placed in the blank of the scale stem, e.g., video.

236

Game Playing Enjoyment SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person expresses enjoyment with respect to playing a particular game is measured in this scale with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Peters and Leshner (2013) with some inspiration coming from a scale by Koufaris (2002). The former used the scale to measure the enjoyment experienced by a person after briefly playing an online, "advergame" (a video game in which a brand is strategically placed). The participants in the experiment were 90 college students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .935 (Peters and Leshner 2013).

VALIDITY: Peters and Leshner (2013) did not supply any information regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Koufaris, Marios (2002), “Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior,” Information Systems Research, 13 (Spring), 205–23. Peters, Sara and Glenn Leshner (2013), "Get in the Game: The Effects of Game-Product Congruity and Product Placement Proximity on Game Players' Processing of Brands Embedded in Advergames," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 113-130.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Playing the __________ game was exciting. I enjoyed playing the __________ game. Playing the __________ game gave me a lot of pleasure.

1. If desired, the type of game can be stated in the blanks. For example, Peters and Leshner (2013) used the term online.

237

Goal Attainment Motivation SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of a person's commitment to achieve a specified goal is measured in this scale with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Etkin and Ratner (2013) in Study 4. No source was cited and it is assumed that they developed the scale for their study. The sample in the study was 160 members of an online panel (ages 18–73).

RELIABILITY: The scale's internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .93 (Etkin and Ratner 2013, p. 1092).

VALIDITY: Etkin and Ratner (2013) did not provide any information about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Etkin, Jordan and Rebecca K. Ratner (2013), "Goal Pursuit, Now and Later: Temporal Compatibility of Different versus Similar Means," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 10851099.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How motivated do you feel to pursue your goal to __________? not at all motivated / very motivated 2. How much effort do you intend to devote toward your goal to __________? very little effort / a lot of effort 3. How committed are you to pursuing your goal to __________? not at all committed / very committed

1. A brief description of the focal goal should be placed in the blanks. As used by Etkin and Ratner (2013), the phrase was "be physically fit."

238

Green Products Identification Ability SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure a person's ability to recognize so-called "green products" and distinguish them from products that are not "green."

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) referred to the scale as awareness and indicated that they adapted it from work by Seiders et al. (2007). Though there were several scales in that study measuring various types of service convenience, none of them measured a construct similar to the one reviewed here. Given that, it may be more accurate to say that Gleim et al. (2013) created the scale and were inspired in some way by the research conducted by Seiders et al. (2007).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .91.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. In particular, evidence was found in support of the identification ability scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .71.

REFERENCES: Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61. Seiders, Kathleen, Glenn B. Voss, Andrea L. Godfrey, and Dhruv Grewal (2007), “SERVCON: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Service Convenience Scale,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 144-156.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

can identify green products. can recognize green products among other products. am aware of green products. do know the difference between green products and standard products.

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

239

Group Belongingness (Future) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the importance placed on securing and strengthening one's future position in a group.

SCALE ORIGIN: Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) used the scale in Study 2 of the five described in their article. The results were based on responses from 446 people who completed the study online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not identified and is assumed to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia 2013, p. 664).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013).

REFERENCES: Dommer, Sara Loughran, Vanitha Swaminathan, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2013), "Using Differentiated Brands to Deflect Exclusion and Protect Inclusion: The Moderating Role of SelfEsteem on Attachment to Differentiated Brands," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 657675.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Securing my future social status in this group is important to me. I would like to protect my future place within this group. I would like to strengthen my future position within this group.

1. Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) described the scale as a seven-point Likert-type. Given that, the extreme verbal anchors could have been something like the typically used strongly disagree/strongly agree.

240

Group Heterogeneity SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items are used to measure the extent to which a person believes a certain social group is composed of several subgroups.

SCALE ORIGIN: Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) used the scale in Study 2 of the five described in their article. The results were based on responses from 446 people who completed the study online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not identified and is assumed to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .88 (Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia 2013, p. 664).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013).

REFERENCES: Dommer, Sara Loughran, Vanitha Swaminathan, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2013), "Using Differentiated Brands to Deflect Exclusion and Protect Inclusion: The Moderating Role of SelfEsteem on Attachment to Differentiated Brands," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 657675.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I feel that this group is made up of a few subgroups. To what extent do members of this group belong to subgroups? To what extent is this group composed of several subgroups?

1. Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) described the first item as a seven-point Likert-type scale. Given that, the extreme verbal anchors could have been something like the typically used strongly disagree/strongly agree. The response format used with the other two items had the following extreme anchors: not at all (1) and extremely (7).

241

Guilt SCALE DESCRIPTION: How ashamed and worthy of blame a person felt at some point in time is measured in the scale with five, seven-point uni-polar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) was not stated. While most of the items have been used in previous measures of guilt or shame, there has been no known use of all five of them in any one measure.

RELIABILITY: The alphas calculated for the scale were .97 and .94 for Studies 1 and 4, respectively (Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty 2013, pp. 354, 360).

VALIDITY: Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Kidwell, Blair, Adam Farmer, and David M. Hardesty (2013), "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 350-367.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

guilty blameworthy ashamed shameful remorseful

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very (7). Respondents were asked to indicate how the message made them feel (Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty 2013, p. 354).

242

Guilt SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person felt bad at a point in time, with an emphasis on guilt, is measured with three, nine-point uni-polar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan (2013) used the scale in Study 3b of the five studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated. It is assumed to be original though the authors likely drew the items from previous measures of guilt and/or negative affect (e.g., Gelbrich 2011).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .90 (Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan 2013, p. 134).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan (2013).

REFERENCES: Gelbrich, Katja (2011), “I Have Paid Less Than You! The Emotional and Behavioral Consequences of Advantaged Price Inequality,” Journal of Retailing, 87 (2), 207-224. Poor, Morgan, Adam Duhachek, and H. Shanker Krishnan (2013), "How Images of Other Consumers Influence Subsequent Taste Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 124-139.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

guilt remorse bad

1. Participants were asked to indicate how they felt while eating a particular food item. The anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and a great deal (9).

243

Guilt (Expected) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's anticipation of experiencing guilt-related feelings if he/she engages in a certain action is measured with three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) used the scale in Study 1 and implied it was "adapted" from work by Xu and Schwartz (2009). There was no multi-item measure of guilt in that article though something in it may have provided inspiration for the items Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) used in their scale.

RELIABILITY: Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) had participants complete the scale before and after exposure to an ad message. The alphas for the scale were .81 (pre-exposure) and .75 (postexposure).

VALIDITY: Evidence for the scale's validity was not provided by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012).

REFERENCES: Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu (2012), "Enjoy! Hedonic Consumption and Compliance with Assertive Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 51-61. Xu, Jing, and Norbert Schwartz (2009), “Do We Really Need a Reason to Indulge?” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), 25–36.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I would feel guilty. It would be a mistake. I will regret it.

1. The sentences shown here were constructed based on phrases provided in the article by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012, p. 54). They did not describe the response scale. It may have had seven points and verbal anchors typical of Likert-type scales, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

244

Health Benefits of the Product (Immediate) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items are used to measure the degree to which a person was thinking about the immediate health-related consequences of using the product featured in the ad he/she was watching.

SCALE ORIGIN: Spassova and Lee (2013) did not describe the scale's source or development. It seems rather clear, however, that the authors created the scale as well as a companion measure for use in Study 4 as temporal frame manipulation checks. They referred to the scale shown below as the Immediate Thought Index and the companion was called the Future Thought Index. Data for the experiment came from a sample composed of 186 students attending Northwestern University (U.S.). Participants were presented with one of 8 ads about Spa Cuisine Classics, a a real diet-related entrée on the market.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .78 (Spassova and Lee 2013, p. 167).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Spassova and Lee (2013).

REFERENCES: Spassova, Gerri (2014), personal correspondence. Spassova, Gerri, and Angela Y. Lee (2013), "Looking into the Future: A Match between SelfView and Temporal Distance." Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 159-171.

SCALE ITEMS:1 While you were viewing the content of the __________ ad, please describe . . . 1. 2. 3.

To what extent were your thoughts about the immediate benefits of __________? To what extent were your thoughts about staying healthy now? To what extent were your thoughts about the immediate consequences of your diet?

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the scale items by Spassova and Lee (2013) were Not at All (1) and A Lot (7). The wording of the items was clarified by Spassova (2014).

245

Health Benefits of the Product (Long-term) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has three, seven-point items that measure the extent to which a person reports that he/she was thinking about the long-term health-related consequences of using the product featured in an ad just watched.

SCALE ORIGIN: Spassova and Lee (2013) did not describe the scale's source or development. It seems rather clear, however, that the authors created the scale as well as a companion measure for use in Study 4 as temporal frame manipulation checks. They referred to the scale shown below as the Future Thought Index and the companion was called the Immediate Thought Index. Data for the experiment came from a sample composed of 186 students attending Northwestern University (U.S.). Participants were presented with one of 8 ads about Spa Cuisine Classics, a a real diet-related entrée on the market.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was reported by Spassova and Lee (2013, p. 167) to be .84.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Spassova and Lee (2013).

REFERENCES: Spassova, Gerri (2014), personal correspondence. Spassova, Gerri, and Angela Y. Lee (2013), "Looking into the Future: A Match between SelfView and Temporal Distance." Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 159-171.

SCALE ITEMS:1 While you were viewing the content of the __________ ad, please describe . . . 1. 2. 3.

To what extent were your thoughts about the long-term benefits of __________? To what extent were your thoughts about staying healthy in the long run? To what extent were your thoughts about the long-reaching consequences of your diet?

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the scale items by Spassova and Lee (2013) were Not at All (1) and A Lot (7). The wording of the items was clarified by Spassova (2014).

246

Health Consciousness SCALE DESCRIPTION: Seven, five-point items are used to measure a personality trait having to do with the amount of attention given to one's health and to monitoring any changes.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Haws and Winterich (2013) in Study 3 (n= 81 undergraduate students) and Study 4 (n = 327 adults from an online panel). The items were borrowed from the Health Consciousness Scale by Gould (1990). That scale was actually an index composed of four subscales with a total of nine items. It is not clear why Haws and Winterich (2013) chose to use the particular items they did.

RELIABILITY: The scales' alphas were .96 and .92 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively (Haws and Winterich 2013, p. 57).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Haws and Winterich (2013).

COMMENTS: Gould's (1990) analyses showed the seven items used by Haws and Winterich (2013) were tapping into four different though related factors. Given that, potential users of these items are urged to examine the unidimensionality of the seven-item scale to confirm it meets acceptable psychometric standards.

REFERENCES: Gould, Stephen J. (1990), “Health Consciousness and Health Behavior: The Application of a New Health Consciousness Scale,” American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 6 (4), 228–37. Haws, Kelly L. (2014), personal correspondence. Haws, Kelly L. and Karen Page Winterich (2013), "When Value Trumps Health in a Supersized World," Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 48-64.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Please rate how much the following statements describe your opinions about health. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I reflect about my health a lot. I'm very self-conscious about my health. I'm generally attentive to my inner feelings about my health. I'm constantly examining my health. I'm alert to changes in my health. I'm usually aware of my health. I'm aware of the state of my health as I go through the day. 247

1. The verbal anchors of the response scale used by Haws and Winterich (2013) were Statement Does Not Describe You At All, Statement Describes You A Little, Statement Describes You About Fifty-Fifty, Statement Describes You Fairly Well, and Statement Describes You Very Well. The items and verbal anchors were provided by Haws (2014).

248

Health Risk Assessment SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's estimate of the likelihood of experiencing a certain health problem is measured using four, seven-point items. Phrasing of the scale instructions allow the items to be used with respect to different time periods (present vs future).

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Yan and Sengupta (2013) who drew inspiration and phrasing from a similar scale by Menon, Block, and Ramanathan (2002). The former used three slight variations in their scale. In Experiment 5, there were two conditions: near and distant. Then, the scale was used again in Experiment 6 with no reference to a time period. As described in the footnote (below), the difference in the three versions appears to be more in the instructions rather than in the items themselves.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the near and distant versions of the scale used in Experiment 5 were .79 and .85, respectively (Yan and Sengupta 2013, p. 940). The version used in Experiment 6 had an alpha of .75 (p. 942).

VALIDITY: Yan and Sengupta (2013) did not discuss the validity of the scale.

REFERENCES: Menon, Geeta, Lauren G. Block, and Suresh Ramanathan (2002), “We’re At As Much Risk As We Are Led to Believe: Effects of Message Cues on Judgments of Health Risk,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 533-549. Yan, Dengfeng (2014), personal correspondence. Yan, Dengfeng and Jaideep Sengupta (2013), "The Influence of Base Rate and Case Information on Health-Risk Perceptions: A Unified Model of Self-Positivity and Self-Negativity," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 931-946.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. will

Please estimate your likelihood of getting _____. very unlikely / very likely Please estimate your vulnerability to _____. very low very high How concerned are you about getting _____. not at all / very much Please indicate your intention of getting a __________ test for _____. will definitely not / definitely2

1. The items were provided by Yan (2014). The name of the focal health problem should be placed in the blanks. Participants in the "near" condition were asked to indicate their current vulnerability to the health issue whereas those in the distant condition were told to estimate their vulnerability when they were in their sixties. 2. The first blank in this statement should be filled with the name of a test for the health issue identified in the second blank.

249

Health Risk Assessment SCALE DESCRIPTION: How likely a person believes he/she will be threatened by a particular health condition sometime in the future is measured in this scale with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Samper and Schwartz (2013) used the scale in two of the three studies they reported. They called the measure the self-risk index. Participants were recruited from a national online sample resulting in 111 in Study 1 and 81 in Study 3. The source of the scale was not stated and it appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .72 and .82 in Studies 1 and 3, respectively (Samper and Schwartz 2013).

VALIDITY: Samper and Schwartz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Samper, Adriana and Janet A. Schwartz (2013), "Price Inferences for Sacred versus Secular Goods: Changing the Price of Medicine Influences Perceived Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1343-1358.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How likely are you to have this condition in your lifetime? not at all likely / very likely How applicable is this issue to you? not at all / very much so How serious a threat is this condition to you? not at all serious / very serious

1. In the survey instrument, a serious health threat should be stated or described before these scale items are presented to participants.

250

Homophily SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point semantic differentials are used to measure the extent to which a person believes another person is similar to him/herself in many ways.

SCALE ORIGIN: Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel (2013) created the scale by drawing inspiration and some terminology from a measure of homophily by McCroskey, Richmond, and Daly (1975). The scale was used in Study 2 with a national sample of 270 adults drawn from a Qualtrics panel. In that study, the scale was used to compare how participants felt about an ad they thought was created by a company versus believing it was created by a consumer.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .92 (Lawrence 2014).

VALIDITY: The authors did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Lawrence, Benjamin (2014), personal correspondence. Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frédéric Brunel (2013), "When Companies Don't Make the Ad: A Multi-method Inquiry Into the Differential Effectiveness of ConsumerGenerated Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 292-307.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Not like me / Like me Somebody I cannot relate to / Somebody I can relate to1 Different from me in every way / Similar to me in many ways Does not share any of my beliefs and values / Shares my beliefs/values

1. When this scale was used with respect to a company, the word "Somebody" was replaced with "Company."

251

Hoping for an Ideal Product SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person was thinking about and desiring a "perfect" option within a product category is measured with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Mogilner, Shiv, and Iyengar (2013) used the scale in Experiment 1 which was conducted in the Wharton Behavioral Lab (the University of Pennsylvania) with 87 participants. The source of the scale was not stated; it appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale was .76 (Mogilner, Shiv, and Iyengar 2013, p. 1303).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not explicitly discussed by Mogilner, Shiv, and Iyengar (2013). However, the authors explained that the scale was used as a manipulation check. Because the manipulation was successful, it might be argued that a modicum of support was provided for the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Mogilner, Cassie, Baba Shiv, and Sheena S. Iyengar (2013), "Eternal Quest for the Best: Sequential (vs. Simultaneous) Option Presentation Undermines Choice Commitment," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1300-1312.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

imagining the most perfect _____ possible yearning for a more perfect _____ hoping for a more perfect _____ option

1. The generic name for the product should be placed in the blanks, e.g., chocolate. The extreme verbal anchors used with the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (7). The instructions and/or scale stem used with the items were not provided by Mogilner, Shiv, and Iyengar (2013). The scale stem may have been something like "When I tasted the chocolate, I was . . . ."

252

Identity Synergy SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale used four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person's belief that being a "member" (broadly defined) of an organization facilitates him/her performing better in a certain role. The phrasing of the items can be tailored for a specific organization and a specific role a person plays with the organization, e.g., shopper, employee, volunteer.

SCALE ORIGIN: Fombelle et al. (2012) created a four item scale by drawing ideas and phrases from several scales by Drigotas et al. (1999). Unique to the study of Fombelle et al. (2012), participants filled out the four scale items three times, once for each of three primary consumer "identities" they had with an organization, e.g., shopper, teacher, parent. (Sixteen possible identities had been determined in a pre-test.) Then, an overall scale score was calculated in a multi-step process (Fombelle 2013). The three scores for item 1 were multiplied. Likewise, the same was done for the other three items. Then, the products of those four multiplications were added as they would be in a normal summated scale. This approach was taken to account for the individual strength of each identity.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was reported as .95 by Fombelle et al. (2012). Keep in mind that the alpha value was increased to some extent by the three scale items being completed three times.

VALIDITY: The CFA conducted by Fombelle et al. (2012) showed that their hypothesized model fit the data well. With respect to the synergy scale, the AVE was .85.

REFERENCES: Carlson, Dawn S., K. Michele Kacmar, Julie Holliday Wayne, and Joseph G. Gryzywacz (2006), "Measuring the Positive Side of the Work-Family Interface: Development and Validation of a Work-Family Enrichment Scale," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (1), 131–164. Fombelle, Paul W. (2013), personal correspondence. Fombelle, Paul W., Cheryl Burke Jarvis, James Ward, and Lonnie Ostrom (2012), "Leveraging Customers’ Multiple Identities: Identity Synergy as a Driver of Organizational Identification," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 587-604.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Being a member 2. Being a member __________. 3. Being a member 4. Being a member

of the _____ makes it easier for me to be a good __________. of the _____ makes it easier to fulfill my duties/responsibilities as a/an of the _____ gives me the opportunity to be a better __________. of the _____ has positively affected my role as a/an __________.

1. The shorter blank at the beginning of the items should be filled with the name of the focal organization. The longer blanks at the end of the items should be filled with a particular "identity," e.g., shopper, community member, volunteer.

253

Imagery Fluency SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person's ability to quickly generate mental images as depicted in an advertisement he/she has just been exposed to.

SCALE ORIGIN: Chang (2013) created the scale by drawing heavily on concepts and phrases in a measure by Ellen and Bone (1991, Bone and Ellen 1992). The scale was used by Chang (2013) in two experiments. Participants in Experiment 1 were 81 students attending a large university in Asia where Chinese was spoken. Materials were translated using a back-translation procedure. The sample used in Experiment 2 was merely described as 161 students.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale in Experiments 1 and 2 were .90 and .79, respectively (Chang 2013, pp. 60, 64).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Chang (2013).

REFERENCES: Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Pam Scholder Ellen (1992), “The Generation and Consequences of Communication-Evoked Imagery,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 93-104. Chang, Chingching (2013), "Imagery Fluency and Narrative Advertising Effects," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 54-68. Ellen, Pam Scholder and Paula Fitzgerald Bone (1991), “Measuring Communication-Evoked Imagery Processing,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Soloman, eds. Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research, 806-12.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Instructions: When processing ads, people may generate images of what the ad depicts in their mind. Please rate the degree to which you agree that the following three items describe your ad processing experiences: 1. 2. 3.

I had difficulty imagining the depicted scene in my head. (r) I found it difficult to generate mental images as depicted in the ad. (r) I quickly generated images of what was depicted in the ad.

1. Chang (2013, p. 60) described the scales she used as 7-point Likert-type unless otherwise indicated. Although the extreme verbal anchors were not provided for this particular scale, it is likely that they were the English equivalent of strongly disagree/strongly agree.

254

Importance (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, nine-point uni-polar terms to measure how important something is to a person. The scale is "general" in the sense that the three items composing the scale are not specific to any particular object and can be paired with properly written instructions to refer to almost any object.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Zhang and Li (2012) in Experiments 1 (n = 105) and 5 (n = 246). The participants in the experiments were undergraduate students at an Asian university. The source of the scale was not identified nor was the language in which the scale was presented to participants.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .90 and .91 for Experiments 1 and 5, respectively (Zhang and Li 2012).

VALIDITY: Zhang and Li (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Zhang, Meng and Xiuping Li (2012), "From Physical Weight to Psychological Significance: The Contribution of Semantic Activations," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1063-1075.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

important critical crucial

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Zhang and Li (2012) were not at all (1) and very (9). Instructions should be written that ask respondents to use the items to indicate how important something is to them.

255

Impression Management SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person manages his/her behavior so as to present a positive image to others is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Peloza, White, and Shang (2013) used the scale in Study 3 (n = 121 undergraduates). The measure is a slight adaptation of three items taken from a larger scale by White and Peloza (2009).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .91 (Peloza, White, and Shang 2013, pp. 112).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Peloza, White, and Shang (2013).

REFERENCES: Peloza, John, Katherine White, and Jingzhi Shang (2013), "Good and Guilt-Free: The Role of Self-Accountability in Influencing Preferences for Products with Ethical Attributes," Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 104-119. White, Katherine and John Peloza (2009), "Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support," Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 109-24.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I want to present myself in a positive way to others. I want to make a positive impression on others. I want to make myself look good to others.

1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

256

Information Load SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's judgment of the level of information he/she has had to process during some particular event is measured using three, five-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yoon, Sarial-Abi, and Gürhan-Canli (2012) in Study 4. The sample in that study was 78 members of a U.S. e-panel. The source of the scale was not identified. It appears to have been created by the authors as a manipulation check for the study.

RELIABILITY: Yoon, Sarial-Abi, and Gürhan-Canli (2012) reported the scale's alpha to be .88.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Yoon, Sarial-Abi, and Gürhan-Canli (2012). However, to the extent that the scale was used as a manipulation check of the differing amounts of information that participants in two treatment groups were supposed to read, and the manipulation was considered to be successful, that provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Yoon, Yeosun, Gülen Sarial-Abi, and Zeynep Gürhan-Canli (2012), "Effect of Regulatory Focus on Selective Information Processing," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 93-110.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

There was a lot of information to process. The amount of information provided in the __________ was:2 The number of __________ was:3

1. Only item #1 was stated verbatim in the article. The other two are constructed here based on the paraphrasing provided in the article. The extreme verbal anchors were strongly disagree / strongly agree. 2. The name for the type of objects that participants are processing should be placed in the blank, e.g., articles, product reviews, ads. The extreme verbal anchors used with this item were apparently something like very little / very much. 3. The name for the objects that participants are processing should be placed in the blank, e.g., articles, product reviews, ads. The extreme verbal anchors used with this item were apparently something like very low / very high.

257

Innovation Ability (Company’s) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer believes that a company is able to develop new and useful products is measured in this scale with three, seven-point semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) in each of the four studies discussed in their article. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated but Luo and Bhattacharya (2006) were cited. Indeed, that article contained a measure of the same or a very similar construct but the measure was completely different from the one used by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012). Given this, it is likely that the scale used by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) was created by them. Prior to completing the scale, participants were "provided with the construct definition (a company’s innovation ability refers to its ability to develop new and useful products)" (p. 23).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .89 to .95 in the four studies conducted by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012).

VALIDITY: Using data from Study 2 (n = 161), Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) conducted a CFA to test the discriminant validity of innovation ability and four other measures. The results provided support for their empirical distinctiveness. Although their individual AVEs were not reported, they were described as above .50.

COMMENTS: In Study 3, Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) used a second measure of innovative ability in addition to the scale reviewed here. A CFA showed there was a single factor but no other information about its reliability was reported.

REFERENCES: Luo, Xueming and C.B. Bhattacharya (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (October), 1–18. Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), "The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers' Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.

SCALE ITEMS: What do you think about the firm’s innovation ability? I think this company’s ability to innovate is . . . 1.

not very high/ very high 258

2. 3.

not very strong / very strong not excellent / excellent

259

Innovation Ability (Company’s) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures a person's belief that a company is capable of creating original and interesting new products.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) in Study 3 of the four studies discussed in their article. The sample was composed of 466 consumers recruited by a market research agency. The authors said that they adapted the scale from work by Rindfleisch and Moorman (2001). Since no scale in that piece bears any similarity to this innovation ability scale, it is best to consider Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) as the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 (Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl 2012, p. 27).

VALIDITY: Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity, at least, they did not comment on it directly. In Study 3, the authors not only used this scale to measure innovative ability but another scale that they used in each of the four studies. The two measures were highly correlated and, in fact, a CFA showed there was a single factor. That provides some evidence of the scale's convergent validity.

REFERENCES: Rindfleisch, Aric and Christine Moorman (2001), “The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances: A Strength-of-Ties Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), 1– 18. Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), "The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers' Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I think the firm has the ability to develop really innovative new products. The firm is in the position to derive very original product ideas. The company has a large potential to foster creativity. I think the firm can create very interesting new products.

260

Innovativeness (Technological) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The ten, seven-point Likert-type items in this scale measure the degree of interest a consumer has in knowing about new high-tech products as well as the desire to be among the first to buy them.

SCALE ORIGIN: Although not stated in the article by Shalev and Morwitz (2012), the scale was created by Shalev (2013). Some of the items were adapted from items in the innovativeness scale by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) but the majority came from other (unidentified) sources. Shalev and Morwitz (2012) used the scale in Study 3 (n = 113 female college students).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Shalev and Morwitz 2012, p. 969).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Shalev and Morwitz (2012).

REFERENCES: Goldsmith, Ronald E. and Charles F. Hofacker (1991), “Measuring Consumer Innovativeness,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (3), 209–21. Shalev, Edith (2013), personal correspondence. Shalev, Edith and Vicki G. Morwitz (2012), "Influence via Comparison-Driven Self-Evaluation and Restoration: The Case of the Low-Status Influencer," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 964-980.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new high-tech product when it appears. 2. If I heard that a new high-tech product was available in the market, I would be interested enough to buy it. 3. I am usually one of the first people to know about new high-tech products. 4. I will buy a new high-tech product even if I haven’t tried it yet. 5. I actively try to learn about new high-tech products. 6. I generally keep-up on high-tech products news and events. 7. I consider myself very up-to date when it comes to high-tech products. 8. In general, I have a strong interest in high-tech products. 9. High-tech products are a very important product category to me. 10. High-tech products matter to me a lot.

261

Innovativeness Importance (Technological) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of importance a consumer places on knowing about and owning new technological products is measured in this six item, seven-point Likert-type scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: Shalev and Morwitz (2012) appear to have created the scale based on inspiration received from items in scales by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) as well as Martínez and Montaner (2006). The scale was used by Shalev and Morwitz (2012) in Study 2 (n = 77 members of an online panel) but the development of the scale was not described.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Shalev and Morwitz 2012, p. 969).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Shalev and Morwitz (2012).

REFERENCES: Goldsmith, Ronald E. and Charles F. Hofacker (1991), “Measuring Consumer Innovativeness,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (3), 209–221. Martínez, Eva and Teresa Montaner (2006), “The Effect of Consumer’s Psychographic Variables upon Deal-Proneness,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13 (3), 157–68. Shalev, Edith and Vicki G. Morwitz (2012), "Influence via Comparison-Driven Self-Evaluation and Restoration: The Case of the Low-Status Influencer," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 964-980.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. It is important for me to try new and different technological products. 2. Compared to my friends, I own many technological products. 3. It is important for me to keep up with contemporary technologies. 4. It is important for me to be among the first people to own new technological products. 5. It is important for me to be able to make recommendations to others about technological products. 6. When I see a technological product somewhat different from the usual, it is important for me to check it out.

262

Intention to Download the Coupon SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's expressed likelihood of going online to download a coupon for a product is measured in this scale with five, nine-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013) drew upon some frequently used items to produce a rather specific measure for her Study 1. The first three items (below) have been used countless times to measure various behavioral intentions (e.g., MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). Data were gathered by Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013) for Study 1 from 93 undergraduate students from a large, urban university.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .94 (Aguirre-Rodriguez 2013, p. 374).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Aguirre-Rodriguez (2013).

REFERENCES: Aguirre-Rodriguez, Alexandra (2013), "The Effect of Consumer Persuasion Knowledge on Scarcity Appeal Persuasiveness," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 371-379. MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch (1986), “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143.

SCALE ITEMS:1 How likely are you to go online to get a coupon for the __________? 1. It’s unlikely / It’s likely 2. It’s impossible / It’s possible 3. It’s improbable / It’s probable Do you want a coupon for __________? 4. Not at all / Very much How strong is your intention to go online to download a coupon for __________? 5. Very weak intention / Very strong intention

1. The name of the product being promoted should be placed in the blanks.

263

Intention to Play the Game SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's intention to play a particular game in the future if there is an opportunity is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Peters and Leshner (2013) with some inspiration coming from a scale by Agarwal and Karahanna (2000). The former used the scale to measure a person's intention to play an online, "advergame" (a video game in which a brand is strategically placed). The participants in the experiment were 90 college students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .910 (Peters and Leshner 2013).

VALIDITY: Peters and Leshner (2013) did not supply any information regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Agarwal, Ritu and Elena Karahanna (2013), "Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption And Beliefs About Information Technology Usage." MIS Quarterly, 24 (4), 665-694. Peters, Sara and Glenn Leshner (2013), "Get in the Game: The Effects of Game-Product Congruity and Product Placement Proximity on Game Players' Processing of Brands Embedded in Advergames," Journal of Advertising, 42 (2-3), 113-130.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Given the chance, I would play this __________ game frequently in the future. Given the chance, I would play this __________ game for a long time. I intend to play this __________ game.

1. If desired, the type of game can be stated in the blanks. For example, Peters and Leshner (2013) used the term online.

264

Intention to Use the Lawyer SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures a person's inclination to use the services of a particular lawyer, e.g., meet with the lawyer, recommend him/her. It makes most since to use this scale when respondents have some familiarity with the lawyer, possibly having consulted with him/her previously.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Scott, Mende, and Bolton (2013) in Studies 1, 2, and 3 reported in their article. A five item version was used in Study 1 while a three item version was used in Studies 2 and 3. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alphas were .97, .93, and .91 for the versions of the scale used in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Scott, Mende, and Bolton 2013, p. 338).

VALIDITY: Scott, Mende, and Bolton (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Scott, Maura L., Martin Mende, and Lisa E. Bolton (2013), "Judging the Book by Its Cover? How Consumers Decode Conspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer–Seller Relationships," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (3), 334-347.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I would . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

consult with this lawyer. recommend this lawyer to my friends. follow the advice of this lawyer. come to this lawyer again. make an appointment to get additional advice. be satisfied with this lawyer.

1. While Scott, Mende, and Bolton (2013) stated this was an eleven-point scale, they did not describe the verbal anchors. It appears they were Likert-type with anchors such as strongly disagree/strongly agree. All of the items except #3 were used in Study 1 while #1, #2, and #3 composed the scale in Studies 2 and 3.

265

Involvement in the Task SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures the level of involvement a person reports having when a particular activity was performed.

SCALE ORIGIN: Zhu and Argo (2013) used the scale in Study 2 of the three presented in the article to determine subjects' levels of involvement in the experimental task. Participants were 144 undergraduates at the University of Alberta (Canada). The source of the scale was not identified. While it has some similarity with past measures of the construct, it has enough differences that it can be considered unique and likely to have been created by these authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .82 (Zhu and Argo 2013, p. 341).

VALIDITY: Zhu and Argo (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Although Zhu and Argo (2013) used the scale to measure involvement in the experimental task, nothing in the items themselves limits their use to that context. When paired with the proper instructions, the scale appears to be usable in other contexts where a person's degree of involvement is of concern to the researcher.

REFERENCES: Zhu, Rui (Juliet) and Jennifer J. Argo (2013), "Exploring the Impact of Various Shaped Seating Arrangements on Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 336-349.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

was not at all involved / was extremely involved did not perform the task very carefully / performed the task very carefully expended very little effort / expended a great deal of effort was not at all motivated / was extremely motivated

266

Justice (Procedural) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person's attitude about the fairness and reasonableness with which a conflict with a company was resolved.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) in Study 2 (n = 111 college students) and Study 4 (n = 168 undergraduates) of the four studies described in their article. The implication with the cite provided in the article was that Smith et al. (1999) was the source of the scale. However, a comparison of the two scales shows very little overlap except for one phrase in one item. Given that, it may be most accurate to say that Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) created the scale based on inspiration from the work of Crosby and Stephens (1987).

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities reported for the scale in the two studies in which it was used by Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) were .92 (Study 2) to .94 (Study 4).

VALIDITY: For Studies 2 and 4, Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) described the results of the CFAs that were conducted. In both cases, the models fit the data. Evidence was provided in support of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. Although AVEs for the individual scales were not stated, the AVEs for all of the scales were described as at least .70 in Study 2 and at least .80 in Study 4.

REFERENCES: Roggeveen, Anne L., Michael Tsiros, and Dhruv Grewal (2012), "Understanding the Co-creation Effect: When Does Collaborating with Customers Provide a Lift to Service Recovery?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 771-790. Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999), “A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 356-372.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The way in which the problem was resolved was appropriate. The way the agent dealt with this issue was reasonable. I feel the process of rebooking me was fair.1 The company showed adequate flexibility in dealing with my problem.

1. Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) used the scale with regard to a canceled flight and subsequent interaction with an airline agent. The airline-related terminology in this item should be adapted for other contexts as needed.

267

Justice (Procedural) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale assesses the extent to which a person believes that the procedures used by a company to arrive at a decision regarding his/her concerns about a problem were fair.

SCALE ORIGIN: Joireman et al. (2013) used the scale in Study 1 of the three reported in their article. Analysis was based on data from 226 travelers who had complained to the Canadian Transportation Agency. The authors cited Smith, Bolton, and Wagner (1999) as well as Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran (1998) regarding the scale's source. However, the scales used by those authors are not the same as the scale used by Joireman et al. (2013) though there are some similar concepts and terminology. Given that, it is assumed that Joireman et al. (2013) created the scale using concepts found in previous measures.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability calculated by Joireman et al. (2013) for the scale was .80.

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Joireman et al. (2013) in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVE was .58.

REFERENCES: Joireman, Jeff, Yany Grégoire, Berna Devezer, and Thomas M. Tripp (2013), "When Do Customers Offer Firms a 'Second Chance' Following a Double Deviation? The Impact of Inferred Firm Motives on Customer Revenge and Reconciliation," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 315-337. Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999), “A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 356–73. Tax, Stephen S., Stephen W. Brown, and Murali Chandrashekaran (1998), “Customer Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 60–76.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The firm gave me an opportunity to have a say in the handling of the problem. In the handling of the failures, the firm gave me accurate information. The firm was flexible in the way it responded to my concerns.

1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Joireman et al. (2013) with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

268

Justice Concerns about Others SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person was concerned at some point in time about the condition of others, particularly as it pertained to social justice, is measured in the scale with four statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) in a pretest prior to Study 3. The source of the scale was not stated, thus, it is likely to have been created by the authors. There were 58 participants in the pretest (not described).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2012, p. 110).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, because the scale was used as part of a manipulation check and the manipulation was found to be successful, it provides some limited evidence of the scale's concurrent validity. The authors stated that a similar check was conducted in Study 3 and was successful.

COMMENTS: Although the psychometric quality of the scale was satisfactory for its use in a pretest, caution is urged in use of the scale for hypothesis testing until its quality can be examined more thoroughly with a larger sample.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

To To To To

what what what what

degree degree degree degree

were you concerned about what was fair? were you concerned about justice for others? did you think about the needs of others? did you consider your own situation compared to the situation of others?

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012). It might have been a sevenpoint scale with anchors such as not at all/very much so.

269

Justice Efficacy (Purchase of Free Trade Products) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three items compose this scale which measures a person's belief that he/she can help others by purchasing free trade products.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) and used in Study 3 (n = 147 shoppers at a local market). The details behind the scale's development were not discussed.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .74 in Study 3 by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012, p. 111).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. (r)

I believe I can make a difference by purchasing fair-trade products. I believe that by purchasing fair-trade products I can help others. I believe that purchasing fair trade really won’t do much in terms of helping those in need.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012). It might have been a sevenpoint agree/disagree scale.

270

Justice Restoration Efficacy (Purchase of Free Trade Products) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that the purchase of free trade products ensures that producers will receive fair compensation is measured in this scale with three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) and used in Study 3 (n = 147 shoppers at a local market) and Study 4 (n= 132 college students). The details behind the scale's development were not discussed.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas were .71 and .97 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2012).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. To what degree do you believe that the purchase of fair-trade products can help to ensure that producers receive fair and just outcomes? 2. To what degree do you believe that the purchase of fair-trade products can help to ensure that intermediaries (middlemen) receive fair and just outcomes? 3. To what degree did you think about your ability to reduce the injustice experienced by others?

1. It appears that the response scale used with these items by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) had seven points and was anchored by not at all/very much so.

271

Justice Restoration Potential SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes there is a possibility that a certain unjust situation can be remedied is measured using three statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) in a pretest prior to Study 4. The source of the scale was not stated, thus, it is likely to have been created by the authors. The sample for the test consisted of 40 undergraduate students. Those participants read about the plight of coffee growers in Malawi, Africa in which the families were impoverished because they were not receiving fair compensation for their coffee beans.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .74 (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2012, p. 106).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was found to be successful, it provides some limited evidence of the scale's concurrent validity.

COMMENTS: Although the psychometric quality of the scale was satisfactory for its use in a pretest, caution is urged in use of the scale for hypothesis testing until its quality can be examined more thoroughly with a larger sample.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

To what degree does the potential to restore justice __________ exist? To what degree does the possibility of restoring justice __________ exist? To what degree does the potential to redress injustice __________ exist?

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012). It might have been a sevenpoint scale anchored by not at all/very much so. The blanks in the items should be filled with a phrase that specifies what or where the problem is. For example, White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012, p. 112) used the phrase "in Malawi."

272

Justice Restoration Potential (Purchase of Fair Trade Products) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four items are used to measure a person's belief that products branded as "fair trade" have the capability of helping producers in developing countries receive appropriate compensation for their products.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) in a pilot test prior to Study 1. The source of the scale was not stated and seems to have been created by the authors. The sample for the pilot test consisted of 25 undergraduate students and 45 individuals from the community.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .94 (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2012, p. 106).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I can depend on products branded as fair trade to help producers in developing nations get paid what they deserve for their products. 2. I am confident that products that are branded as fair trade can be relied upon to help producers in developing nations get paid what they deserve for their products. 3. I am confident that by purchasing fair trade branded products I can contribute toward restoring fair and just outcomes for producers in developing nations. 4. By purchasing products that are branded as being fair trade, I can be confident that I am eliminating injustice toward producers in developing nations.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012). It might have been a sevenpoint agree/disagree scale.

273

Knowledge (Subjective) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's self-expressed Level of understanding a particular object (topic, product, company, et cetera) is measured in the scale with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 4 of the four discussed in the article by Hadar, Sood, and Fox (2013). The source of the scale was not identified. It appears to have been created by the authors by borrowing common phrases found in previous measures of subjective knowledge. Analysis was based on data collected from 795 adults. Participants were asked to read about two different mutual funds and then choose to invest some hypothetical money of theirs into just one of the funds or both.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .85 as calculated for both mutual funds (Hadar, Sood, and Fox 2013, p. 311).

VALIDITY: Although the validity of the scale was not addressed by Hadar, Sood, and Fox (2013), they did report the results of EFAs conducted on the scale items. With both mutual funds, the three items loaded on a single factor.

COMMENTS: Even though the information provided here has to do with usage of the scale with mutual funds, the measure appears to be easily adaptable for use in many other contexts. Care should be taken, however, to confirm the scale's psychometric quality when changes are made.

REFERENCES: Hadar, Liat, Sanjay Sood, and Craig R. Fox (2013), "Subjective Knowledge in Consumer Financial Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (3), 303-316.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How well do you feel you understand the information presented on _____? How knowledgeable do you feel about _____? How confident are you about your knowledge of _____?

1. The items were provided by Hadar (2014). A name or description of the focal object should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors used with the items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

274

Knowledge of Financial Products (Objective) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's knowledge of various typical consumer financial products is measured by asking ten questions. It is considered an objective measure rather than a subjective one because each question has a correct answer rather than being a person's opinion of his/her knowledge level.

SCALE ORIGIN: DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) borrowed 10 of the 12 items composing a "financial knowledge test" created by Moore (2003). The scale was used in Studies 1 and 2 by DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) in which subjects were asked to role-play a meeting with a financial advisor and discuss moving money to a fund recommended by the advisor. Analyses were based on data from 123 (Study 1) and 318 (Study 2) participants who were selected from a national panel of adults.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .74 and .97 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively (DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh 2013, pp. 423, 427).

VALIDITY: DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) used CFA to examine the quality of their measures. In Studies 1 and 2, the measurement models fit the data and evidence was found in support of the knowledge scale's discriminant validity. The correlations between this objective measure of financial knowledge and a subjective measure were not particularly high (.46 and .44 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively). However, the authors pointed out the correlations are higher than the .37 reported in a meta-analysis of correlations between objective and subjective measures of knowledge (Carlson et al. 2009).

REFERENCES: Carlson, Jay P., Leslie H. Vincent, David M. Hardesty, and William O. Bearden (2009), "Objective and Subjective Knowledge Relationships: A Quantitative Analysis of Consumer Research Findings," Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (5), 864–876. DeCarlo, Thomas E. (2014), personal correspondence. DeCarlo, Thomas E., Russell Laczniak, and Thomas W. Leigh (2013), "Selling Financial Services: The Effect of Consumer Product Knowledge and Salesperson Commission on Consumer Suspicion and Intentions," Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (4), 418-435. Moore, Danna (2003), Survey of Financial Literacy in Washington State: Knowledge, Behavior, Attitudes, and Experiences, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center Technical Report Number 03-39, December.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Making late payments on your bills can make it more difficult for you to take out a loan. [True], False, Don’t Know 275

2. You could save money in interest costs by choosing a 15 year rather than a 30 year mortgage. [True], False, Don’t Know 3. Creditors are required to tell you the APR you will pay when you get a loan. [True], False, Don’t Know 4. Repeatedly financing loans over time results in added fees. [True], False, Don’t Know 5. Over a 40 year period which had the highest variation in returns? Bonds, [Stocks], Don’t Know 6. With compound interest you earn interest on your interest as well as on your principal. [True], False, Don’t Know 7. When an investor diversifies his investments, does the risk of losing money generally increase or decrease? Increases, [Decreases], Don’t Know 8. Mutual funds pay a guaranteed rate of return. True, [False], Don’t Know 9. Over a 40-year period which do you think gave the highest returns? [Stocks], Bonds, Don’t Know 10. What happens to bond prices when interest rates go up? Bond Prices Rise, [Bond Prices Fall], Don’t Know

1. The ten items used by DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) were identified by DeCarlo (2014). The potential answers provided to participants are shown in italics after the questions. The correct answers are shown in brackets. Scale scores are calculated by adding up the correct responses.

276

Knowledge of Product Component Prices SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale consists of three, seven-point Likert-type items and is intended to measure the degree to which a consumer not only expresses knowledge of a product's prices across competitors but knowledge of the product's individual component prices as well. The scale probably is most suited for product categories characterized by "loose coupling" such that great freedom is offered to customers to mix components from different suppliers.

SCALE ORIGIN: Ray, Wood, and Messinger (2012a) created the scale for use in Study 2. Analysis was based on usable data collected from 161 college students (undergraduates and MBAs).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .916 and .925 for cameras and computers, respectively (Ray, Wood, and Messinger 2012b, p. 18).

VALIDITY: In addition to the multi-item scale, respondents were simply asked using a one-item measure how knowledgeable they were about component prices in a particular product category (Ray, Wood, and Messinger 2012b, p. 19). With two measures of the construct from the same respondents it could then be determined if the results were in agreement. Further, this was examined for two product categories. Indeed, for both product categories, there were significant positive correlations between the scores on the multi-item and the single-item scales. These results provide some evidence of the multi-item scale's convergent validity.

REFERENCES: Ray, Sourav, Charles A. Wood, and Paul R. Messinger (2012a), "Multicomponent Systems Pricing: Rational Inattention and Downward Rigidities," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 1–17. Ray, Sourav, Charles A. Wood, and Paul R. Messinger (2012b), "Multicomponent Systems Pricing: Rational Inattention and Downward Rigidities," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), web appendix.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I know retail prices of individual _____ components.1 I will know if a retailer’s price is HIGHER than its competitors’. I will know if a retailer’s price is LOWER than its competitors’.

1. The name of the focal product category should be placed in the blank, e.g., computer.

277

Knowledge of Stores' Prices SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a consumer's subjective knowledge of the prices charged by stores for similar products and an understanding of their various price-related specials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) is a slightly modified version of a scale created by Urbany, Dickson, and Kalapurakal (1996). The analyses conducted by the former used data from 314 people who responded to a national (U.S.) survey of customers of an Internet store specializing in women's clothing.

RELIABILITY: Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) reported the construct reliability of the scale to be .93.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe (2012) to test a model of all their pricerelated measures. Given that the model fit, it provides evidence of the knowledge scale's unidimensionality. Further tests conducted by the authors provided explicit evidence of the scale's discriminant validity.

COMMENTS: Although not explicitly stated in the scale items, it would be beneficial to provide instructions that specify a geographic area relevant to the survey participants such as "your town" or "your neighborhood."

REFERENCES: Kukar-Kinney, Monika, Nancy M. Ridgway, and Kent B. Monroe (2012), "The Role of Price in the Behavior and Purchase Decisions of Compulsive Buyers," Journal of Retailing, 88 (1), 6371. Urbany, Joel, Peter R. Dickson, and Rosemary Kalapurakal (1996), “Price Search in the Retail Grocery Market,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 91–104.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I know a lot about how prices compare for similar items across different stores. I know which stores have the best prices for __________.1 I know which stores have good price promotions.

1. If desired, the scale can be made more specific by placing the name of a product category in the blank, e.g., clothing.

278

Knowledge of the Investment (Subjective) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items are used to measure one's self-expressed level of understanding of a particular investment, especially how it functions in saving money, and one's comfort in choosing to invest in it.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 3 of the four discussed in the article by Hadar, Sood, and Fox (2013). The source of the scale was not identified. It appears to have been created by the authors by adapting common phrases found in measures of subjective knowledge that have been used in previous research. Analysis was based on data collected from 143 college students in Israel. Participants were asked to choose between two mutual funds that varied in terms of how risky they were described.

RELIABILITY: Alphas of .84 and .86 were reported for the scale as used with a high risk and a low risk fund, respectively (Hadar, Sood, and Fox 2013, p. 309).

VALIDITY: Hadar, Sood, and Fox (2013) did not provide any information about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Hadar, Liat, Sanjay Sood, and Craig R. Fox (2013), "Subjective Knowledge in Consumer Financial Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (3), 303-316.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How knowledgeable do you feel about _____? How well did you understand the saving mechanism of _____? How comfortable will you be investing in _____?

1. The items were provided by Hadar (2014). A name or description of the investment opportunity should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors used with the items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

279

Knowledge of the Product Class SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses seven-point semantic-differentials to measure a consumer's opinion of his/her familiarity with and expertise in buying products within a certain category.

SCALE ORIGIN: A three-item version of the scale was used by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) in three experiments. The source of the scale was identified as previous research by one of the authors (Diamantopoulos, Smith, and Grime 2005). Those authors, in turn, had drawn items from previous scales, particularly one by Mishra, Umesh, and Stem (1993). Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used a five-item version of the scale in two studies, one in Austria and one in Bulgaria. They referred to the scale as brand familiarity. The scale was phrased in German for purposes of Study 1. It is assumed to have been translated into Bulgarian for Study 2 though that was not explicitly stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the version of the scale used by Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) were .69, .82, .91 for Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. With the longer version used by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013), the alpha was .94 in both Study 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria).

VALIDITY: Although Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013) did not provide the exact results of testing the knowledge scale's validity, they did state that all of their scales had AVEs that were greater than .50. Further, explicit tests of discriminant validity showed the highest amount of shared variance between each pair of measures was lower than the individual AVEs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used CFA to provide evidence of the longer scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .77 and .70 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

REFERENCES: Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Gareth Smith, and Ian Grime (2005), "The Impact of Brand Extensions on the Brand Personality: Experimental Evidence," European Journal of Marketing, 39 (1/2), 129–149. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39-50. Herz, Marc Florian and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "Activation of Country Stereotypes: Automaticity, Consonance, and Impact," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (4), 400-417.

280

Mishra, Sanjay, U. N. Umesh, and Donald E. Stem, Jr. (1993), “Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (August), 331-349. Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact Of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, And Brand Origin-Extension Fit On Brand Extension Success," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567-585.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

not knowledgeable / very knowledgeable inexperienced / experienced novice buyer / expert buyer unfamiliar / familiar uninformed / informed

1. Herz and Diamantopoulos (2013, p. 415) used the first three items while Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013, p. 581) used all five.

281

Knowledge of Vitamins (Subjective) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's opinion of his/her level of knowledge about vitamins and experience with taking them is measured in this scale with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Deval et al. (2013) in Experiment 8 (n = 170 undergraduates). The source of the scale was not identified. While it could have been created by the authors for the study, it draws on key phrases and concepts that have long been used in measures of subjective knowledge (e.g., Beatty and Talpade 1994; Roehm and Sternthal 2001).

RELIABILITY: The scales internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .856 (Deval et al. 2013, p. 1195).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Deval et al. (2013) regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Beatty, Sharon E. and Salil Talpade (1994), “Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Extension,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 332–41. Deval, Hélène, Susan P. Mantel, Frank R. Kardes, and Steven S. Posavac (2013), "How Naive Theories Drive Opposing Inferences from the Same Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1185-1201. Roehm, Michelle L. and Brian Sternthal (2001), “The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September), 257-272.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I am very knowledgeable about vitamins. I have more experience than most people with vitamins. I take vitamins on a regular basis.

282

Legitimation of Online Gambling (Normative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that online gambling is socially acceptable according to dominant norms and values is measured with twelve, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Humphreys and Latour (2013) adapting items and concepts from a measure of organizational legitimacy by Elsbach (1994). The former used the scale in a pretest as well as two experiments.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .95 (pretest) and .90 (Experiment 1). For Experiment 2, the scale's alpha was not reported.

VALIDITY: Although Humphreys and Latour (2013) stated that the pretest was conducted to be sure they were using valid measures, the only evidence they provided for the legitimation scale was that the 12 items loaded highest on a single factor.

REFERENCES: Elsbach, Kimberly D. (1994), “Managing Organizational Legitimacy in the California Cattle Industry: The Construction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1), 57–89. Humphreys, Ashlee and Kathryn A. Latour (2013), "Framing the Game: Assessing the Impact of Cultural Representations on Consumer Perceptions of Legitimacy," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 773-795.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The general public approves of the ONLINE GAMBLING industry’s operating procedures. 2. The ONLINE GAMBLING industry follows government regulations for operating procedures. 3. Casino workers support the ONLINE GAMBLING industry’s operating decisions. 4. Most of the ONLINE GAMBLING industry’s employees would recommend working in this industry to their friends. 5. Most of the general public would approve of the ONLINE GAMBLING industry if asked their opinion. 6. The ONLINE GAMBLING industry is committed to meeting casino industry standards in its operations. 7. Most employees would continue working in the ONLINE GAMBLING industry even if they could get a job with any other organization in the casino industry. 8. The ONLINE GAMBLING sites are concerned with meeting acceptable standards for ethical behavior, fair play, and nonpredatory practices. 9. The ONLINE GAMBLING industry is viewed by business writers as one of the top fields in the gambling industry. 283

10. The ONLINE GAMBLING industry’s leaders believe in “playing by the rules” and following accepted operating guidelines. 11. The ONLINE GAMBLING industry has one of the lowest rates of employee turnover in the gambling industry. 12. Most consumers in the general public approve of the ONLINE GAMBLING’s industry’s operating practices.

1. This is the phrasing of items used in Experiment 1. For Experiment 2, the phrase "Online Gambling" was replaced with "Online Casino."

284

Likelihood of Trying the Medication SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of four, seven-point items intended to measure person's interest in and likelihood of trying a particular prescription medication.

SCALE ORIGIN: Samper and Schwartz (2013) used the scale in Study 2 in which 165 people were recruited from a national sample to participate in the online survey. The source of the scale was not stated and it appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .88 (Samper and Schwartz 2013, p. 1348).

VALIDITY: Samper and Schwartz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Samper, Adriana and Janet A. Schwartz (2013), "Price Inferences for Sacred versus Secular Goods: Changing the Price of Medicine Influences Perceived Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1343-1358.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How interested would you be in trying _____? 2. How likely would you be to talk to your doctor about whether _____ is right for you? 3. How likely are you to ask your doctor about getting this medication? 4. How likely would you be to fill a prescription for this medication, if it were given to you by your doctor?

1. In the survey instrument, a particular prescription medication should be stated/described before these scale items are presented to participants. The name of the medication should be stated in the blanks of items #1 and #2. The extreme verbal anchors for #1 were not at all (1) and very much so (7). For the other three items, the extreme verbal anchors were not at all likely (1) and very likely (7).

285

Loneliness (Emotional) SCALE DESCRIPTION: One's lack of close relationships with family members and a romantic partner from whom support and encouragement can be received is measured with ten, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: In all five studies discussed by Sinha and Wang (2013), this scale was used along with a companion measure (social loneliness). The two are subscales that compose the short form of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA-S; DiTommaso and Spinner 1997). The emotional loneliness subscale was further divided into romantic and family subscales. Although that distinction was acknowledged by Sinha and Wang (2013), it did not play a role in their analyses. (Scores for emotional loneliness were based on the sum of all ten items shown below.)

RELIABILITY: The alphas calculated by Sinha and Wang (2013) over the five studies in which they used the scale ranged from .73 to .84.

VALIDITY: Although Sinha and Wang (2013) did not explicitly address the scale's validity, they did conduct a factor analysis of the items composing SELSA-S. The expected two-factor structure was found. Further, the authors calculated correlations between the UCLA Loneliness scale (Russell 1996) and the two subscales of SELSA-S (DiTommaso and Spinner 1997). The pattern across several studies shows not only that the correlations were positive and moderate but they tended to be higher between the UCLA scale and the social subscale compared to the UCLA scale and the emotional subscale. That is relevant since the UCLA scale has much more to do with social loneliness than emotional loneliness.

COMMENTS: Given that this loneliness scale is treated as the combination of two subscales, the propriety of combining the items is in doubt until support can be found that the subscales load well on the same higher order factor.

REFERENCES: DiTommaso, Enrico and Barry Spinner (1997), “Social and Emotional Loneliness: A ReExamination of Weiss’ Typology of Loneliness,” Personality and Individual Differences, 22 (3), 417–27. Russell, Daniel W. (1996), “UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 66 (1), 20–40. Sinha, Jayati and Jing Wang (2013), "How Time Horizon Perceptions and Relationship Deficits Affect Impulsive Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (5), 590-605. 286

SCALE ITEMS:1 Family subscale 1. I feel alone when I am with my family. 2. There is no one in my family I can depend on for support and encouragement, but I wish there was. 3. I feel close to my family. (r) 4. I feel part of my family. (r) 5. My family really cares about me. (r) Romantic subscale 1. I 2. I need. 3. I 4. I 5. I

have a romantic partner with whom I share my most intimate thoughts and feelings. (r) have a romantic or marital partner who gives me the support and encouragement I (r) wish I had a more satisfying romantic relationship. have a romantic partner to whose happiness I contribute. (r) have an unmet need for a close romantic relationship.

1. These are the phrasings provided by Sinha and Wang (2013). No indication of reverse-coding was shown by those authors and the indications here are based on judgement. Analysis should be conducted to determine where it is needed.

287

Loneliness (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person expresses experiencing an undesirable subjective feeling of social isolation is measured using twenty, four point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The formal name for this scale is the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3). It was developed by Russell (1996) and, as the name implies, it is the third iteration of the scale (Russell, Peplau, and Ferguson 1978; Russell et al. 1980). A thorough discussion of the psychometric quality of Version 3 is provided in Russell (1996). To briefly summarize, the scale had high reliability in multiple studies with respect to internal consistency (alphas ranging from .89 to .94) and temporal stability (1 year test-retest r = .73). There was considerable evidence in support of the scale's convergent validity based upon significant correlations with other measures of loneliness. CFAs indicated that a model with a global bipolar loneliness factor as well as two method factors (reflecting direction of item wording) provided a good fit to the data across samples. The scale was used by Wang, Zhu, and Shiv (2012) in Studies 1 (n = 125), 2 (n = 162), and 3 (n = 319), with participants being undergraduate students in each case. Sinha and Wang (2013) appear to have used the scale is all five studies discussed in their article but reliability was only reported for Study 1a (n = 153 undergraduate students).

RELIABILITY: As used by Wang, Zhu, and Shiv (2012), the alphas for the scale were .86 (Study 1), .87 (Study 2), and .88 (Study 3). In Study 1a by Sinha and Wang (2013), the alpha was .84.

VALIDITY: Wang, Zhu, and Shiv (2012) did not discuss any tests of validity they conducted on the scale. Although Sinha and Wang (2013) did not explicitly address the scale's validity, they did report correlations between the UCLA scale and the two subscales (social and emotional) of the Short Form of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (DiTommaso and Spinner 1997). The pattern across several studies shows not only that the correlations were positive and moderate but they tended to be higher between the UCLA scale and the social subscale compared to the UCLA scale and the emotional subscale. That is relevant since, on the face of it (as can be seen by a close reading of the items), the UCLA scale has much more to do with social loneliness than emotional loneliness.

COMMENTS: See also Lastovicka and Sirianni (2011, p. 333) as well as Pieters (2013, p. 618).

REFERENCES: DiTommaso, Enrico and Barry Spinner (1997), “Social and Emotional Loneliness: A ReExamination of Weiss’ Typology of Loneliness,” Personality and Individual Differences, 22 (3), 417–27. 288

Lastovicka, John L. and Nancy J. Sirianni (2011), "Truly, Madly, Deeply: Consumers in The Throes of Material Possession Love," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 323-342. Pieters, Rik (2013), "Bidirectional Dynamics of Materialism and Loneliness: Not Just a Vicious Cycle," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 615-631. Russell, Daniel W. (1996), “UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 66 (1), 20–40. Russell, Daniel W., Letitia A. Peplau, and Carolyn E. Cutrona (1980), "The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (3), 472-480. Russell, Daniel W., Letitia A. Peplau, and Mary Lund Ferguson (1978), "Developing a Measure of Loneliness," Journal of Personality Assessment. 42 (3), 290-294. Sinha, Jayati and Jing Wang (2013), "How Time Horizon Perceptions and Relationship Deficits Affect Impulsive Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (5), 590-605. Wang, Jing, Rui Zhu, and Baba Shiv (2012), "The Lonely Consumer: Loner or Conformer?" Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1116-1128.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

How often do you feel that you are "in tune" with the people around you? How often do you feel that you lack companionship? How often do you feel that there is no one you can turn to? How often do you feel alone? How often do you feel part of a group of friends? How often do you feel that you have a lot in common with the people around you? (r) How often do you feel that you are no longer close to anyone? How often do you feel that your interests and ideas are not shared by those around you? How often do you feel outgoing and friendly? How often do you feel close to people? (r) How often do you feel left out? How often do you feel that your relationships with others are not meaningful? How often do you feel that no one really knows you well? How often do you feel isolated from others? How often do you feel you can find companionship when you want it? How often do you feel that there are people who really understand you? (r) How often do you feel shy? How often do you feel that people are around you but not with you? How often do you feel that there are people you can talk to? (r) How often do you feel that there are people you can turn to? (r)

1. The anchors used by Russell (1996) with these questions were NEVER (1), RARELY, (2), SOMETIMES, (3), and ALWAYS (4). Those anchors appear to be the same ones as used by Sinha and Wang (2013). Wang, Zhu, and Shiv (2012) used a four-point response scale but its verbal anchors were not stated.

289

Loneliness (Social) SCALE DESCRIPTION: This five item, seven-point Likert-type scale measures one's lack of friends who can provide a sense of belonging as well as understanding and help.

SCALE ORIGIN: In all five studies discussed by Sinha and Wang (2013), this scale was used along with a companion measure (emotional loneliness). The two are subscales that compose the short form of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA-S; DiTommaso and Spinner 1997).

RELIABILITY: The alphas calculated by Sinha and Wang (2013) over the five studies in which they used the scale ranged from .60 to .89.

VALIDITY: Although Sinha and Wang (2013) did not explicitly address the scale's validity, they did conduct a factor analysis of the items composing SELSA-S. The expected two-factor structure was found. Further, the authors calculated correlations between the UCLA Loneliness scale (Russell 1996) and the two subscales of SELSA-S (DiTommaso and Spinner 1997). The pattern across several studies shows not only that the correlations were positive and moderate but they tended to be higher between the UCLA scale and the social subscale compared to the UCLA scale and the emotional subscale. That is relevant since the UCLA scale has much more to do with social loneliness than emotional loneliness.

COMMENTS: The wide range of internal consistencies reported for the scale are a concern and may indicate that the scale is very sensitive to the sample or the context in which it is used.

REFERENCES: DiTommaso, Enrico and Barry Spinner (1997), “Social and Emotional Loneliness: A ReExamination of Weiss’ Typology of Loneliness,” Personality and Individual Differences, 22 (3), 417–27. Russell, Daniel W. (1996), “UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 66 (1), 20–40. Sinha, Jayati and Jing Wang (2013), "How Time Horizon Perceptions and Relationship Deficits Affect Impulsive Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (5), 590-605.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I feel part of a group of friends. My friends understand my motives and reasoning. I don’t have any friends who share my views, but I wish I did. 290

4. 5.

I am able to depend on my friends for help. I do not have any friends who understand me, but I wish I did.

1. These are the phrasings provided by Sinha and Wang (2013). No indication of reverse-coding was shown. Analysis should be conducted to determine if/where it is needed.

291

Loyalty to the Retailer SCALE DESCRIPTION: This three item, seven-point Likert-type scale measures the degree to which a customer of a particular retail store plans to engage in positive word-of-mouth communications about the retailer and continue buying from it in the future.

SCALE ORIGIN: In developing the scale, Evanschitzky et al. (2012) drew inspiration and key phrases from a scale by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996). The former stated that the items composing this scale and the many others in their study were tested in qualitative studies and then in a quantitative pretest in order to produce the questionnaire used in the main study. The sample for the main study was drawn from the customer database of a large European retailer that participates in a multi-firm loyalty program. Analysis was based on the 5,189 customers who returned usable questionnaires. (The language used in the survey instrument and matters of translation were not addressed.)

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .802 in the study by Evanschitzky et al. (2012).

VALIDITY: Evanschitzky et al. (2012) used CFA to test the measurement model but only limited information about the results were provided in the article. Evidence was found in support of the loyalty scale's discriminant validity. The AVE for the scale was .648.

REFERENCES: Evanschitzky, Heiner, B. Ramaseshan, David M. Woisetschläger, Verena Richelsen, Markus Blut, and Christof Backhaus (2012), "Consequences of Customer Loyalty to the Loyalty Program and to the Company," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 625-638. Zeithaml, Valerie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1996), “The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 31-46.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I would repurchase products and services from this retailer. I would recommend this retailer to friends and family. This retailer is my first choice when it comes to purchasing __________ products.1

1. The name for the relevant product category should be placed in the blank.

292

Loyalty to the Store SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's plan to shop at a particular retail establishment again in the future and to recommend it to others is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013) used the scale in both a cross-sectional study (Study 1) and a longitudinal study (Study 2). In the latter, two groups of respondents were surveyed at three points in time. One group was asked about local grocery stores while the other was asked about apparel retailers. The authors developed the scale by adapting items from a measure by Sirohi, McLaughlin, and Wittink (1998).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .891 in the cross-sectional study by Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013). In the longitudinal study, the alphas ranged from a low of .677 for Time 1 in the grocery store sample and a high of .818 for Time 2 in the apparel sample.

VALIDITY: A tremendous amount of effort was expended by Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013) to examining the validity of the measures they used. In both studies, the fit of the measurement models was satisfactory and evidence was provided of convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the loyalty scale, its AVE was .676 in Study 1. It was .625 and .544 for the apparel and grocery store samples, respectively, in Study 2.

REFERENCES: Sirohi, Niren, Edward W. McLaughlin, and Dick R. Wittink (1998), “A Model of Consumer Perceptions and Store Loyalty Intentions for a Supermarket Retailer,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (2), 223-245. Swoboda, Bernhard, Bettina Berg, and Hanna Schramm-Klein (2013), "Reciprocal Effects of the Corporate Reputation and Store Equity of Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 89 (4), 447-459.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I am certain that I will shop at _____ again. In the future, I will make more purchases at _____ than at another retailer. I would recommend _____ to friends and others.

1. The name of the focal store should be placed in the blanks.

293

Maladaptive Responses to the Environmental Challenge SCALE DESCRIPTION: One's ineffective, personal approach to dealing with an environmental threat, such as avoidance or wishful thinking, is measured in this scale with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brouwers and Sorrentino (1993) to measure a person's ineffective responses to dealing with a fictitious disease. Yoon and Tinkham (2013) selected four of the five items in that scale and adapted them for measuring a person's maladaptive responses to deforestation. They used the scale in Study 1 in which data were gathered from 88 undergraduate students attending an American university.

RELIABILITY: Yoon and Tinkham (2013) reported the scale to have an alpha of .76.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Yoon and Tinkham (2013).

COMMENTS: Although Yoon and Tinkham (2013) used the scale with regard to the problem of deforestation, it is assumed that the measure can be used with other environmental problems as well. In fact, the items appear to be flexible enough for use with some non-environmental challenges such as nuclear war, pandemics, global economic depressions, etc. In all cases, however, pretesting the revised scale is urged to determine its psychometric quality.

REFERENCES: Brouwers, Melissa C. and Richard M. Sorrentino (1993), “Uncertainty Orientation and Protection Motivation Theory: The Role of Individual Differences in Health Compliance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1), 102–12. Yoon, Hye Jin and Spencer F. Tinkham (2013), "Humorous Threat Persuasion in Advertising: The Effects of Humor, Threat Intensity, and Issue Involvement," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 30-41.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I try not to think about the possibility of _____ happening. I believe the problem of _____ will go away eventually. If we are destined to face _____, there is really nothing we can do about it. Given what I now know about _____, I think it may be useless to try to prevent it.

1. The name of the threat should be placed in the blanks, e.g., deforestation. The extreme verbal anchors used by Yoon and Tinkham (2013) on the response scale were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

294

Mathematical Strength SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person likes to study math and is confident in his/her mathematical aptitude is measured in this scale with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: As cited in the web appendix to the article, the source of the scale used in Study 3B by Biswas et al. (2013) was Lee (2009). The scale was referred to colorfully as math self-concept. With data from 41 countries, Lee provided analyses that indicated the scale measured a construct that was distinct from related constructs (math self-efficacy and math anxiety). Data for the study conducted by Biswas et al. (2013) were gathered from 171 undergraduate students attending a large university in the Midwestern United States.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (Biswas et al. 2013, p. 64).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Biswas et al. (2013) regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Biswas, Abhijit, Sandeep Bhowmick, Abhijit Guha, and Dhruv Grewal (2013), "Consumer Evaluations of Sale Prices: Role of the Subtraction Principle," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 4966. Lee, Jihyun (2009), "Universals and Specifics of Math Self-Concept, Math Self-Efficacy, and Math Anxiety Across 41 PISA 2003 Participating Countries," Learning and Individual Differences, 19 (3), 355-365.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

always believed that mathematics is one of my favorite subjects. learn mathematics quickly. understand even the most difficult concepts in my mathematics class. have always received good grades in mathematics.

1. The extreme verbal anchors that Biswas et al. (2013) used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

295

Moral Decoupling of a Person’s Actions SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a person engages in a psychological separation process such that judgments of particular person's performance in a role are selectively dissociated from those of the person's morality. The scale makes most sense to use when a well-known individual has been accused of some immoral activity apart from the primary role he/she plays.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) did not state the source of the scale. It may have been created by them for Studies 1a (n = 98) and 3 (n = 89).

RELIABILITY: Cronbach's alphas for the scale were .93 and .77 for Studies 1 and 3, respectively (Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed 2013, pp. 1170, 1174).

VALIDITY: Some limited evidence of the scale's unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities comes from the results of an EFA of four scales used in Study 1a. It showed that the items used for the moral decoupling measure had loadings of at least .80 on the same factor and no higher than .30 on the other factors. More rigorous tests were performed in Study 1b (n = 327) where the authors pooled data from Study 1 and 3 as well as two unpublished studies in which both the measure of moral decoupling and a measure of a related construct (moral rationalization) were included. The CFA showed that a two factor model fit the data better than a one factor model which provides some evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity. The AVE for moral decoupling was .58.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Americus Reed II (2013), "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1167-1184.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The _____’s actions do not change my assessment of his/her performance. Judgments of performance should remain separate from judgments of morality. Reports of wrongdoing should not affect our view of the _____’s performance.

1. A term that describes the person being judged should be placed in the blanks. In Study 1, the term was athlete while in Study 3 it was governor.

296

Morality of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer believes a brand is characterized by virtuous traits is measured with five unipolar items and a seven-point response format.

SCALE ORIGIN: Choi and Winterich (2013) used the scale in Study 4 as well as its pretest. The construct was adapted for brands from the concept of moral identity for people. The items for the measuring construct were drawn from the list of 9 moral traits identified by Aquino and Reed (2002). The authors did not explain why those particular items were selected for use in their scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale as used in the Study 4 pretest (n = 55 undergraduates) was .90. The reliability of the scale in Study 4 itself was not given.

VALIDITY: Although Choi and Winterich (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity, some evidence of it can be gleaned, none-the-less. In the pretest, the authors manipulated brand morality with information provided to participants. The scale showed that the manipulation was successful. Given that, it provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Aquino, Karl and Americus Reed II (2002), “The Self-Importance of Moral Identity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (December), 1423–40. Choi, Woo Jin and Karen Page Winterich (2013), "Can Brands Move In from the Outside? How Moral Identity Enhances Out-Group Brand Attitudes," Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 96-111.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Please indicate to what extent the following characteristics describe a _____ brand, __________.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

caring fair friendly generous kind

1. The extreme verbal anchors used on the response scale with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7). 2. A name for the focal product category should be placed in the first blank while the name of the focal brand should be placed in the second blank.

297

Multicomponent Product Systems (Combination/Integration) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer believes a particular product has components that are tightly coupled (integration) rather than loosely coupled (combination) is measured with four, sevenpoint items. More tightly coupled systems need specific components in order to operate properly and offer limited choice of components from different suppliers. In contrast, loose couplings offer greater freedom to mix components from different suppliers.

SCALE ORIGIN: Ray, Wood, and Messinger (2012a) created the scale for use in Study 2. Analysis was based on usable data collected from 161 college students (undergraduates and MBAs). Respondents were given definitions of the two extreme types of multicomponent systems and asked to complete the scale for two product categories: cameras and computers.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .86 and .73 for cameras and computers, respectively (Ray, Wood, and Messinger 2012b, p. 17).

VALIDITY: In addition to the scale, respondents were simply asked if the products were either integrated systems or combinations systems (Ray, Wood, and Messinger 2012b, p. 14). With two measures of the construct from the same respondents it could then be determined if the results were in agreement. Indeed, those who thought a product (cameras) was an integrated system scored higher than those who considered it to be a combination system. Likewise, those who believed a product (computers) to be a combination system scored higher than those who considered it to be an integrated system. This provides some evidence of the scale's convergent validity.

REFERENCES: Ray, Sourav, Charles A. Wood, and Paul R. Messinger (2012a), "Multicomponent Systems Pricing: Rational Inattention and Downward Rigidities," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 1–17. Ray, Sourav, Charles A. Wood, and Paul R. Messinger (2012b), "Multicomponent Systems Pricing: Rational Inattention and Downward Rigidities," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), web appendix.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I think of _____ as . . . _____ are sold as . . . Stores display _____ on sale as . . . A _____ salesperson wants to sell . . .

1. The name of the focal product category should be placed in the blanks, e.g., cameras, computers. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were Integrated systems only (1) and Combination systems only (7) (Ray, Wood, and Messinger 2012b, p. 16).

298

Need for Human Interaction (Store Checkout) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three items are used to measure a customer's preference to be checked out of a store by an employee rather than using a self-service device.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not identified. Beyond a general indication that they adapted it from previous research along with all of their other scales, the specific source of the items for this scale were not given. The authors used the scale in two studies with customers of a national (United States) grocery store chain. Study 1 (507 usable responses) was composed of users of the chain's self-service checkout while those in Study 2 (331 usable responses) were non-users of that technology. Prior to Study 1, the authors conducted a pretest with 209 users of the chain's checkout technology in order to purify the scales and refine them if need be.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale were .90 and .92 when used in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012, p. 255).

VALIDITY: White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of the scales in their two studies. In both cases, there was an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Further, evidence was provided of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs were .75 (Study 1) and .70 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: White, Allyn, Michael Breazeale, and Joel E. Collier (2012), "The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250–261.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I would prefer to talk with an employee than to use a machine. 2. If I had a choice between using a machine or a store employee to check out my groceries, I would choose the employee. 3. My grocery shopping experience would not be as enjoyable if I had to use a machine to check out my groceries instead of letting an employee perform the checkout. 4. I would prefer to interact with an employee than a self-service checkout machine when checking out my groceries.

1. The response format used with these items by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not described. It appears to have been a seven-point Likert-type scale, probably with extreme verbal anchors such as strongly disagree / strongly agree.

299

Need to Belong SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures the extent to which a person feels the need to be accepted by others and to have them to turn to for help.

SCALE ORIGIN: The version used by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) in Study 3 is a subset of three items taken from the ten-item Need to Belong scale by Leary et al. (2013). The basis upon which the former selected the three items was not described. Participants in Study 3 were 207 undergraduates at a large "North American" university (probably in Canada). Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) took eight items from the Need to Belong scale (Leary et al. 2013) which they then adapted slightly for participants in their Study 3. The sample was composed of 141 undergraduate business school students at the University of Pittsburgh. Sinha and Wang (2013) used all ten items of the Need to Belong scale (Leary et al. 2013) in their Study 1a (n = 153 undergraduate students).

RELIABILITY: Alphas were .77, .83, and .84 for the versions of the scale used by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012), Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013), and Sinha and Wang (2013), respectively.

VALIDITY: White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012), Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013), and Sinha and Wang (2013) did not discuss the validity of their respective versions of the scale.

REFERENCES: Dommer, Sara Loughran, Vanitha Swaminathan, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2013), "Using Differentiated Brands to Deflect Exclusion and Protect Inclusion: The Moderating Role of SelfEsteem on Attachment to Differentiated Brands," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 657675. Leary, Mark R., Kristine M. Kelly, Catherine A. Cottrell, and Lisa S. Schreindorfer (2013), "Construct Validity of the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the Nomological Network," Journal of Personality Assessment, 95 (6), 610–624. Sinha, Jayati and Jing Wang (2013), "How Time Horizon Perceptions and Relationship Deficits Affect Impulsive Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (5), 590-605. White, Katherine, Jennifer J. Argo, and Jaideep Sengupta (2012), "Dissociative versus Associative Responses to Social Identity Threat: The Role of Consumer Self-Construal," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 704-719.

300

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need. I want other people to accept me. I have a strong need to belong. It bothers me a great deal when I am not included in others' plans. I try hard not to do things that will make other people avoid or reject me. I seldom worry about whether other people care about me. (r) My feelings are easily hurt when I feel that other people do not accept me. If other people don’t seem to accept me, I don’t let it bother me. (r) I do not like being alone. Being apart from my friends for long periods of time does not bother me. (r)

1. The items used by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) were #1 to #3. Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) used the first eight items and the phrase "business school students" or something like it was used in place of "people." The full scale was used by Sinha and Wang (2013). The response scale used by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) with their items was not described. Dommer, Swaminathan, and Ahluwalia (2013) merely described theirs as a five-point Likert-type scale. The extreme anchors employed by Sinha and Wang (2013) were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). Leary et al. (2013), used not at all (1), slightly (2), moderately (3), very (4), extremely (5).

301

New Product Ideas (Designer Constraints) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has three, seven-point Likert-type items that measure a person's belief that a particular company utilizes people in the product design process who are not completely free to produce new ideas but, instead, must conform to company rules and conventions. There were two slightly different versions of the scale, one referring to "company designers" and the other referring to "users."

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not explicitly stated but Aiken and Hage (1966) were cited. While that article dealt with worker alienation and contained several measures, none of them were similar to the one shown here. It is likely, therefore, that the scale used by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) was created by them with some inspiration coming from the work of Aiken and Hage (1966). The scale was used in Study 2 of the four studies discussed in Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) that examined the innovation effect of common design by users. The sample was composed of 161 consumers recruited from an online panel and randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups. The construct measured by the scale was referred to as the constraints argument by the authors because of the possible belief held by consumers that a company is innovative because it depends upon new product designs from people who are bound by company requirements such as profit goals, deadlines, etc.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .79 (Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl 2012, p. 26).

VALIDITY: Using data from Study 2, Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) conducted a CFA to test the discriminant validity of scales measuring four different defining characteristics of common design by users ("arguments"), the designer constraints being one of them. The results provided support for the empirical distinctiveness of the scales. Although their individual AVEs were not reported, they were described as being above .50.

COMMENTS: Although there were two slightly different phrasings of the scale, the data were combined and only one alpha was calculated (Schreier 2014). Likewise, it appears the combined data were used in the CFA. The appropriateness of this is in doubt, i.e., the tests of the scale's reliability and validity should have been conducted separately for each version.

REFERENCES: Aiken, Michael and Jerald Hage (1966), “Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis,” American Sociological Review, 31 (4), 497–507. Schreier, Martin (2014), personal correspondence. 302

Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), "The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers' Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I think that the designers do not have a lot of freedom in designing products. 2. When designing products, I believe that __________ might be constrained by some company requirements. 3. With regard to new product design, I believe that __________ need to follow specific design or marketing conventions of the company.

1. Despite what is shown in Table 1 of the article, the phrasing shown above is the correct one (Schreier 2014). All of the items used the following extreme verbal anchors: strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) filled the blanks in items #2 and #3 with either the phrase "company designers" or the term "users" depending upon the group-specific treatment.

303

New Product Ideas (Designer Diversity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, seven-point items to measure a person's belief that a particular company gathers new product ideas from a group of people who are dissimilar in various ways and generate ideas that are diverse as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not explicitly stated by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) but, it appears to have been developed by them. It was used in Study 2 of the four studies discussed in their article examining the innovation effect of common design by users. The sample was composed of 161 consumers recruited from an online panel. The construct measured by the scale was referred to as the diversity argument by the authors because of the possible belief held by consumers that a company is innovative because it draws on new product ideas from a wide group of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, etc.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl 2012, p. 26).

VALIDITY: Using data from Study 2, Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) conducted a CFA to test the discriminant validity of scales measuring four different defining characteristics of common design by users ("arguments"), the diversity of designers and ideas being one of them. The results provided support for the empirical distinctiveness of the scales. Although their individual AVEs were not reported, they were described as being above .50.

REFERENCES: Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), "The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers' Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. I think that the people designing for this company are: not very different from each other / very different from each other. 2. I think that the people designing for this company have: a very similar background / a very dissimilar background. 3. I think that the design ideas for new _____ are: not very different from each other / are very different from each other.1

1. The name for the focal product should be placed in the blank, e.g., t-shirt.

304

New Product Ideas (Designer Quantity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures a person's belief that a particular company selects from a large number of ideas provided by a lot of people when developing new products.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not explicitly stated by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) but, it appears to have been developed by them. It was used in Study 2 of the four studies discussed in their article examining the innovation effect of common design by users. The sample was composed of 161 consumers recruited from an online panel. The construct measured by the scale was referred to as the numbers argument by the authors because of the possible belief held by consumers that a company is innovative because it draws on a large pool of ideas for new products.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 (Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl 2012, p. 25).

VALIDITY: Using data from Study 2, Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) conducted a CFA to test the discriminant validity of scales measuring four different defining characteristics of common design by users, the quantity of designers and ideas being one of them. The results provided support for the empirical distinctiveness of the scales. Although their individual AVEs were not reported, they were described as being above .50.

REFERENCES: Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), "The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers' Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I think that a lot of people design for this company. I think that the company accumulates a very large number of new _____ designs. On average, I think this company can draw upon a lot of ideas for new _____ designs.

1. The name for the focal product should be placed in the blanks, e.g., t-shirt.

305

Novelty (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person believes that something is uncommon and distinct is measured in this scale with four, uni-polar items along with a seven-point Likert-type response format. The scale is general in this sense that the items are amenable for use in a wide variety of situations when participants are given the proper instructions.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) is based on items found in several measures of novelty used in previous research. In particular, the authors cited Massetti (1996) and, indeed, it seems to be most similar to it. Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used the scale in both studies discussed in their article. Study 1 was composed of 85 undergraduate students at a U.S. university while the sample in Study 2 was 108 students at a different U.S. university.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .93 which was based, apparently, on the combined samples from both studies (Yim 2013).

VALIDITY: Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used CFA to assess the psychometric quality of several, if not all, of their scales. The implication was that support was found for the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales. However, no specific statistics were provided for the novelty scale and it is not clear that it was included in the CFA.

REFERENCES: Massetti, Brenda (1996), “An Empirical Examination of the Value of Creativity Support Systems on Idea Generation,” MIS Quarterly, 20 (1), 83–97. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon (2013), personal correspondence. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Vincent J. Cicchirillo, and Minette E. Drumwright (2012), "The Impact of Stereoscopic Three-Dimensional (3-D) Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 113-128.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

new unique different unusual

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the items were strongly disagree and strongly agree (Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright 2012, p. 118).

306

Outrage at the Church Practice SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's strong negative reaction to a decision or action taken by a church is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items. Although two of the items use the term "church," they could be easily modified for use with a variety of organizations, religious or not.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by McGraw, Schwartz, and Tetlock (2012) in Study 2 of the seven reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated. It was probably created by them for the study. Participants in that study were 193 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .91 (McGraw, Schwartz, and Tetlock 2012, p. 162).

VALIDITY: McGraw, Schwartz, and Tetlock (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: McGraw, A. Peter, Janet A. Schwartz, and Philip E. Tetlock (2012), "From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 157-173.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

It is outrageous for the Church to __________.1 It distresses me that a religious organization would engage in such a practice. It angers me that the Church would use this practice instead of finding another solution.

1. A short phrase should be placed in the blank that specifies the practice that could be viewed as "outrageous."

307

Packaging's Role in Controlling Consumption SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using five, seven-point items, this scale measures the degree to which a consumer believes a product's package has affected how much was eaten in a particular situation. In the study by Argo and White (2012), the presence and size of a package appear to have played roles. The phrasing of the items seems to make the scale amenable for use when other aspects of a package such as the nutrition label or instructions are being examined.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Argo and White (2012) in Study 5. The source of the scale was not stated. The sample was described as 102 female undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .92 (Argo and White 2012, p. 76).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Argo and White (2012).

REFERENCES: Argo, Jennifer J. and Katherine White (2012), "When Do Consumers Eat More? The Role of Appearance Self-Esteem and Food Packaging Cues," Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 67-80.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

You You You You

relied on the packaging to control how much _____ you ate. relied on the packaging to assist you in controlling how much _____ you ate. believed the packaging helped you control how much _____ you ate. relied on the package to help you control how much _____ you ate.

1. The blanks should be filled with a name for the food eaten by the participants, e.g., candy. Further, Argo and White (2012) did not describe the verbal anchors used with the response scale. Verbal anchors typically used with Likert-type scales appear to be appropriate, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

308

Participation (Patient with Physician) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a patient provided information and was actively involved in decision making with his/her physician during a specific visit is measured with four, seven-point Likerttype items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Gallan et al. (2013) drawing inspiration from work on participation by Chan et al. (2010). In developing the measure, the authors reviewed the definitions of the construct, conducted qualitative examination, and then refined the scale in a pilot study. Based on the results, two items were dropped from the scale leaving the four items for the main study. Analyses were based on 190 completed responses from patients treated at a large U.S. specialty medical clinic.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .82 and its composite reliability was .974 (Gallan et al. 2013, p. 347).

VALIDITY: Gallan et al. (2013) used CFA to examine the validity of patient participation as well as several other scales. The model fit was acceptable except for its RMSEA which was higher than desired due to the high correlation between two of the scales (not patient participation). Evidence was provided regarding the discriminant validity of all of their scales. The AVE for patient participation was .546.

REFERENCES: Chan, Kimmy Wa, Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim, and Simon S.K. Lam (2010), "Is Customer Participation in Value Creation a Double-Edged Sword? Evidence from Professional Financial Services Across Cultures," Journal of Marketing, 74 (3), 48-64. Gallan, Andrew S., Cheryl Burke Jarvis, Stephen W. Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner (2013), "Customer Positivity and Participation in Services: An Empirical Test in a Health Care Context," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 338-356.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

During my visit to _____, I actively shared information I had with my Participation doctor. I participated in a discussion about my condition with my doctor at the _____. While I was at the _____, I told my doctor what I knew about my condition. I made considerable effort to discuss my condition with my doctor at _____.

1. The name of the hospital, clinic, or office should be placed in the blanks to make the measure specific.

309

Participation Enjoyment (Service Process) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a customer expresses feeling pleasure from participating in the service process. Although the statements are not specific to any particular activity or context, instructions could be used with the scale to make it more focused.

SCALE ORIGIN: Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) used the scale but did not clearly state its source. It appears to have been developed by them. The analyses involving the scale were based on data from 223 unique customer-employee dyads of a large multinational bank in Hong Hong. The survey instrument was initially prepared in English and was then translated into Chinese using the typical back-translation method. It was then pretested with people similar to those in the main study. No major changes were made.

RELIABILITY: Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .90 and the composite reliability was .89 (Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012, p. 136).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .67 and the analyses supported its unidimensionality.

COMMENTS: See the article by Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) for the version of this scale they used with employees.

REFERENCES: Yim, Chi Kin (Bennett), Kimmy Wa Chan, and Simon S.K. Lam (2012), "Do Customers and Employees Enjoy Service Participation? Synergistic Effects of Self- and Other-Efficacy," Journal of Marketing, 76 (6), 121–140.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I enjoy the service process with my participation very much. The service process with my participation is very enjoyable. The service process with my participation can be described as fun. I take great pleasure in the service process with my participation.

310

Performance of the Athlete SCALE DESCRIPTION: The leadership ability of an athlete with his/her team as well as his/her relative standing with other athletes in the sport is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) did not state the source of the scale. It may have been created by them for their study. It was used in Study 1a (n = 98). The scale was greatly modified for use in Studies 2 and 3 for corporate and political contexts, respectively, and are reviewed separately.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 (Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed 2013, p. 1170).

VALIDITY: The authors did not discuss the scale's validity. They did, however, report the results of an EFA of four scales used in Study 1a. It shows the items used for the performance measure had loadings higher than .70 on the same factor and no higher than .42 on the other factors. This provides some rudimentary evidence of the scale's unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Americus Reed II (2013), "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1167-1184.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

The athlete is among the best in the world at his sport. The athlete’s ability to lead his team to victory is a stellar achievement. The athlete is a superior competitor.

311

Performance of the CEO SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures the leadership of a particular company's chief executive office, particularly as it pertains to managing the development of innovative products.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) did not state the source of the scale. It may have been created by them for Study 2 (n = 121). Measures of the performance construct were also used in Studies 1 and 3 for the sport and political contexts, respectively, but are reviewed separately due to their large differences in phrasing.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .72 (Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed 2013, p. 1172).

VALIDITY: The authors did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Americus Reed II (2013), "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1167-1184.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

The CEO is an effective leader of his/her company. The ability of the CEO to develop innovative products is a commendable achievement. The job performance of the CEO is excellent.

312

Performance of the Governor SCALE DESCRIPTION: The effectiveness and leadership of a state governor is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) did not state the source of the scale. It may have been created by them for Study 3 (n = 89). Measures of the performance construct were also used in Studies 1 and 2 for the sport and corporate contexts, respectively, but are reviewed separately due to their large differences in phrasing.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .84 (Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed 2013, p. 1174).

VALIDITY: The authors did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: With some slight changes, the scale may be used for other political positions, particularly those with a more local focus rather than national due to item #3.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Americus Reed II (2013), "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1167-1184.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

The governor is an effective state leader. The on-the-job performance of the governor is excellent. The ability of the governor to increase a sense of community in the state is commendable.

313

Persuasion Resistance SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person rebuffs attempts at being persuaded, with an emphasis on recent efforts, is measured in this scale using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) in Experiment 2 (n = 91 college students). They described it as a measure of "explicit threat" (p. 1037) and said they adapted it from work by Conway and Schaller (2005). Indeed, the latter used a three-item measure of reactance but only gave one of the items. Beyond that one item, it is not clear how much more of the scale by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) was taken from Conway and Schaller's (2005) scale.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .82 in Experiment 2 by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

REFERENCES: Conway, Lucian Gideon, III and Mark Schaller (2005), “When Authorities’ Commands Backfire: Attributions about Consensus and Effects on Deviant Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (3), 311–26. Liu, Jia, Dirk Smeesters, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2012), "Reminders of Money Elicit Feelings of Threat and Reactance in Response to Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1030-1046.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. It felt as if __________ was trying to take away my freedom to form my opinion about _____. 2. I considered advice from __________ to be an intrusion. 3. I resisted the attempts of others to influence me. 4. Advice and recommendations usually induce me to do just the opposite.

1. The name or description of the person trying to influence the participant should be placed in the long blank of items #1 and #2, e.g., the sales person. The short, second blank of item #2 can be used to specify a particular topic.

314

Physical Appearance of Other Customers SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point Likert-type items measure the degree to which a person believes that other customers in a particular service environment are nice looking. As measured by the scale, the opinion is based on appearance rather than interaction.

SCALE ORIGIN: In an excellent set of studies, the physical appearance scale and two companion measures were created and validated by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012). They referred to the set of scales as OCP (Other Customer Perceptions) and expected it to have the properties of a reflective first order (three factors) and formative second order model. Prior to the quantitative studies, 61 items were generated for measuring the three factors and they went through two rounds of content validation with expert judges. After that, 24 items remained and were purified in Study 1, leaving 14 items for Study 2 in which the validation process led to the removal of one more item. Study 3 examined nomological validity then temporal stability was tested in Study 4.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistencies reported by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012) for the physical appearance scale were .83 (construct reliability) in Study 2, .89 (construct reliability for younger sample) and .88 (construct reliability for older sample) in Study 3, and .92 (Cronbach's alpha) in Study 4. The temporal stability of the scale was measured in Study 4 by re-contacting Study 3 participants. Based on 88 respondents, the one month test-retest correlation was .72.

VALIDITY: Beyond the content validation that occurred before the quantitative studies, considerable evidence was provided by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012) in support of the physical appearance scale's convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. The AVEs for the scale were .55 (Study 2), .67 (younger sample in Study 3), and .66 (older sample in Study 3).

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Clay M. Voorhees, and Julie Baker (2012), "Understanding the Influence of Cues from Other Customers in the Service Experience: A Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Retailing, 88 (3), 384–398.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I liked the appearance of the other patrons. The other patrons were dressed appropriately. The other patrons looked nice. The other patrons looked like they were my type of people.

315

Preference for Numerical Information SCALE DESCRIPTION: With eight, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the tendency of a person to use numerical information, to engage in thinking with such information, and to enjoy it.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale is a part of the Preference for Numerical Information scale by Viswanathan (1993). Specifically, it is the short form of the scale identified by Viswanathan (1983) as the eight items with the highest loadings in a factor analysis of the 20 items in the long version. The alpha for the short form was .91. The short form is the version used by Biswas et al. (2013) in Study 3B. Data for the study were gathered from 171 undergraduate students attending a large university in the Midwestern United States.

RELIABILITY: In the study by Biswas et al. (2013), the scale's alpha was .90.

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Biswas et al. (2013) regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Biswas, Abhijit, Sandeep Bhowmick, Abhijit Guha, and Dhruv Grewal (2013), "Consumer Evaluations of Sale Prices: Role of the Subtraction Principle," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 4966. Viswanathan, Madhubalan (1993), "Measurement of Individual Differences in Preference for Numerical Information," Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (5), 741-752.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I enjoy work that requires the use of numbers. I find it satisfying to solve day-to-day problems involving numbers. Numerical information is very useful in daily life. I like to make calculations using numerical information. I like to go over numbers in my mind. I prefer not to pay attention to information involving numbers. (r) I don’t like to think about issues involving numbers. (r) I don’t find numerical information relevant for most situations. (r)

1. The extreme verbal anchors that Biswas et al. (2013) used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

316

Pressure to Conform in an Evaluation SCALE DESCRIPTION: One's feeling that someone (unnamed) was trying to influence his/her evaluation in a particular situation is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. To be clear, it is not just that the person feels that there was an attempt to influence him/her but that there was pressure to give a certain evaluation.

SCALE ORIGIN: Mourali and Yang (2013) referred to the scale as a "threat index" and used it in Study 3 of the four main studies reported in the article. The sample in that study was 209 undergraduate students attending the University of Calgary (Canada). The authors indicated that the scale items were adapted from work by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012). The latter had a scale they called "explicit threat." A close examination shows, however, that the two sets of items measure different though related constructs. It may be best then to say that Mourali and Yang (2013) developed their scale based on inspiration from a scale used by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Mourali and Yang 2013, p. 548).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Mourali and Yang (2013).

COMMENTS: With some slight rephrasing of the items, the scale could be used when the pressure has to do with how to rate a company's service, how to vote, or many other applications.

REFERENCES: Liu, Jia, Dirk Smeesters, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2012), "Reminders of Money Elicit Feelings of Threat and Reactance in Response to Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1030-1046. Mourali, Mehdi and Zhiyong Yang (2013), "The Dual Role of Power in Resisting Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 539-554.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. When evaluating the product, it felt like someone was trying to influence my opinion. 2. When evaluating the product, it felt like someone was trying to take away my freedom to express my own opinion. 3. When evaluating the product, it felt like I was being pressured to conform to the opinions of others.

317

Prestige of Consuming the Product SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure how much a person uses a product because of the positive social value it is expected to have.

SCALE ORIGIN: Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer (2012) used the scale in Study 4. Apparently, the authors created it by drawing some ideas from the consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence scale(s) (CSII) by Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel (1989). The participants in Study 4 were 242 students attending a major German university. The language in which the scale was presented to the participants was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .85 (Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer 2012, p. 925).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer (2012).

REFERENCES: Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), “Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (4), 473–81. Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Isabel V. Stefan, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), "Willingness to Pay for Cause-Related Marketing: The Impact of Donation Amount and Moderating Effects," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 910–927.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

By consuming the product I make a good impression. By consuming the product I satisfy the expectations of others. By consuming the product I am valued by others.

318

Prestige of the Behaviors (Comparative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures the degree to which a person feels that engaging in one of two behaviors would be a signal of his/her status and superiority to others.

SCALE ORIGIN: Fuchs et al. (2013) referred to the scale as agentic feelings. They indicated that the items were adapted from a measure by Locke (2003). A comparison of the scales, however, shows little if any common phrasing in the two sets of items. Given that, it is more precise to say that Fuchs et al. (2013) drew some ideas from the scale by Locke (2003) when creating items. Study 2 had participants choose between two fashion collections, one described as a "user-driven collection" and the other described as being created by company designers. While the scale was apparently used in Study 3 as well, it had five experimental conditions rather than just the two as in Study 2. How this may have affected the phrasing of the scale stem and the verbal anchors on the response scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .88 and .83 in Studies 2 and 3 by Fuchs et al. (2013).

VALIDITY: Fuchs et al. (2013) did not report any evidence in support of the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Emanuela Prandelli, Martin Schreier, and Darren W. Dahl (2013), "All That Is Users Might Not Be Gold: How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires in the Context of Luxury Fashion Brands," Journal of Marketing, 77 (5), 75-91.

SCALE ITEMS:1 How would you feel to own and wear a product from this collection? 2 1. 2. 3.

I would feel better off than others. I would feel I had high status. I could signal more prestige.

1. In Study 2, Fuchs et al. (2013) used a five-point scale with these items and the following extreme verbal anchors true for collection A / true for collection B. Depending upon the type of products or situations with which this scale is used, the scale stem and the verbal anchors will need to be rephrased.

319

Price Equity (Insurance Premiums) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a customer considers his/her insurance premiums to be fair and reasonable given the service received is measured in this scale with three, seven-point Likerttype items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) created this scale, drawing some inspiration from a measure of payment equity used by Bolton and Lemon (1999). The data for the study by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) came from North American customers of the insurance division of a large financial services company. A probability sample was contacted by a marketing research firm and 1199 customers composed the final sample.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .87 in the study by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013, p. 132).

VALIDITY: Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) did not discuss any rigorous examination of the scale's validity. They did state that in a factor analysis of just the four items, only one factor was extracted. This could be interpreted as evidence, though limited, of the scale's unidimensionality and possibly as a form of convergent validity.

REFERENCES: Bolton, Ruth N. and Katherine N. Lemon (1999), “A Dynamic Model of Customers’ Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and Consequence of Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May), 171–86. Mende, Martin, Ruth N. Bolton, and Mary Jo Bitner (2013), "Decoding Customer–Firm Relationships: How Attachment Styles Help Explain Customers' Preferences for Closeness, Repurchase Intentions, and Changes in Relationship Breadth," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (1), 125-143.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

My insurance premium is fair. Premiums are reasonable considering the service I receive. _____ gives me my money’s worth.

1. The response scale used by Mende, Bolton, and Bitner (2013) employed strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as the extreme verbal anchors. The name of the company should be placed in the blank of #3.

320

Price Knowledge Confidence (Product Category) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of confidence a person has in his/her knowledge of prices for various brands in a particular product category is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Dutta (2012) was not identified. The scale was used in Study 1A (n = 318 undergraduate students) and 1B (n = 215 undergraduate students).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were described by Dutta (2012) as .90 (Study 1A) and higher than .90 (Study 1B).

VALIDITY: Dutta (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Dutta, Sujay (2012), "Vulnerability to Low-Price Signals: An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Genuine and Deceptive Signals," Journal of Retailing, 88 (1), 156-167.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I feel that I am knowledgeable about prices of __________. 2. If a friend asked me about prices of __________, I could give her/him instant advice about prices of different brands. 3. I feel very confident about my ability to tell if a particular offer price for a __________ is a good price.

1. A name or phrase identifying the focal product category should be placed in the blanks.

321

Pride SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of self-satisfaction and sense of accomplishment one feels as a result of something in particular is measured with five, nine-point unipolar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The items composing the scale were borrowed by Di Muro and Noseworthy (2013) from a nineitem measure of pride created by Williams and DeSteno (2009). The reason for using the particular subset of items was not given by Di Muro and Noseworthy (2013). They referred to the measure as pride of ownership.

RELIABILITY: The scale was used by Di Muro and Noseworthy (2013) in Studies 3, 4, and 5 with the alphas being .89, .91, and .84, respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Di Muro and Noseworthy (2013).

COMMENTS: The scale was used by Di Muro and Noseworthy (2013) in contexts where participants were asked to indicate how a particular stimulus made them feel. While the items appear to be amenable for use in a wide variety of contexts, it is prudent to examine the scale's psychometric quality if the context is very different from the ones in the studies by Di Muro and Noseworthy (2013).

REFERENCES: Di Muro, Fabrizio and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2013), "Money Isn’t Everything, but It Helps If It Doesn’t Look Used: How the Physical Appearance of Money Influences Spending," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1330-1342. Williams, Lisa A. and Davis DeSteno (2009), “Adaptive Social Emotion or Seventh Sin?” Psychological Science, 20 (3), 284–88.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

proud satisfied confident accomplished self-fulfilled

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the response scale were not at all (1) and extremely (9). The instructions for use with this scale could be phrased something like "using the words below, indicate how _____ made you feel."

322

Pride in Game Playing Performance SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person feels a sense of achievement having played a game and performed well is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Scott and Nowlis (2013) used variations of the scale in four of the six studies they reported and referred to the construct as feelings of accomplishment. Only the version used in Study 4 had three items (shown below). (The other versions just had two items.) The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the version of the scale used in Study 4 was .90 (Scott and Nowlis 2013, p. 455).

VALIDITY: Scott and Nowlis (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Scott, Maura L. and Stephen M. Nowlis (2013), "The Effect of Goal Specificity on Consumer Goal Reengagement," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 444-459.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

This game gave me a feeling of accomplishment. Playing this game made me feel successful. I am happy with my performance on the game.

323

Privacy Concerns with Personalized Advertising SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has six, seven-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a person does not like to receive personalized advertising because of the belief that the companies sending it are improperly using one's personal information.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Baek and Morimoto (2012) is a subset of items from a 25-item scale by Dolnicar and Jordaan (2007; Jordaan 2004). Baek and Morimoto (2012) used the scale with four media types: direct mail, unsolicited commercial e-mail, telephone calls, and text messages. Reliability and validity were evaluated with the data combined from the four ad media.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .86 (Baek and Morimoto 2012).

VALIDITY: Baek and Morimoto (2012) performed CFA on the items composing the several scales in their study. Loadings of the items on their respective factors were statistically significant and the AVEs were greater than .50, providing evidence of the scales' convergent validities. Likewise, all AVEs were higher than the squared correlations with the other scales, providing evidence of their discriminant validities. The AVE of the privacy concerns scale was .520.

REFERENCES: Baek, Tae Hyun and Mariko Morimoto (2012), "Stay Away From Me: Examining the Determinants of Consumer Avoidance of Personalized Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59-76. Dolnicar, Sara, and Yolanda Jordaan (2007), “A Market-Oriented Approach to Responsibly Managing Information Privacy Concerns in Direct Marketing,” Journal of Advertising, 36 (2), 123–149. Jordaan, Yolanda (2004), “Exploring and Validating Consumers’ Information Privacy Concerns,” Management Dynamics, 13 (2), 2–12.

SCALE ITEMS: When I receive personalized advertising on __________,1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I feel uncomfortable when information is shared without permission. I am concerned about misuse of personal information. It bothers me to receive too much advertising material of no interest. I feel fear that information may not be safe while stored. I believe that personal information is often misused. I think companies share information without permission. 324

1. The name of the focal medium should be placed in the blank, e.g., e-mail.

325

Product Contamination from Other Customers SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four statements are used to measure how much concern is expressed by a consumer about the possibility that other shoppers may have touched or damaged a particular package of a product he/she is thinking about buying.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013) in the pretest (n = 93) for Study 4 and was called contamination fears. The source of the scale was not stated and is likely to have been developed by the authors as a manipulation check for the study. As used in the pretest, participants were asked to indicate the degree of contamination fear they had for two groups of products: one expected to be viewed as ingestible items and one that was not.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .86 (Castro, Morales, and Nowlis 2013, p. 129).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013). However, since the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Castro, Iana A., Andrea C. Morales, and Stephen M. Nowlis (2013), "The Influence of Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity on Consumer Purchase," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 118-133.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How concerned would you be about other shoppers touching the specific package of this product you were going to purchase? 2. How worried would you be about other customers damaging this product before you bought it? 3. How concerned would you be about using this product if other customers had touched it? 4. How worried would you be about other people making this product dirty before you purchased it?

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013). The extreme verbal anchors were probably something like not at all and very much. The points on the scale appear to have been either five or seven.

326

Product Effectiveness SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses six, seven-point items to measure a consumer's opinion of a product's effectiveness, with particular regard for how it compares to similar products in treating a certain problem.

SCALE ORIGIN: Chae, Li, and Zhu (2013) used the scale seven times in the reported experiments. Although not stated explicitly, it is assumed that the authors created the scale for use in the studies. Participants in all of the studies were students at the National University of Singapore except for Experiment 3 in which participants were students at the University of British Columbia.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alphas ranged from .72 (Experiment 3) to .89 (Experiment 1A) in the seven studies in which Chae, Li, and Zhu (2013) reported using it.

VALIDITY: Chae, Li, and Zhu (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Chae, Boyoun (Grace), Xiuping Li, and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2013), "Judging Product Effectiveness from Perceived Spatial Proximity," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 317-335. Li, Xiuping (2014), personal correspondence.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How much do you believe that this new product will work? Not at all / Very much 2. How reliable would you expect this new product to work? Very unreliable / Very reliable 3. How effective do you think this new product is? Not effective at all / Very effective 4. How likely do you think this product will be more effective than other brands? Not at all likely / Extremely likely 5. To what extent do you expect this product to address the problem? A little bit / Totally 6. How likely do you think this new product will have unwanted side effects? Not at all likely / Extremely likely (r)

1. The phrasing of the items varied a bit across the seven studies in which it was used by Chae, Li, and Zhu (2013). This generalized version was provided by Li (2014).

327

Product Effectiveness (Concentratedness) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A product's effectiveness is measured using four, seven-point semantic differentials with an emphasis on the concentration level of the product. Given the phrasing of the items, the scale is probably limited in its use to products that are in liquid form.

SCALE ORIGIN: Zhu, Billeter, and Inman (2012) appear to have created the scale with inspiration from measures by Boulding and Kirmani (1993). The former used the scale in a pilot study (n = 50 college students) as well as Study 2A (n = 40 college students) and referred to it as perceived effectiveness. The focal product in the pilot was a teeth whitening rinse while in Study 2A it was a toilet bowl cleaner.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale used by Zhu, Billeter, and Inman (2012) were .89 (pilot study) and .83 (Study 2A).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by by Zhu, Billeter, and Inman (2012).

COMMENTS: As noted above, use of the scale would seem to be limited to liquids. It would be especially appropriate for those products in which the level of concentration can be judged by consumers and/or is a criterion they take into account when making a purchase decision.

REFERENCES: Boulding, William and Amna Kirmani (1993), “A Consumer-Side Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality?” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 111-23. Zhu, Meng, Darron M. Billeter, and Jeffrey Inman (2012), "The Double-Edged Sword of Signaling Effectiveness: When Salient Cues Curb Postpurchase Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 26-38.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

very ineffective / very effective very diluted / very concentrated much less effective than the average / much more effective than the average much less concentrated than the average / much more concentrated than the average

328

Product Evaluation (Food) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person likes a new food or beverage product and expects it to be successful when it goes on sale is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) used the scale in Experiment 2 (n = 91 college students). Three of the items in the scale were borrowed from Tanner et al. (2008, p. 761). The latter used those items individually. Given this, it may be most accurate to describe the summated version of the scale as being created by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012) who borrowed heavily from Tanner et al. (2008).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 in Experiment 2 by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Liu, Smeesters, and Vohs (2012).

REFERENCES: Liu, Jia, Dirk Smeesters, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2012), "Reminders of Money Elicit Feelings of Threat and Reactance in Response to Social Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1030-1046. Tanner, Robin J., Rossellina Ferraro, Tanya L. Chartrand, James R. Bettman, and Rick van Baaren (2008), “Of Chameleons and Consumption: The Impact of Mimicry on Choices and Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (April), 754–766.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

really like __________. really enjoyed the taste of __________. would buy __________ when it goes on sale. would expect __________ to be successful when it is launched.

1. The name of the food or beverage should be placed in the blanks.

329

Product Scarcity SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a consumer believes that a particular product or brand is in short supply due to unintentional order problems or greater demand than expected is measured using a three-item, seven-point Likert-type scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Sharma and Alter (2012) was created by the first author as part of her dissertation research from which the article was developed (Sharma 2014). The scale was used as a manipulation check prior to Study 4 in a pilot test (n = 204 people from an online participant pool). Participants were provided with one of two reasons to explain why one of the products they could choose from was in short supply. The manipulation amounted to telling half of the participants that a product was scarce because less had unintentionally been purchased (i.e., the supply-side condition) while the other half were told that the product was scarce due to being more popular (i.e., demand-side condition).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .74 (Sharma and Alter 2012, p. 552).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Sharma and Alter (2012). To the extent, however, that the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides some limited support for the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Sharma, Eesha (2014), personal correspondence. Sharma, Eesha and Adam L. Alter (2012), "Financial Deprivation Prompts Consumers to Seek Scarce Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 545-560.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The stock of the less available _____ has already been taken by consumers. The less available _____ happens to be more popular among consumers. Unequal _____ amounts were accidentally ordered. (r)

1. The name for the product category or brand that is in short supply should be placed in the blanks.

330

Product Sharing Knowledge SCALE DESCRIPTION: How familiar a person is with product sharing programs for a specific product category is measured with three, six-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lamberton and Rose (2012) in Study 1 reported in their article. The source of the scale was not identified. It was probably created by them with some inspiration coming from a scale used by Hennig-Thurau, Henning, and Sattler (2007). The sample for Study 1 was described as being 369 licensed drivers in the U.S. who were recruited from an online panel. Being a licensed driver was relevant to the study because the focus was on a car-sharing system.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .74 (Lamberton and Rose 2012, p. 115).

VALIDITY: Lamberton and Rose (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity though they did state that all items in the study "loaded appropriately on their intended constructs" and correlations between constructs were equal to or less than .5 (p. 116).

REFERENCES: Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Victor Henning, and Henrik Sattler (2007), “Consumer File Sharing of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (October), 1–18. Lamberton, Cait Poynor and Randall L. Rose (2012), "When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems," Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 109–125.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I am familiar with _____ sharing programs. I have experience with _____ sharing programs. I don’t know much about how a _____ sharing program works. (r)

1. The name of the shared object should be placed in the blanks.

331

Product Sharing Likelihood SCALE DESCRIPTION: How likely a person believes it is that he/she will choose a product sharing program rather than buying a certain product is measure with three, six-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lamberton and Rose (2012) in Study 1 reported in their article. The source of the scale was not identified. The sample for Study 1 was described as being 369 licensed drivers in the U.S. who were recruited from an online panel. Being a licensed driver was relevant to the study because the focus was on a car-sharing system.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Lamberton and Rose 2012, p. 115).

VALIDITY: Lamberton and Rose (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity though they did state that all items in the study "loaded appropriately on their intended constructs" and correlations between constructs were equal to or less than .5 (p. 116).

REFERENCES: Lamberton, Cait Poynor and Randall L. Rose (2012), "When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems," Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 109–125.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How likely would you be to choose a sharing option the next time you need a _____? I would prefer a sharing option to owning my own _____. I would be likely to choose a sharing program instead of buying a _____ myself.

1. The name of the shared product should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors used with item #1 were very unlikely (1) and very likely (6). The anchors used with the other two items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (6).

332

Production Effort SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person directly participated in the creation of some object or event is measured in this three item, seven-point scale.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Troye and Supphellen (2012) was not identified but it seems to have been created by them. The scale was used as a manipulation check in Study 1 (n = 240 college students) in which subjects were asked to imagine participating in a sequence of events that involved making a meal for guests. The conditions varied with respect to how much effort had to be expended by someone to prepare the meal.

RELIABILITY: The scale had an alpha of .81 in Study 1 by Troye and Supphellen (2012, p. 36). The scale seems to have been used in Studies 2 and 3 as well but, no information about its reliability was provided.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Troye and Supphellen (2012). However, given that the scale was used as a manipulation check, and the manipulation was successful, that provides some evidence of the scale's concurrent validity.

REFERENCES: Troye, Sigurd Villads and Magne Supphellen (2012), "Consumer Participation in Coproduction: 'I Made It Myself' Effects on Consumers' Sensory Perceptions and Evaluations of Outcome and Input Product," Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 33-46.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

It demanded a lot of me. I made a considerable contribution. I did not contribute much. (r)

1. The instructions that Troye and Supphellen (2012) used with this scale were not provided. The anchors for the response scale were not described either. A Likert-type response format appears to be appropriate (e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree).

333

Public Transportation Usage Intention SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's stated likelihood of using public transportation more than in the past is measured with four, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012a) created the scale with inspiration from a purchase intention scale developed by Chandran and Morwitz (2005). The former used the scale in three studies: Study 1 (n = 71 undergraduate students), Study 2A (n = 244 undergraduate students), and Study 2B (n = 113 undergraduate students). The reported studies were conducted in Israel and the scales were phrased in Hebrew (Kronrod 2013). In Study 1, participants saw an ad about how they could help reduce air pollution by using public transportation. In the other studies (some reported in the article and others not), different "green-related" behaviors were referred to such as recycling, conserving water, and minimizing the use of soap (Kronrod 2013). The scale can be easily adapted for use with other greenbehaviors, e.g., I will certainly recycle more.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .90 to .97 in the three studies discussed by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012a).

COMMENTS: In another study (Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu 2012b), the authors adapted the scale for a different context.

REFERENCES: Chandran, Sucharita and Vicki G. Morwitz (2005), “Effects of Participative Pricing on Consumers’ Cognitions and Actions: A Goal Theoretic Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 249-259. Kronrod, Ann, personal correspondence. Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu (2012a), "Go Green! Should Environmental Messages Be So Assertive?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 95-102. Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu (2012b), "Enjoy! Hedonic Consumption and Compliance with Assertive Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 51-61.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2.

It is probable I will use public transportation more. I will certainly use public transportation more. 334

3. 4.

There is a chance I will use public transportation more. I will definitely use public transportation more.

1. Because of the use of the word "more" at the end of each item, a scale stem or instructions are needed that focus participants' attention on something that has happened to them. In Study 1 by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012a) the participants completed this scale after being exposed to an ad promoting public transportation. The response format was a seven-point scale with definitely not and definitely yes as the extreme verbal anchors (Kronrod 2013).

335

Publicness/Privateness of Consumption SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point semantic differentials are used to measure how public or private a consumer reports his/her usage of a particular product to be.

SCALE ORIGIN: Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer (2012) used the scale in Study 4 and did not identify the source. It appears to have been created by them for the study. The participants in Study 4 were 242 students attending a major German university. The language in which the scale was presented to the participants was not addressed.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer 2012, p. 925).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer (2012). However, to the extent that the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Isabel V. Stefan, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), "Willingness to Pay for Cause-Related Marketing: The Impact of Donation Amount and Moderating Effects," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 910–927.

SCALE ITEMS: I buy the product: 1. 2. 3.

to consume it in private / to consume it in public for individual use / for collective use for personal use / for joint use

336

Purchase Dissimilarity SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's belief that his/her purchase of a product was not the same as experienced by a friend is measured with three, nine-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale measures the belief that the purchases made by two people of the same type of product were different in some way (unspecified) rather than the products themselves being different, e.g., different prices.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013) in the three studies reported in their article and referred to as perceived transaction dissimilarity. The source of two of the items was apparently unpublished work by Xia and Monroe (2005). The third item was original to Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013).

RELIABILITY: Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013) reported the alphas for the scale were .96 (Study 1), .94 (Study 2), and .92 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity was provided by Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013). The AVEs were .89 (Study 1), .84 (Study 2), and .82 (Study 3).

REFERENCES: Weisstein, Fei L., Kent B. Monroe, and Monika Kukar-Kinney (2013), "Effects of Price Framing on Consumers' Perceptions of Online Dynamic Pricing Practices," Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 501-514. Xia, Lan and Kent B. Monroe (2005), "Comparative References and the Effects of Price Unfairness Perceptions," working paper, Bentley College.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I think my _____ purchase is different from my friend’s purchase. My friend’s purchase is not similar to mine. My _____ purchase is unlike my friend’s.

1. A name for the focal product category should be placed in the blanks of #1 and #3.

337

Purchase Intention (Company’s Products) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's willingness and inclination to buy products from a particular company is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. Unlike most purchase intention measures, this one has a company vs. a brand focus. Further, given the phrasing of two of the items, the construct being measured might be considered something less precise and planned than "purchase intention" per se such as "willingness to purchase" or "attitude toward the act of purchasing."

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012) but, few details of its development were provided. The scale was used in Study 1 (n = 773) and 2 (n = 792). The survey instruments that included the scale were apparently phrased in Chinese and the data were collected from college students in Taiwan. Translation of the materials in preparing the questionnaire and the published article was not discussed.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .88 and .92 (Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo 2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used on the data in the two main studies conducted by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012). In both cases, the models fit the data well. Evidence was found in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales used to measure the constructs in the models. With respect to purchase intention in particular, its AVEs were .77 (Study 1) and .79 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Chiu, Hung-Chang, Yi-Ching Hsieh, and Yi-Chu Kuo (2012), "How to Align your Brand Stories with Your Products," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 262–275.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I am likely to purchase the products from this company. I would consider buying the product from this company if I need a product of this kind. It’s possible for me to buy the product from this company.

338

Quality of Green Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: This scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the extent to which a consumer believes so-called "green products" are of high-quality and better than those that are not considered to be "green."

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) stated that they adapted their scale from work by Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (1991). While the latter used a scale that measured product quality, it was very different from the scale reviewed here. Given that, it may be more accurate to say that Gleim et al. (2013) created the scale and were inspired in some way by the research conducted by Dodds, Monroe and Grewal (1991).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .95.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. In particular, evidence was found in support of the quality scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .82.

COMMENTS: The scale seems to be amenable for use with other types of products by merely replacing the phrase "green products" in each item with an appropriate phrase, e.g., fair trade goods, locally produced products, organic foods.

REFERENCES: Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991), “The Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 307-19. Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Green Green Green Green

products products products products

are are are are

excellent quality. high quality. superior quality. the best.

339

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

340

Quality of Product Manufacturing SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief that a company is competent at making products that will perform as expected is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013; Folse 2015) who used it in Pilot Test 3 (n = 80) before Experiment 1. They referred to the scale as product performance.

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale was .84 (Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer 2013, p. 334).

VALIDITY: Folse, Burton, and Netemeyer (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Folse, Judith Anne Garretson (2015), personal correspondence. Folse, Judith Anne Garretson, Scot Burton, and Richard G. Netemeyer (2013), "Defending Brands: Effects of Alignment of Spokescharacter Personality Traits and Corporate Transgressions on Brand Trust and Attitudes," Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 331-342.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I could count on this company to produce a good product. 2. There is little or no risk that there would be something wrong with this company's products. 3. The company appears to be good at manufacturing its products. 4. The company is an organization with expertise in making its products. 5. I am confident that products made by this company would perform as expected.

1. The items were provided by Folse (2015).

341

Quality of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure the functional utility of a particular brand in a particular product category.

SCALE ORIGIN: The items forming the measure of brand quality used by Lam et al. (2013) were borrowed from the perceived quality facet of the PQ/PVC scale by Netemeyer et al. (2004). The sample used by Lam et al. (2013) was from a European research company's online panel. Specifically, the final dataset was 635 usable responses from panel members in Spain. The questionnaire was developed in English, translated into Spanish, then back-translated. Once some revisions were made, the survey instrument was pretested. The data used for the analyses came from those participants who completed all five waves of the longitudinal study.

RELIABILITY: The alpha of the scale was .89 (Lam et al. 2013, p. 243).

VALIDITY: The EFA conducted by Lam et al. (2013) on the quality scale as well as several others in their study showed that all of the items had strong loadings on the intended factors. However, the zero-order correlation between brand quality and brand image was .80, indicating the two scales did not have discriminant validity. The authors choose to drop the brand image scale from the model they were testing.

REFERENCES: Lam, Son, Michael Ahearne, Ryan Mullins, Babak Hayati, and Niels Schillewaert (2013), "Exploring the Dynamics of Antecedents to Consumer–Brand Identification with a New Brand," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 234-252. Netemeyer, Richard G., Balaji Krishnan, Chris Pullig, Guangping Wang, Mehmet Yagci, Dwane Dean, Joe Ricks, and Ferdinand Wirth (2004), “Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 209–235.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Compared to other brands of __________, _____ is of very high quality. _____ is the best brand in its product class. _____ consistently performs better than all other brands of __________.

1. The name of the brand should be put in the blank space of #2 as well as the short blanks of items #1 and #3. The name or phrase describing the product category should be placed in the long blanks of items #1 and #3.

342

Quality of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that a brand has been made by a trustworthy company, is high quality, and is better than the competition is measured with three, five-point Likerttype items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Carter and Curry (2013) created the scale, drawing phrases from Keller and Aaker (1992) for two of the items. The study conducted by Carter and Curry (2013) gathered data from adult grocery shoppers who were sampled from a nationwide (U.S.) panel maintained by a market research firm. The sample size used in the analyses was apparently 585 respondents. The authors referred to the scale as consumer perceived parent brand quality because that is the context in which the scale was used in their study. However, nothing in the items themselves limits the scale's usage to parent brands.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 (Carter and Curry 2013, p. 267).

VALIDITY: Several steps were taken by Carter and Curry (2013) to ensure that their scales were measuring distinct constructs. They used both EFA and CFA with the items in the brand quality scale along with the items in two related scales to show that the factor solution and level of model fit met accepted guidelines. Evidence was provided in support of the discriminant validity of the three scales. The AVE for brand quality was .76.

REFERENCES: Carter, Robert E. and David J. Curry (2013), "Perceptions versus Performance When Managing Extensions: New Evidence about the Role of Fit Between a Parent Brand and an Extension," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 253-269. Keller, Kevin Lane and David A. Aaker (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50.

SCALE ITEMS:1 _____ is: 1. 2. 3.

made by a reputable company. a high quality product. superior in quality compared to other products.

1. The name of the brand should be placed in the blanks.

343

Quality of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three statements are used to measure how much a consumer believes that a set of products sharing a brand name are of high quality.

SCALE ORIGIN: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used the scale in two studies, one in Austria and one in Bulgaria. They referred to the scale as perceived parent brand quality. The scale was phrased in German for purposes of Study 1. It is assumed to have been translated into Bulgarian for Study 2 though that was not explicitly stated by the authors. Two of the items in the scale come from a scale by Völckner and Sattler (2006). The source of the third item was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .86 and .87 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

VALIDITY: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used CFA to provide evidence of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .67 and .71 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

REFERENCES: Völckner, Franziska and Henrik Sattler (2006), "Drivers of Brand Extension Success," Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 18-34. Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact Of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, And Brand Origin-Extension Fit On Brand Extension Success," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567-585.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How do you evaluate the quality of the products offered by _____? _____ offers high quality products. The quality of _____ products is far above average.

1. The brand name should be placed in the blanks. The anchors used with these items were not stated. The ones for item #1 could have been inferior/superior as used by Völckner and Sattler (2006) for one of the items in their scale. The verbal anchors for the other two items may have been something like strongly disagree/strongly agree. The number of points on the scale were not specified but appear to have been seven.

344

Quality of the Brand Extension SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three items are used to measure how much a consumer believes that a brand extension will be of better quality than most other brands. The statements are phrased somewhat hypothetically because, as used by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013), the extensions were fictitious but the brands themselves were real and familiar.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) drawing on terms and concepts in a measure of brand quality by Keller and Aaker (1992). Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used the scale in two studies, one in Austria and one in Bulgaria. They referred to the scale as perceived quality of the extension. The scale was phrased in German for purposes of Study 1. It is assumed to have been translated into Bulgarian for Study 2 though that was not explicitly stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .90 and .93 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

VALIDITY: Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos (2013) used CFA to provide evidence of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .74 and .82 in Studies 1 (Austria) and 2 (Bulgaria), respectively.

REFERENCES: Keller, Kevin Lane and David A. Aaker (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 35-50. Sichtmann, Christina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2013), "The Impact Of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, And Brand Origin-Extension Fit On Brand Extension Success," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567-585.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The extension will be of superior quality. The quality of the extension will be better than most brands. The quality of the extension will be good.

1. The anchors used with these items were not stated. They may have been something like strongly disagree/strongly agree. number of points on the scale were not specified either but appear to have been seven.

345

The

Reactance SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, eight-point items are used to measure how much a person felt free making a particular decision and how negatively he/she feels when freedom of choice is restricted.

SCALE ORIGIN: Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) used the scale in Experiment 1. The authors drew phrases and ideas for scale items from work by Deci et al. (1994), Hong and Faedda (1996), and Unger and Kernan (1983). Initial participants in the study were students at a large, German university. They each identified a "partner" who agreed to be involved as well. In total, there were 107 dyads (214 individuals) but, only one person per dyad completed the scale. The language in which the questionnaire was phrased was not explicitly stated; it appears to have been German. Information regarding the translation process was not provided in the article.

RELIABILITY: Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) reported the scale's alpha to be .733.

VALIDITY: The nature of the scale's validity was not addressed by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012).

COMMENTS: On close examination, it appears that the first two items and the last two items could be measuring slightly different aspects of reactance. The first two items have to do the degree to which one felt free in a particular choice situation while the last two items are about the typicality of experiencing negative emotions when freedom is restricted. This lack of precise agreement among the items may have caused the internal consistency to be lower than it otherwise would have been. Refinement of the scale is suggested.

REFERENCES: Deci, Edward L., Haleh Eghrari, Brian C. Patrick, and Dean Leone (1994), “Facilitating Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective,” Journal of Personality, 62 (1), 119–42. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, André Marchand, and Paul Marx (2012), "Can Automated Group Recommender Systems Help Consumers Make Better Choices?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 89–109. Hong, Sung-Mook and Salvatora Faedda (1996), “Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56 (1), 173–82. Unger, Lynette S. and Jerome B. Kernan (1983), “On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation of Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (4), 381–92. 346

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

chose this _____ because I wanted to. do not feel forced during the _____ choice. become angry when my freedom of choice is restricted to _____. become frustrated when I am unable to make free and independent _____ decisions.

1. The type of response scale used with these items was not described by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012). Most likely, it was a Likert-type scale. Further, the generic name of the focal product should be placed in the blanks, e.g., movie. For item #3, Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) used the phrase "three movies."

347

Recommending a Friend SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures a person's attitude about recommending a friend for some particular purpose. The exact purpose is not stated in the scale items themselves but should be specified in the instructions or some other part of the survey instrument.

SCALE ORIGIN: Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012) used the scale in Study 5 of the six reported in their article. Data were gathered in the study from 125 female members of an online panel. They authors did not state the source of the scale; it may have been created by them.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .93 (Avnet, Pham, and Stephen 2012, p. 729).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012) about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Avnet, Tamar, Michel Tuan Pham, and Andrew T. Stephen (2012), "Consumers’ Trust in Feelings as Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 720-735.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

not a good idea / very good idea my friend would like it / my friend would not like it I would never recommend my friend / I would definitely recommend my friend

348

Reconciling With the Company SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the desire by a customer to use acts of goodwill to restore or rebuild a damaged relationship with an offending company.

SCALE ORIGIN: Joireman et al. (2013) used the scale in two of the three studies reported in their article. Analyses were based on data from a panel of 249 U.S. consumers (Study 2) and 434 undergraduates (Study 3). The authors adapted items from a scale by Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2001).

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities calculated by Joireman et al. (2013) for the scale were .93 (Study 2) and .78 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Evidence, though limited, was provided by Joireman et al. (2013) in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs were .72 (Study 2) and .62 (Study 3).

REFERENCES: Aquino, Karl, Thomas M. Tripp, and Robert J. Bies (2001), “How Employees Respond to Personal Offense: The Effects of Blame Attribution, Victim Status, and Offender Status on Revenge in the Workplace,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (February), 52–9. Joireman, Jeff, Yany Grégoire, Berna Devezer, and Thomas M. Tripp (2013), "When Do Customers Offer Firms a 'Second Chance' Following a Double Deviation? The Impact of Inferred Firm Motives on Customer Revenge and Reconciliation," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 315-337.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Because of this incident, I wanted to. . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

give the firm back a new start, a renewed relationship. accept the humanness, flaws, and failures of the firm. try to make amends toward the firm. accept the firm despite what happened. try to make an effort to be more friendly and concerned toward the firm.

1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Joireman et al. (2013) with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

349

Recycling Benefits SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's attitude about how beneficial recycling is for the environment is measured in this scale with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) was not stated. The sample in Study 1 was composed of 82 undergraduate business students from the University of Kentucky while in Study 4, participants were described as 154 undergraduate students recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk.

RELIABILITY: The alphas calculated for the scale were .95 and .96 for Studies 1 and 4, respectively (Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty 2013, pp. 354, 360).

VALIDITY: Kidwell, Farmer, and Hardesty (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Kidwell, Blair, Adam Farmer, and David M. Hardesty (2013), "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 350-367.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling

makes a noticeable improvement to the environment. helps conserve resources. preserves natural resources. reduces the amount of waste going into landfills. has a positive impact on the environment.

350

Regret about Purchasing from the Retailer SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of three, seven-point Likert-type items that measure how much a customer regrets having purchased a product from a particular retailer.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bower and Maxham (2012) created the scale, drawing upon concepts and phrases in a measure of regret by Tsiros and Mittal (2000). The former conducted a longitudinal study with data collected at six time periods from online customers who had returned products to a leading retailer of home, garden, and personal items. The regret scale was used in what the authors called T2 and T3 of Study 1 as well as T2 and T3 of Study 2. The Study 1 analyses were based on 351 (T2) and 334 (T3) completed surveys. As for Study 2, analyses were based on 1,623 (T2) and 1,296 (T3) completed surveys.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .95 and .96 for T2 and T3, respectively, averaged across Studies 1 and 2 (Bower and Maxham 2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Bower and Maxham (2012) to provide evidence in support of their scales' discriminant validities. The exact results of the tests with respect to the regret scale were not indicated.

REFERENCES: Bower, Amanda B. and James G. Maxham III (2012), "Return Shipping Policies of Online Retailers: Normative Assumptions and the Long-Term Consequences of Fee and Free Returns," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 110–124. Tsiros, Michael and Vikas Mittal (2000). “Regret: A Model of its Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3) 401–417.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I regret purchasing this product from __________. I am feeling rejoiceful about buying this product from __________. (r) I should not have purchased this product from __________.

1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks.

351

Relationship Importance (Customer with Business) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The significance that a customer places on the relationship he/she has with a particular business is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. As phrased, the items are most amenable for use with customers who receive ongoing services from a company.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012) as a manipulation check in the second of two customer studies described in the article (n = 501). The source of the scale was not identified and may have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .81 (Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz 2012, p. 127).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not addressed by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012). However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, that provides a modicum of support for the scale's convergent validity. Further, the authors appear to have used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of the scales used in the study. Though few specifics were provided in the article bearing on this scale, it was reported that its AVE was .63.

REFERENCES: Homburg, Christian, Martin Klarmann, and Sabine Staritz (2012), "Customer Uncertainty Following Downsizing: The Effects of Extent of Downsizing and Open Communication," Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 112–129.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. My account at __________ is an important service for me. 2. My business relationship with __________ is highly important to me. 3. Problems in my business relationship with __________ would have severe negative consequences for me. 1. The name of the company providing the service should be placed in the blanks. In the study by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012), the name of a bank was placed in the blanks.

352

Relative Dullness of Two Ads SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, five-point uni-polar items are used to measure which of two ads a person has been exposed to is viewed as more boring.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Lewis, Whitler, and Hoegg (2013) was not explicitly stated but it is assumed to have been created by them.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .80 (Lewis, Whitler, and Hoegg 2013, p. 279).

VALIDITY: Lewis, Whitler, and Hoegg (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: It seems quite possible that the same three items shown below could be used to form a measure of a particular ad's dullness. In that case, different verbal anchors for the response scale would be needed, e.g., not at all / extremely. If such modification of the scale is made, retesting is urged to examine its psychometric quality.

REFERENCES: Lewis, Michael, Kimberly A. Whitler, and Jo Andrea Hoegg (2013), "Customer Relationship Stage and the Use of Picture-Dominant versus Text-Dominant Advertising: A Field Study," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 263–280.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

boring mundane matter-of-fact

1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were not explicitly stated. One extreme appears to have been used to indicate that the text-dominant ad was more boring while the other extreme probably stated that the picture-dominant ad was the more boring.

353

Relevance of the Story SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person's belief that a story describes something that he/she as well as the person's peer group would experience.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Chang (2013) was not stated. It appears to be original. The author referred to the scale as narrative accessibility and used it in Experiment 2 (n = 161 students) and its pretest (n = 40). Although not explicitly stated with regard to Experiment 2, it appears that the participants spoke Chinese and the survey materials were translated using a back-translation procedure.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale in Experiment's 2 pretest and the main study were .87 and .82, respectively (Chang 2013, pp. 63, 64).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Chang (2013).

REFERENCES: Chang, Chingching (2013), "Imagery Fluency and Narrative Advertising Effects," Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 54-68.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The story is what would happen in my life. The story is what people like me would experience. The story is what most of my peer __________ usually experience.2

1. Chang (2013, p. 60) described the scales she used as 7-point Likert-type unless otherwise indicated. Although the extreme verbal anchors were not provided for this particular scale, it is likely that they were the English equivalent of strongly disagree/strongly agree. 2. A term or phrase for the peer group should be placed in the blank. Chang (2013) used "college students."

354

Reliability of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point items, the scale measures the degree to which a consumer believes a brand is consistently good.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012) is an adaptation of three items from a scale by Garbarino and Johnson (1999). The former called the scale brand trust and used it in two studies, one a survey and the other an experiment.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency of the scale was only reported for the survey (n = 283 members of a statewide panel) by Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012). The alpha was .90.

VALIDITY: Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012) reported that the measurement model they tested fit the survey data well and that there was evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity. Its AVE was .74.

REFERENCES: Folse, Judith Anne Garretson, Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton (2012), "Spokescharacters: How the Personality Traits of Sincerity, Excitement, and Competence Help to Build Equity," Journal of Advertising, 41 (1), 17-32. Garbarino, Ellen and Mark S. Johnson (1999), “The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (April), 70-87.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

This brand always meets my expectations. I can always trust this brand to be good. This brand is reliable.

1. The verbal anchors for the response scale were not described by Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012) but were likely to have been Likert-type in nature, e.g., disagree/agree.

355

Religious Commitment SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using ten items and a five-point response format, the scale measures the degree to which a person is faithful to a set of religious beliefs and practices in daily life.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Cutright (2012) in Study 6 of her article was originally constructed and tested by Worthington et al. (2003). The latter referred to the final scale as the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI–10). Based on six studies, the authors provided evidence of the scale's internal consistency, temporal stability, construct validity, and discriminant validity. Of some concern is that in two of their studies, a two-factor model fit the data better than a one-factor model. The two factors were intrapersonal commitment and interpersonal commitment. Despite this, the authors viewed the one factor model as preferable because the two factors were highly correlated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 6 (n = 99) by Cutright (2012) was .97.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Cutright (2012).

REFERENCES: Cutright, Keisha M. (2012), "The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 775-790. Worthington, Everett L., Jr., Nathaniel G. Wade, Terry L. Hight, Jennifer S. Ripley, Michael E. McCullough, Jack W. Berry, Michelle M. Schmitt, James T. Berry, Kevin H. Bursley, and Lynn O’Connor (2003), “The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, Refinement, and Validation of a Brief Scale for Research and Counseling,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 (1), 84–96.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life. 2. I spend time trying to grow in understanding of my faith. 3. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and reflection. 4. Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life. 5. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. 6. I often read books and magazines about my faith. 7. I enjoy working in the activities of my religious organization. 8. I enjoy spending time with others of my religious affiliation. 9. I keep well informed about my local religious group and have some influence in its decisions. 10. I make financial contributions to my religious organization. 356

1. The response scale used by Worthington et al. (2003) with these items was anchored by not at all true of me (1), somewhat true of me (2), moderately true of me (3), mostly true of me (4), and totally true of me (5). The first six items represent the intrapersonal factor while the other four items represent the interpersonal factor.

357

Repurchase Intention (Shopping Websites) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of four items that measure a consumer's expectation of making purchases from shopping-related websites in the future. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to online shopping in general. Further, since each item refers to repurchasing, the implication is that the respondent has bought online in the past.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Rose et al. (2012) is an adaptation of items from a scale by Khalifa and Liu (2007). They, in turn, had modified items used by one of the authors in previous research (Limayem, Khalifa, & Frini 2000). Data were gathered by Rose et al. (2012) using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .859 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .607.

REFERENCES: Khalifa, Mohamed and Vanessa Liu (2007), “Online Consumer Retention: Contingent Effects of Online Shopping Habit and Online Shopping Experience,” European Journal of Information Systems, 16 (6), 780–92. Limayem, Moez, Mohamed Khalifa, and Anissa Frini (2000), "What Makes Consumers Buy From Internet? A Longitudinal Study of Online Shopping," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 30 (4), 421–432. Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

It is likely that I will repurchase from Internet shopping websites in the near future. I anticipate repurchasing from Internet shopping websites in the near future. I regularly repurchase from the same websites. I expect to repurchase from Internet shopping websites in the near future.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

358

Resentment SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's level of annoyance and possibly anger with another person or action is measured with three, nine-point semantic-differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: Chan and Sengupta (2013) used the scale in Experiment 3 with 111 undergraduate students attending Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The authors cited Feather and Sherman (2002) and drew items from scales in that research though the three items shown below were not used as a set to measure resentment.

RELIABILITY: In Experiment 3, Chan and Sengupta (2013) used the scale twice, once with respect to a salesperson who said something flattering to another shopper and, second, to the other shopper (the target of the flattery). The alphas for the scale were .83 (source of flattery) and .84 (target of flattery).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Chan and Sengupta (2013).

REFERENCES: Chan, Elaine and Jaideep Sengupta (2013), "Observing Flattery: A Social Comparison Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 740-758. Feather, Norman, T., and Rebecca Sherman (2002), “Envy, Resentment, Schadenfreude, and Sympathy: Reactions to Deserved and Undeserved Achievement and Subsequent Failure,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (7), 953–61.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

not at all angry / extremely angry not at all resentful / extremely resentful not at all annoyed / extremely annoyed

359

Response Efficacy (Following Nutritional Guidelines) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items measure a person's belief that adhering to particular nutritional guidelines will effectively reduce harmful effects on one's health.

SCALE ORIGIN: Talukdar and Lindsey (2013, p. 133) stated that the scale as well as three others they used in Study 2b were "modified from Witte (1992)." However, that article is a theoretical piece; no multi-item scales were used to collect data. Given this, it is more accurate to describe the scales as having been created by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) with ideas for the items coming from the theoretical work by Witte (1992).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Talukdar and Lindsey 2013, p. 133).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013). They did comment that the response efficacy scale had a correlation of .41 with a companion measure created to measure self-efficacy. While we would expect these two constructs to be correlated, the concern is whether or not the two scales have discriminant validity with respect to each other. If these scales are used again together, this issue should be examined.

REFERENCES: Talukdar, Debabrata and Charles Lindsey (2013), "To Buy or Not to Buy: Consumers' Demand Response Patterns for Healthy Versus Unhealthy Food," Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 124-138. Witte, Kim (1992), “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model,” Communication Monographs, 59 (December), 329–34.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Following the _____ nutritional guidelines for healthy eating reduces the likelihood of harmful health consequences. 2. If I follow the _____ nutritional guidelines for healthy eating, I am less likely to experience negative health consequences. 3. Following the _____ nutritional guidelines for healthy eating works to lower my chances of experiencing serious health consequences.

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) were highly disagree (1) and highly agree (7). The name of the guidelines should be placed in the blanks, e.g., USDA.

360

Responsibility for Product Return (Retailer) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A customer's belief that it is the retailer's responsibility that a product had to be returned is measured in this scale using three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bower and Maxham (2012) did not identify the source of the scale and, apparently, created it. They called it "retailer attributions" meaning that customers attributed blame for needing to return a product to the retailer. The authors conducted two longitudinal studies with data collected at six time periods from online customers who had returned products to a leading retailer of home, garden, and personal items. The scale was included in the surveys at multiple points of time.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .96, averaged across Studies 1 and 2 (Bower and Maxham 2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Bower and Maxham (2012) to provide evidence which supported the discriminant validities of the scales they used. The exact results of the tests with respect to the fairness scale were not stated.

REFERENCES: Bower, Amanda B. and James G. Maxham III (2012), "Return Shipping Policies of Online Retailers: Normative Assumptions and the Long-Term Consequences of Fee and Free Returns," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 110–124.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. __________ is responsible for my need to return this product. strongly disagree / strongly agree 2. To what extent was __________ responsible for the return that you experienced? not at all responsible / totally responsible 3. To what extent do you blame __________ for this return? not at all / completely

1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks.

361

Responsibility for Product Return (Self) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a customer takes responsibility for the need to return a product that has been purchased.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bower and Maxham (2012) did not identify the source of the scale; it is assumed they created it. They called it "self attributions" meaning that customers attributed responsibility for needing to return a product to themselves. The authors conducted two longitudinal studies with data collected at six time periods from online customers who had returned products to a leading retailer of home, garden, and personal items. The scale was included in the surveys at multiple points of time.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .99, averaged across Studies 1 and 2 (Bower and Maxham 2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Bower and Maxham (2012) to provide evidence which supported the discriminant validities of the scales they used. The exact results of the tests with respect to this scale were not stated.

REFERENCES: Bower, Amanda B. and James G. Maxham III (2012), "Return Shipping Policies of Online Retailers: Normative Assumptions and the Long-Term Consequences of Fee and Free Returns," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 110–124.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I am responsible for my need to return this product. The return that I experienced was my fault. To what extent do you blame yourself for this return?

1. For items #1 and #2, the extreme verbal anchors for their response scales were strongly disagree / strongly agree. For #3, they were not at all / completely.

362

Reversal of the Story SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point semantic differentials are used to measure a person's belief that a story has a climax in which the main character overcomes obstacles. The scale seems to be amenable for use with advertisements, books, and movies by making minor changes in each item.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012) but, few details of its development were provided. The scale was used in Study 1 and 2 as well as the pretests for those two studies. The survey instruments that included the scale were apparently phrased in Chinese and the data were collected from students in Taiwan. Translation of the materials in preparing the questionnaire and the published article was not discussed.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .86 to .92 in the main studies and pretests conducted by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012).

VALIDITY: CFA was used on the data in the two main studies conducted by Chiu, Hsieh, and Kuo (2012). In both cases, the models fit the data well. Evidence was found in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales used to measure the constructs in the models. With respect to reversal in particular, its AVEs were .71 (Study 1) and .74 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Chiu, Hung-Chang, Yi-Ching Hsieh, and Yi-Chu Kuo (2012), "How to Align your Brand Stories with Your Products," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 262–275.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

There is no climax / a climax in the story. The character in the story encounters no obstacles / encounters obstacles. The obstacles have been not overcome / overcome in the end of the story.

363

Risk (Product Scarcity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale measures a consumer's perceived likelihood that a certain product will not be available when he/she wants it. Four, six-point Likert-type items are used to measure the construct.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lamberton and Rose (2012) in Study 1 reported in their article. The source of the scale was not identified. The sample for Study 3 was described as being 369 licensed drivers in the U.S. who were recruited from an online panel. Being a licensed driver was relevant to the study because the focus was on investigating demand for a car-sharing system.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .88 (Lamberton and Rose 2012, p. 115).

VALIDITY: Lamberton and Rose (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity though they did state that all items in the study "loaded appropriately on their intended constructs" and correlations between constructs were equal to or less than .5 (p. 116).

REFERENCES: Lamberton, Cait Poynor and Randall L. Rose (2012), "When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems," Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 109–125.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. it. 3. 4.

There is a high likelihood that the _____ I want will not be available when I want it. There’s a risk that I will not be able to get the _____ that I want at the time I want to use It’s possible that when I want a _____, it won’t be available. A _____ will almost certainly be available for me whenever I want it. (r)

1. The name of the shared object should be placed in the blank.

364

Risk of Buying an Unfamiliar Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The likelihood of experiencing five different types of risk consequences with respect to an unfamiliar brand in a certain product category is measured with five, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) is composed of items drawn from work by Jacoby and Kaplan (1972). The latter created six items intended to measure five different types of risk. (The sixth item was an overall measure.) Further, they appear to have scored and analyzed the items separately. Chaudhuri (1998) may have been the first to use the items as a summated scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha of the scale used by Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) was .893.

VALIDITY: No evidence of the scale's validity was provided by Kushwaha and Shankar (2013). However, the article's web appendix provides the results of a factor analysis that indicates the five items had high loadings on the same factor.

COMMENTS: It is surprising that the factor analysis described by Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) showed the items loading well on the same factor because they focus on different types of risk. As discussed by Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) among others, it is quite possible for a person to perceive a high likelihood of experiencing one kind of risk while perceiving very little chance of experiencing another type. Care should be taken in using this scale until it is determined if it is more appropriate to measure multiple forms of risk with a formative scale or a reflective one.

REFERENCES: Chaudhuri, Arjun (1998), “Product Class Effects on Perceived Risk: The Role of Emotion,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (2), 157-68. Kushwaha, Tarun and Venkatesh Shankar (2013), "Are Multichannel Customers Really More Valuable? The Moderating Role of Product Category Characteristics," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 67-85. Jacoby, Jacob, and Leon B. Kaplan (1972), “The Components of Perceived Risk,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of Association for Consumer Research, M. Venkatesan, ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 382-93.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. What are the chances that there will be something wrong with an unfamiliar brand in this product category or that it will not work properly? 365

2. What are the chances that you stand to lose money if you try an unfamiliar brand in this product category, either because it won’t work at all, or because it costs more than it should to keep it in good shape? 3. What are the chances that an unfamiliar brand in this product category may not be safe; that is, it may be harmful or injurious to your health? 4. What are the chances that an unfamiliar brand in this product category will not fit in well with your self-image or self-concept or the way you think about yourself? 5. What are the chances an unfamiliar brand in this product category will affect the way others think of you?

1. The extreme anchors used with these items by Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) were Extremely low (1) and Extremely high (7).

366

Satisfaction with Shopping Websites SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's general satisfaction with shopping online is measured with four items. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to online shopping in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Rose et al. (2012) is a modification of a scale by Khalifa and Liu (2007). Data were gathered by Rose et al. (2012) using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .844 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .575.

REFERENCES: Khalifa, Mohamed and Vanessa Liu (2007), “Online Consumer Retention: Contingent Effects of Online Shopping Habit and Online Shopping Experience,” European Journal of Information Systems, 16 (6), 780–92. Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I am satisfied with my overall experiences of Internet shopping. 2. I am satisfied with the pre-purchase experience of Internet shopping websites (e.g., consumer education, product search, quality of information about products, product comparison). 3. I am satisfied with the purchase experience of Internet shopping websites (e.g., ordering, payment procedure). 4. I am satisfied with the post-purchase experience of Internet shopping websites (e.g., customer support and after sales support, handling of returns/refunds, delivery care). 1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

367

Satisfaction with the Medical Service SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a patient is pleased with the service provided by a physician and the medical facility during a specific visit is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Gallan et al. (2013) who drew some inspiration from work on satisfaction by Oliver (1993). While the measure could have been phrased as a general measure of patient satisfaction, Gallan et al. (2013) wanted the items to refer to a specific experience. In developing the measure, the authors reviewed the definitions of the construct, examined it qualitatively, and then refined the scale in a pilot study. Based on the results, one item was dropped leaving the three item scale for the main study. Analyses were based on 190 completed responses from patients treated at a large U.S. specialty medical clinic.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .903 and its composite reliability was .969 (Gallan et al. 2013, p. 347).

VALIDITY: Gallan et al. (2013) used CFA to examine the validity of patient satisfaction measure as well as several other scales. The model fit was acceptable except for its RMSEA which was higher than desired due to the high correlation between two scales (not patient satisfaction). Evidence was provided regarding the discriminant validity of all of the scales. The AVE for patient satisfaction was .755.

REFERENCES: Gallan, Andrew S., Cheryl Burke Jarvis, Stephen W. Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner (2013), "Customer Positivity and Participation in Services: An Empirical Test in a Health Care Context," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 338-356. Oliver, Richard L. (1993), “Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 418-430.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Overall, my doctor at _____ has been very helpful to me. I am pleased with the way I was treated at _____. I am very satisfied with my experience at _____.

1. The name of the hospital, clinic, or office where the service was provided should be placed in the blanks to make the measure specific.

368

Satisfaction with the Recovery Process SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's level of satisfaction with the way a company has resolved a problem is assessed with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) in four studies. The implication in the article was that Crosby and Stephens (1987) were the source of the scale. However, a comparison of the two scales shows very little overlap except at the conceptual level. It may be most accurate to say that Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) created the scale and were inspired in some way by the work of Crosby and Stephens (1987).

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities reported for the scale in the four studies in which it was used by Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) ranged from .93 to .97.

VALIDITY: For Studies 2 and 4, Roggeveen, Tsiros, and Grewal (2012) described the results of the CFAs that were conducted. In both cases, the models fit the data. Evidence was provided in support of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. Although AVEs for the individual scales were not stated, the AVEs for all of the scales were described as at least .70 in Study 2 and at least .80 in Study 4.

REFERENCES: Crosby, Lawrence A. and Nancy Stephens (1987), “Effects of Relationship Marketing on Satisfaction, Retention, and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (November), 404-411. Roggeveen, Anne L., Michael Tsiros, and Dhruv Grewal (2012), "Understanding the Co-creation Effect: When Does Collaborating with Customers Provide a Lift to Service Recovery?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 771-790.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I am satisfied with the way the company handled the situation. I feel favorably about how the company handled the situation. I liked how the company handled the situation.

369

Satisfaction with the Shopping Experience SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a customer enjoyed the experience of shopping at a particular store, website, mall, etc. is measured in this scale with three, five-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Van Ittersum et al. (2013) used the scale in Study 2 which gathered data from 194 members of a panel in the United States. Participants were given a shopping list and instructed to shop for the items in an experimental online grocery store that offered both national and store brands of a variety of products. The scale's source was not stated and is probably original to the authors though it bears some similarity to past measures, e.g., Bettencourt (1997); Bitner and Hubbert (1994).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .87 (Van Ittersum et al. 2013, p. 26).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Van Ittersum et al. (2013).

REFERENCES: Bettencourt, Lance A. (1997), “Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers as Partners in Service Delivery,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 383–406. Bitner, Mary Jo and Amy R. Hubbert (1994), “Encounter Satisfaction Versus Overall Satisfaction Versus Quality,” in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 72–94. Van Ittersum, Koert, Brian Wansink, Joost M.E. Pennings, and Daniel Sheehan (2013), "Smart Shopping Carts: How Real-Time Feedback Influences Spending," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 21-36.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I am satisfied with my shopping experience in the __________. I enjoyed shopping in the __________. Overall, I am satisfied with the __________ experience.

1. The blanks should be filled with a name or description of the place where the shopping occurred. Van Ittersum et al. (2013) used the phrase "online store." In item #3, the phrase was "online grocery store." The anchors used with the items were totally disagree (1) and totally agree (5).

370

Saving Money SCALE DESCRIPTION: The importance of saving money, particularly in helping one to feel more financially secure, is measured using five, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 4 by Briers and Laporte (2013) and called security meaning of money. Analyses were based on data collected from 163 students. The source of the scale is Rose and Orr (2007). They created the scale along with three others to measure four symbolic meanings (dimensions) of money: worry, status, achievement, and security. The authors conducted many tests that provided evidence in support of a correlated four-factor model and the psychometric qualities of the four scales. The internal consistencies reported for the security/saving scale in the studies they conducted ranged from .71 to .81. The stability of the scale (two week test-retest) was examined with 256 undergraduate students and found to be .85.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .69 when used by Briers and Laporte (2013, p. 776).

VALIDITY: Briers and Laporte (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Briers, Barbara and Sandra Laporte (2013), "A Wallet Full of Calories: The Effect of Financial Dissatisfaction on the Desire for Food Energy," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (6), 767781. Rose, Gregory M. and Linda M. Orr (2007), “Symbolic Money Meanings: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement,” Psychology & Marketing, 24 (9), 743–61.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Instructions: We are interested in how you value money. Just indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. 1. 2. 3. 4. the 5.

Saving money gives me a sense of security. It is very important to me to save money for the future. Financial planning for the future provides me a sense of security. I prefer to save money because I am never sure when things will collapse and I will need cash. It is very important to me to save enough to provide well for my family in the future.

1. Besides describing the response format as a seven-point agreement scale, the verbal anchors were not given. They were likely to have been the same or semantically similar to the ones used by Rose and Orr (2007): strongly disagree / strongly agree.

371

Self-Accountability SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person is motivated to live up to his/her standards in support of some issue or value is measured with three, seven-point questions. The scale is adaptable for use with reference to a variety of issues.

SCALE ORIGIN: Peloza, White, and Shang (2013) did not explicitly state the source of the scale but, it seems that they created it by drawing heavily on a similar scale used by Passyn and Mita Sujan (2006) with respect to preventing cancer. The scale was used by Peloza, White, and Shang (2013) in their Study 2 (n = 79) as well as its pretest (n = 50).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .78 and .79 for the Study 2 pretest and the main study, respectively (Peloza, White, and Shang 2013, pp. 107-108).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Peloza, White, and Shang (2013). However, in Study 2 as well as its pretest, the scale was used as a manipulation check. Since the manipulations were successful, that provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

COMMENTS: Although the topics participants were to focus on were different in Study 2 and its pretest, the items were almost exactly the same except for part of one item (as shown below). The similar internal consistencies in both uses supports the notion that the scale may be usable for contexts other than ethics and the environment. However, retesting is urged in order to confirm the scale's quality when situation-specific adaptations are made.

REFERENCES: Passyn, Kirsten and Mita Sujan (2006), “Self-Accountability Emotions and Fear Appeals: Motivating Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 583-589. Peloza, John, Katherine White, and Jingzhi Shang (2013), "Good and Guilt-Free: The Role of Self-Accountability in Influencing Preferences for Products with Ethical Attributes," Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 104-119.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How accountable are you __________?2 How strongly are you motivated to live up to your own self-standards? How accountable do you feel to your own self-standard?

372

1. The verbal anchors for the response scale were not described by Peloza, White, and Shang (2013). They may have been something like not at all / a lot. 2. In the pretest, Peloza, White, and Shang (2013) completed this question with the phrase "to behave in an ethical manner?" In the main study, they used the phrase "in protecting the environment?"

373

Self-Awareness (Private) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person focuses on his/her personal thoughts and feelings is measured with three statements. Given the way the statements are currently phrased, the scale is more a state than a trait measure.

SCALE ORIGIN: In Study 4 (n = 88 undergraduates) of the five reported by Wilcox and Stephen (2013), the Situational Self-Awareness Scale was used (Govern and Marsch 2001). The instrument has three subscales, one of which is a measure of private self-awareness. Some evidence was provided by Govern and Marsch (2001) of the subscales' unidimensionalities, internal consistencies, and aspects of their validities.

RELIABILITY: When used by Wilcox and Stephen (2013), the alpha for the private self-awareness scale was .81.

VALIDITY: Wilcox and Stephen (2013) did not provide information about the private self-awareness scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Given the way each of the items begin, they are more a state than a trait measure of the construct. However, by dropping that beginning phrase and possibly adding a word such as "usually" in the proper place then the scale can be more of a trait measure, e.g., I am usually conscious of my inner feelings. Of course, proper re-examination of the modified scale's psychometric properties is urged.

REFERENCES: Govern, John M. and Lisa A. Marsch (2001), “Development and Validation of the Situational Self-Awareness Scale,” Consciousness and Cognition, 10 (3), 366–78. Wilcox, Keith and Andrew T. Stephen (2013), "Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 90-103.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Right now, I am conscious of my inner feelings. Right now, I am reflective about my life. Right now, I am aware of my innermost thoughts.

1. Govern and Marsch (2001) used a Likert-type format with verbal anchors that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Wilcox and Stephen (2013) did not describe the response format they used with these items.

374

Self-Control (Spending) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer monitors his/her spending-related thoughts and regulates purchase decisions using self-imposed standards is measured using ten, seven-point Likerttype items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Haws, Bearden, and Nenkov (2012) and referred to as CSSC (consumer spending self-control). In an exceptionally thorough process, the authors generated an initial pool of items and then assessed their content validity. The surviving items were examined in Study 1a while the ones surviving that stage were examined in Study 1b. Ultimately, 10 of the original 66 items remained and were studied further in five other studies reported in the article.

RELIABILITY: In the six studies discussed by Haws, Bearden, and Nenkov (2012) in which the 10 item scale was used (1b, 1c, 2, 3, 4, and 5), the alphas ranged from .90 and .94. The scale was also used in four studies discussed by Bearden and Haws (2012) but reliability was only given for three of the studies: .91 (Study 1), .93 (Study 2), and .89 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Results of the CFAs that were conducted by Haws, Bearden, and Nenkov (2012) provided evidence of the scale's unidimensionality. Both Bearden and Haws (2012) as well as Haws, Bearden, and Nenkov (2012) provided several pieces of evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to a measure of general self-control (Tangney et al. 2004). Additionally, evidence was provided in the sets of studies reported in the two articles in support of the scale's nomological and predictive validities. The scale's AVE was .58 for Study 1c in Haws, Bearden, and Nenkov (2012) and .52 in Study 1 of Bearden and Haws (2012).

REFERENCES: Bearden, William O. and Kelly L. Haws (2012), "How Low Spending Control Harms Consumers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 181-193. Haws, Kelly L., William O. Bearden, and Gergana Y. Nenkov (2012), "Consumer Spending Selfcontrol Effectiveness and Outcome Elaboration Prompts," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 695–710. Tangney, June P., Roy F. Baumeister, and Angie Luzio Boone (2004), “High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success,” Journal of Personality, 72 (April), 271–322.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I closely monitor my spending behavior. I am able to work effectively toward long term financial goals. I carefully consider my needs before making purchases. 375

4. I often delay taking action until I have carefully considered the consequences of my purchase decisions. 5. When I go out with friends, I keep track of what I am spending. 6. I am able to resist temptation in order to achieve my budget goals. 7. I know my limits regarding how much I spend. 8. In social situations, I am generally aware of what I am spending. 9. Having objectives related to spending is important to me. 10. I am responsible when it comes to how much I spend.

376

Self-Efficacy (Following Nutritional Guidelines) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief that he/she has the ability to adhere to specific dietary guidelines is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Talukdar and Lindsey (2013, p. 133) stated that the scale as well as three others they used in Study 2b were "modified from Witte (1992)." However, that article is a theoretical piece; no multi-item scales were used to collect data. Given this, it is more accurate to describe the scales as having been created by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) with ideas for the items coming from the conceptual work by Witte (1992).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 (Talukdar and Lindsey 2013, p. 133).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013). They did comment that the self-efficacy scale had a correlation of .41 with a companion measure created to measure response efficacy. While we would expect these two constructs to be correlated, the concern is whether or not the two scales have discriminant validity with respect to each other. If these scales are used again together, this issue should be examined.

REFERENCES: Talukdar, Debabrata and Charles Lindsey (2013), "To Buy or Not to Buy: Consumers' Demand Response Patterns for Healthy Versus Unhealthy Food," Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 124-138. Witte, Kim (1992), “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model,” Communication Monographs, 59 (December), 329–34.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I am confident that I can adhere to the _____ nutritional guidelines for healthy eating. I can easily adhere to the _____ nutritional guidelines for healthy eating. I am able to adhere to the _____ nutritional guidelines for healthy eating.

1. The extreme anchors used with these items by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) were highly disagree (1) and highly agree (7). The name of the guidelines should be placed in the blanks, e.g., USDA.

377

Self-Efficacy (High) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items are used to measure the degree to which a person believes that he/she is capable of rectifying a particular problem and preventing it from re-occurring. The implication is that the person is responsible for causing the problem. The scale is called "high" to distinguish it from a companion measure in the study by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) that focused on "low" self-efficacy.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012). They appear to have created the scale after drawing ideas from work by Block and Keller (1995). The Study 2 sample was composed of 92 undergraduate students and they responded to the scale with respect to binge drinking.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .84 (Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han 2012).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Block, Lauren G. and Punam Anand Keller (1995), “When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Message Frame and Efficacy on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (May), 192–203. Duhachek, Adam, Nidhi Agrawal, and DaHee Han (2012), "Guilt Versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 928–941.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I am capable of fixing the negative situation due to __________. 2. If I tried to do something, I will be able to prevent such situations due to __________. 3. If I tried to do something, I will be able to repair the damage I caused due to __________. 1. The phrase used in the blanks by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) was "binge drinking." The scale items seem to be amenable for use with other problems one has caused. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) were not at all (1) and a great deal (7).

378

Self-Efficacy (Low) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items are used to measure the degree to which a person believes that he/she is not capable of rectifying a particular problem and preventing it from reoccurring. The implication is that the person is responsible for causing the problem. The scale is called "low" here to distinguish it from a companion measure in the study by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) that focused on "high" self-efficacy.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012). They appear to have created the scale after drawing ideas from work by Block and Keller (1995). The Study 2 sample was composed of 92 undergraduate students and they responded to the scale with respect to binge drinking.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 (Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han 2012).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) about the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Block, Lauren G. and Punam Anand Keller (1995), “When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Message Frame and Efficacy on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (May), 192–203. Duhachek, Adam, Nidhi Agrawal, and DaHee Han (2012), "Guilt Versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6), 928–941.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I am incapable of fixing the negative situation due to __________. 2. Even if I tried to do something, I will not be able to prevent such situations due to __________. 3. Even if I tried to do something, I will not be able to repair the damage I caused due to __________. 1. The phrase used in the blanks by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) was "binge drinking." The scale items seem to be amenable for use with other problems one has caused. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Duhachek, Agrawal, and Han (2012) were not at all (1) and a great deal (7).

379

Self-Efficacy (Participation) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief in his-/her capability to participate effectively is measured in this scale with four, five-point Likert-type statements. Although the statements are not specific to any particular activity or context, instructions could be used with the scale to make it more focused.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) was developed by them based on phrases and concepts in a scale by Riggs et al. (1994). The analyses involving the scale were based on data from 223 unique customer-employee dyads of a large multinational bank in Hong Hong. The survey instrument was initially prepared in English and was then translated into Chinese using the typical back-translation method. It was then pretested with people similar to those in the main study. No major changes were made.

RELIABILITY: Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .92 and the composite reliability was .94 (Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012, p. 136).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .79 and the analyses supported its unidimensionality.

COMMENTS: See the article by Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) for the version of this scale they made for use with employees.

REFERENCES: Riggs, Matt L., Jette Warka, Bernadette Babasa, Rence Betancourt, and Stephenie Hooker (1994), “Development and Validation of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Scales for JobRelated Applications,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (3), 793–802. Yim, Chi Kin (Bennett), Kimmy Wa Chan, and Simon S.K. Lam (2012), "Do Customers and Employees Enjoy Service Participation? Synergistic Effects of Self- and Other-Efficacy," Journal of Marketing, 76 (6), 121–140.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

have confidence in my ability to participate effectively. do not doubt my ability to participate effectively. have excellent participation skills and ability. am proud of my participation skills and ability. 380

Self-Efficacy (Recovery) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three, seven-point items, the scale measures a person's belief in being able to personally solve a problem that would otherwise require the company's help to fix. The scale items seem to be amenable for use with a variety of problems a customer might experience, e.g., with self-service technology, with a product, with a website.

SCALE ORIGIN: Drawing on the service recovery literature for ideas, the scale is original to Zhu et al. (2013). Given the context in which they used the scale, they called it customer-recovery expectancy. Using quota sampling, the authors collected complete data from 250 people in four shopping centers, each in different states. The sample was described as generally matching that of the U.S. population's demographic characteristics.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .71 (Zhu et al. 2013, p. 23).

VALIDITY: Zhu et al. (2013) used CFA with the four multi-item scales in their study. The analysis and tests provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities as well as their convergent and discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Zhu, Zhen, Cheryl Nakata, K. Sivakumar, and Dhruv Grewal (2013), "Fix It or Leave It? Customer Recovery from Self-service Technology Failures," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 15-29.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

If I try to fix it, I will solve the problem successfully without the company’s help. If I try to fix it, I will have control over fixing the problem. If I try to fix it, I will find a way to solve the problem.

1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale used with the items were not at all likely (1) and absolutely likely (7).

381

Self-Efficacy (Self-Service Checkout Technology) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A customer's belief that he/she has the ability to use the new self-service checkout technology at a particular store is measured with three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not identified. Beyond a general indication that they adapted it from previous research along with all of their other scales, the specific source of the items for this scale were not given. They referred to it as technology readiness though it seems to have more resemblance to measures of self-efficacy, particularly one by Meuter et al. (2005). White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used the scale in two studies with customers of a national (United States) grocery store chain. Study 1 (507 usable responses) was composed of users of the chain's self-service checkout while those in Study 2 (331 usable responses) were non-users of that technology. Prior to Study 1, the authors conducted a pretest with 209 users of the chain's checkout technology in order to purify the scales and refine them if need be.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale were .92 and .93 when used in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012, p. 255).

VALIDITY: White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of the scales in their two studies. In both cases, there was an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Further, evidence was provided of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs were .83 (Study 1) and .82 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Meuter, Matthew L., Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen W. Brown (2005), “Choosing Among Alternative Service Delivery Modes: An Investigation of Customer Trial of Self-Service Technologies,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 61-83. White, Allyn, Michael Breazeale, and Joel E. Collier (2012), "The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250–261.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. If I wanted to, I believe I have the ability to complete a transaction using a self-service checkout method. 2. I am confident I could use the self-service checkout method at __________.2 3. I believe I have the skills needed to complete a transaction using a self-service checkout method. 1. The response format used with these items by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not described. It appears to have been a seven-point Likert-type scale, probably with extreme verbal anchors such as strongly disagree and strongly agree. 2. The name of the store should be placed in the blank.

382

Self-Image Congruence with the Event SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person expresses his/her identity by watching a particular event is measured with three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Mazodier and Merunka (2012) in their study of sports sponsorship. They created the scale, drawing phrases and concepts from work by Sirgy and colleagues, e.g., 1997, 2008. The focal event was the 2008 Olympics and the participants in the study appear to have mainly been French. The analyses were based on the usable responses received from 449 people.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported by Mazodier and Merunka (2012) for the scale was .94.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Mazodier and Merunka (2012) provided evidence in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of this scale as well as the others they used in their study. The AVE for this scale was .66.

REFERENCES: Mazodier, Marc and Dwight Merunka (2012), "Achieving Brand Loyalty Through Sponsorship: The Role of Fit and Self-Congruity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 807820. Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-ok Park, Kye-Sung Chon, C.B. Claiborne, J.S. Johar, and Harold Berkman (1997), “Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (Summer), 229–41. Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dong-Jin Lee, J.S. Johar, and John Tidwell (2008), "Effect of Self-Congruity with Sponsorship on Brand Loyalty," Journal of Business Research, 61 (10), 1091-1097.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I feel like I am part of the _____ family. People who watch the _____ are very different from me. Watching the _____ reflects who I am.

1. The name of the focal event should be placed in the blanks.

383

Self-Integration in Production SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three items are used to measure the extent to which a person believes his/her identity has been put into something he/she is creating or helping to produce.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Troye and Supphellen (2012, p. 42) was described as being taken from the "possession integration in the extended-self scale" by Sivadas and Machleit (1994).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .81 (Troye and Supphellen 2012, p. 42).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Troye and Supphellen (2012).

REFERENCES: Sivadas, Eugene and Karen A. Machleit (1994), “A Scale to Determine the Extent of Object Incorporation in the Extended Self,” in Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 5, C. Whan Park and Daniel C. Smith, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Troye, Sigurd Villads and Magne Supphellen (2012), "Consumer Participation in Coproduction: 'I Made It Myself' Effects on Consumers' Sensory Perceptions and Evaluations of Outcome and Input Product," Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 33-46.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I put a lot of myself into the task. I felt creative when __________.2 I put my signature on the outcome.

1. The response scale used by Troye and Supphellen (2012) with these items was not described. It appears to have been a seven point, Likert-type response format with anchors such as strongly disagree/strongly agree. 2. The object being created or the task being produced should be stated in the blank, e.g., preparing the food.

384

Self-View SCALE DESCRIPTION: The three item, seven-point semantic differential scale is intended to measure how one feels, positively or negatively, about him- or her-self.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not stated by De Angelis et al. (2012), thus, it is assumed to have been created by them. The scale was used by the authors in a pretest (n= 69 college students) before Experiment 1.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .94 (De Angelis et al. 2012, p. 554).

VALIDITY: De Angelis et al. (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, because it was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was found to be successful, that provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

COMMENTS: The construct being measured by the scale was not clearly described by De Angelis et al. (2012) but seems to be similar if not the same as self-esteem. At the very least, the essence of the items is similar to that found in popular measures of self-esteem that have been used in consumer research (e.g., Eagly 1967; Rosenberg 1965).

REFERENCES: De Angelis, Matteo, Andrea Bonezzi, Alessandro M. Peluso, Derek D. Rucker, and Michele Costabile (2012), "On Braggarts and Gossips: A Self-Enhancement Account of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmission," Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (4), 551-563. Eagly, Alice H. (1967), “Involvement As a Determinant of Responses to Favorable and Unfavorable Information,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (November), 1-15. Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

unsatisfied with yourself / satisfied with yourself not proud of yourself / proud of yourself bad about yourself / good about yourself unsuccessful / successful not confident about yourself / confident about yourself worthless / a person of worth

385

1. The instructions used with these items by De Angelis et al. (2012) were not described. Perhaps they merely asked respondents to use the items to indicate how they felt about themselves.

386

Self-View SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, ten point, semantic differentials are used to measure how positively or negatively a person feels about him- or her-self.

SCALE ORIGIN: Although few details were provided, the scale appears to have been created by Shalev and Morwitz (2012). They referred to the scale as "self-affect" and picked items for it that they believed would "tap into a well-defined set of emotions that are most likely to arise from an unfavorable comparison" (p. 969). The scale was used by the authors in Study 2 (n = 77 members of an online panel).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .90 (Shalev and Morwitz 2012, p. 969).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Shalev and Morwitz (2012).

REFERENCES: Shalev, Edith and Vicki G. Morwitz (2012), "Influence via Comparison-Driven Self-Evaluation and Restoration: The Case of the Low-Status Influencer," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 964-980.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3, 4.

bad about myself / good about myself not at all confident / very confident inferior to others / superior to others distressed / content

1. The scale stem or instructions used with these items by Shalev and Morwitz (2012) was not stated. It likely that they asked respondents to use the items to indicate how they felt about themselves.

387

Sharing (Social Utility) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, six-point Likert-type items to measure the belief a person has that involvement in a product sharing system would be approved by his/her reference groups.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lamberton and Rose (2012) in Study 1 reported in their article. The source of the scale was not identified. It was probably created by them with some inspiration coming from a one-item measure used by Hennig-Thurau, Henning, and Sattler (2007). The sample for Study 1 was described as being 369 licensed drivers in the U.S. who were recruited from an online panel. Being a licensed driver was relevant to the study because the focus was on a car-sharing system.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .83 (Lamberton and Rose 2012, p. 115).

VALIDITY: Lamberton and Rose (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity though they did state that all items in the study "loaded appropriately on their intended constructs" and correlations between constructs were equal to or less than .5 (p. 116).

REFERENCES: Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Victor Henning, and Henrik Sattler (2007), “Consumer File Sharing of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (October), 1–18. Lamberton, Cait Poynor and Randall L. Rose (2012), "When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems," Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 109–125.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

Sharing a _____ allows me to be part of a group of like-minded people.1 My friends would approve of the sharing option. My family would approve of the sharing option.

1. The name of the shared object should be placed in the blank.

388

Shopping Control When With Others SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's desire to control interactions with others and influence them when shopping is measured using five, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Baker and Wakefield (2012) with some inspiration coming from the dominance construct and its measurement by Mehrabian and Russell (1974). Data were gathered from a diverse national (U.S.) sample of 300 adults.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .829 (Baker and Wakefield 2012, p. 799).

VALIDITY: Evidence of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to all of the other constructs in their study was provided by Baker and Wakefield (2012). Additionally, the high loadings of the items on the same factor, low loadings on other factors, and the acceptable AVE (.604) provide some evidence of the scale's convergent validity.

COMMENTS: Although it is not completely clear in the scale itself, the implication is that the control is over the "others" with whom one is shopping rather than other customers (strangers) or retail employees. Instructions could be used to make the point clear to respondents.

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie and Kirk L. Wakefield (2012), "How Consumer Shopping Orientation Influences Perceived Crowding, Excitement, and Stress at the Mall," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 791-806. Mehrabian, Albert and James A. Russell (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

SCALE ITEMS:1 When I shop with others: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I I I I I

like like like like like

to to to to to

be in charge. influence what we do. dominate. be in control. be autonomous.

1. The extreme verbal anchors on the response scale were not described but were likely to have been the typical Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

389

Shopping Intention SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's expressed likelihood of shopping at a particular store in the future is measured with three, five-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Pizzi and Scarpi (2013) by drawing ideas and phrases from previous measures, especially Blodgett, Hill, and Tax (1997). The authors called the measure repatronage intention but a close examination of the items shows that they do not indicate that the participant has shopped at the store in the past but merely that the person intends to shop there in the future.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale by Pizzi and Scarpi (2013) was .89.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not examined by Pizzi and Scarpi (2013). They did, however, perform a factor analysis of the items in this scale along with those intended to measure another construct (decision satisfaction). The two sets of items loaded well on their intended factors.

REFERENCES: Blodgett, Jeffrey G., Donna J. Hill, and Stephen S. Tax (1997), “The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice on Postcomplaint Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (2), 185–210. Pizzi, Gabriele and Daniele Scarpi (2013), "When Out-of-Stock Products DO Backfire: Managing Disclosure Time and Justification Wording," Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 352-359.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How likely is it that you would shop at this _____ in the future?2 The next time I need a _____ I would look at this retailer for it.3 I would definitely consider this retailer for future purchases.

1. The extreme verbal anchors for these items were not stated by Pizzi and Scarpi (2013). Those for #1 may have been not likely at all/very likely whereas they were probably something like strongly disagree/strongly agree for the other two items. 2. Pizzi and Scarpi (2013) had the word "website" in the blank. If the scale is used with respect to a brick-and-mortar store then putting the word "retailer" in the blank would be appropriate since it is used in items #2 and #3 as well.

390

Shopping Intimacy SCALE DESCRIPTION: The importance a consumer places on having friends or family available when shopping to discuss, listen, and offer support in the purchase decision process is measured with six, sevenpoint items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Baker and Wakefield (2012) after a review of the relevant literature in social psychology, particularly Levy-Tossman, Kaplan, and Assor (2007). Data were gathered from a diverse national (U.S.) sample of 300 adults.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .931 (Baker and Wakefield 2012, p. 799).

VALIDITY: Evidence of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to all of the other constructs in their study was provided by Baker and Wakefield (2012). Additionally, the high loadings of the items on the same factor, low loadings on other factors, and the good AVE (.745) provide some evidence of the scale's convergent validity.

COMMENTS: Although it is not completely clear in the scale itself, the implication is that the respondent is to think about shopping with others when answering the questions. Instructions should be used to make the point clear to respondents.

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie and Kirk L. Wakefield (2012), "How Consumer Shopping Orientation Influences Perceived Crowding, Excitement, and Stress at the Mall," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 791-806. Levy-Tossman, Inbal, Avi Kaplan, and Avi Assor (2007), "Academic Goal Orientations, Multiple Goal Profiles, and Friendship Intimacy Among Early Adolescents," Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (2), 231-252. Wakefield, Kirk (2014), personal correspondence.

SCALE ITEMS:1 When or while you shop, how important is it to you: 1. To listen to what friends or family say as they discuss each purchase? 2. That friends or family listen to your feelings about what you buy? 3. To be able to talk through decisions about products, brands or stores with friends or family? 4. That friends or family are supportive of what you buy or where you want to shop? 391

5. That friends or family are there to offer their opinions about what you’re thinking about buying? 6. That friends or family care what you think about products, brands, or stores?

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were Not important / Very important (Wakefield 2014).

392

Shopping Orientation (Price vs. Quality) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using nine, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a consumer's tendency to place greater importance on low prices rather than high quality when shopping, particularly with respect to groceries.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo (2013) in a study of grocery shopping behavior in the Netherlands. The language in which the scale was presented to participants was not stated nor was the source of the scale. It is assumed that the authors created the scale to some extent by borrowing phrases from past measures, e.g., Urbany, Dickson, and Kalapurakal (1996).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .812 (Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo 2013, p. 612).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo (2013).

COMMENTS: Based on a close reading of the items (below), some of them express the opposite of the others. Reverse-scoring was not noted by Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo (2013). The notations provided here are assumptions. Caution is urged in using the scale until factor analysis and other tests can be conducted to determine each item's directionality as well as the overall scale's unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Urbany, Joel E., Peter R. Dickson, and Rosemary Kalapurakal (1996), “Price Search in the Retail Grocery Market,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 91-104. Vroegrijk, Mark, Els Gijsbrechts, and Katia Campo (2013), "Close Encounter with the Hard Discounter: A Multiple-Store Shopping Perspective on the Impact of Local Hard-Discounter Entry," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (5), 606-626.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I am willing to pay a higher price for products of good quality. (r) Price is the deciding factor when I buy a product. Price plays an important role in my choice of products. I usually strive for the lowest possible price. My household budget is always tight. When buying groceries, I actually do not pay much attention to price. (r) I sometimes save on groceries by settling for a lower quality. 393

8. 9.

For groceries, quality is more important than price. (r) From a financial perspective, it is often difficult for me to make ends meet.

1. The anchors used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5). Also, as noted above in the Comments section, the indication of reverse-scoring is an educated guess.

394

Shopping Orientation (Task Completion) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's focus on utilitarian reasons for shopping rather than hedonic is measured with six, seven-point items. The focus of the measure is on completing the shopping task rather than the pleasure derived from engaging in the shopping process itself.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Baker and Wakefield (2012). They adapted some items from a much longer scale by Ray (1993) which measured the tendency of a person to be task-oriented across a variety of situations. Apparently, Baker and Wakefield (2012) used a pretest to help determine which items of Ray's scale would be adapted for use in the main study. Data in Baker and Wakefield's (2012) main study were gathered from a diverse national (U.S.) sample of 300 adults.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .852 (Baker and Wakefield 2012, p. 799).

VALIDITY: Evidence of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to all of the other constructs in their study was provided by Baker and Wakefield (2012). Additionally, the high loadings of the items on the same factor, low loadings on other factors, and the acceptable AVE (.579) provide some evidence of the scale's convergent validity.

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie and Kirk L. Wakefield (2012), "How Consumer Shopping Orientation Influences Perceived Crowding, Excitement, and Stress at the Mall," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 791-806. Ray, John J. (1973), "Task Orientation and Interaction Orientation Scales," Personnel Psychology, 26 (1), 61-73.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The first task of shopping for me is to get done. 2. You should concentrate on getting the shopping done rather than looking around at whatever else catches your fancy. 3. I am happiest when I get done shopping. 4. What gets done is more important than how pleasantly it gets done when you shop. 5. My primary aim in shopping is to complete the trip as planned. 6. The best people to shop with are people who help you get done.

1. The extreme verbal anchors on the response scale were not described but were likely to have been the typical Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

395

Similarity to Another Person SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person believes him-/herself to be the same as another person in multiple ways is measured with three, eight-point items. Given the way the items are phrased, the other person is someone with whom the rater already has some form of relationship, e.g., neighbor,` co-worker, physician.

SCALE ORIGIN: Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) used the scale in Experiments 1 and 2, referring to it as relational similarity. The authors adapted items from those used by Turban and Jones (1998) in an organizational context. The scale was used by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) as a measure of one of three types of social relationship quality.

RELIABILITY: Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) reported the scale's alpha to be .909 and .913 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012) to examine the adequacy of the three scales as measures of the proposed dimensions of social relationship quality. Beyond confirming that there were three dimensions, no information was provided by the authors bearing on the scales' validities.

REFERENCES: Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, André Marchand, and Paul Marx (2012), "Can Automated Group Recommender Systems Help Consumers Make Better Choices?" Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 89–109. Turban, Daniel B. and Allan P. Jones (1988), "Supervisor-Subordinate Similarity: Types, Effects, and Mechanisms," Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 228-234.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

My __________ and I are similar in terms of our outlook, perspective, and values. My __________ and I see things in much the same way. My __________ and I are alike in a number of areas.

1. The type of response scale used with these items was not described by Hennig-Thurau, Marchand, and Marx (2012). Most likely, it was a Likert-type scale. Further, an appropriate role-related descriptor for the other person should be placed in the blanks, e.g., neighbor, co-worker, physician.

396

Similarity to Other Customers SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a customer feels that he/she is similar to and identifies with other customers in a particular service environment is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: In an excellent set of studies, the similarity scale and two companion measures were created and validated by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012). They referred to the set of scales as OCP (other customer perceptions) and expected it to have the properties of a reflective, first order (three factors) and formative second order model. Prior to the quantitative studies, 61 items were generated for measuring the three factors and they went through two rounds of content validation with expert judges. After that, 24 items remained and were purified in Study 1, leaving 14 items for Study 2 in which the validation process led to the removal of one more item. Study 3 examined nomological validity then temporal stability was tested in Study 4.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistencies reported by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012) for the similarity scale were .89 (construct reliability) in Study 2, .92 (construct reliability for younger sample) and .90 (construct reliability for older sample) in Study 3, and .95 (Cronbach's alpha) in Study 4. The temporal stability of the scale was measured in Study 4 by re-contacting Study 3 participants. Based on 88 respondents, the one month test-retest correlation was .72.

VALIDITY: Beyond the content validation that occurred before the quantitative studies, considerable evidence was provided by Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker (2012) in support of the similarity scale's convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. The AVEs for the scale were .61, .69, and .65 for Study 2, the younger sample in Study 3, and the older sample in Study 3, respectively.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Clay M. Voorhees, and Julie Baker (2012), "Understanding the Influence of Cues from Other Customers in the Service Experience: A Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Retailing, 88 (3), 384–398.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I could identify with the other patrons in the facility. I am similar to the other patrons in the facility. The other patrons are like me. The other patrons come from a similar background to myself. I fit right in with the other patrons.

397

Similarity to the Ad Creator SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person, such as a viewer or consumer, believes that he/she is similar to the person who created a particular ad is measured using three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Thompson and Malaviya (2013; Thompson 2014) created the scale for use in Study 3. The sample was composed of 123 undergraduate students from a private U.S. university.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 (Thompson and Malaviya 2013, p. 42).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Thompson and Malaviya (2013).

REFERENCES: Thompson, Debora V. (2014), personal correspondence. Thompson, Debora V. and Prashant Malaviya (2013), "Consumer-Generated Ads: Does Awareness of Advertising Co-Creation Help or Hurt Persuasion?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 33-47.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How similar do you think you are to the person that created this ad? very dissimilar / very similar 2. To what extent do you think you have similar preferences as the person who created this ad? not at all / very much 3. To what extent do you feel a common bond with the person that created this ad? not at all / very much

1. As clarified by Thompson (2014), the response scale she and her co-author used with these items had seven points.

398

Skepticism of Retailer’s Advertised Prices SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items are used to measure a shopper's belief that a particular retailer advertises sales prices in order to attract customers even though the prices have not been discounted much.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 5 by Biswas et al. (2013). It is an adaptation of a measure used by Dutta in one or more studies, e.g., (Dutta 2012). Data for the study by Biswas et al. (2013) were gathered from 228 undergraduates from two public universities in the United States.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .92 (Biswas et al. 2013, p. 64).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Biswas et al. (2013) regarding the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Biswas, Abhijit, Sandeep Bhowmick, Abhijit Guha, and Dhruv Grewal (2013), "Consumer Evaluations of Sale Prices: Role of the Subtraction Principle," Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 4966. Dutta, Sujay (2012), "Vulnerability to Low-Price Signals: An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Genuine and Deceptive Signals," Journal of Retailing, 88 (1), 156-167.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The retailer advertises sale prices to attract consumers despite knowing that the sale prices are not very attractive. 2. The retailer uses its sale prices as a trick to attract people. 3. I feel that the retailer is trying to take advantage of the value people place on merely seeing sale prices.

1. The extreme verbal anchors that Biswas et al. (2013) used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

399

Skepticism of the Low-Price Guarantee SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that a store uses low-price guarantees to attract customers even though it does not have the lowest prices in the market area is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Dutta (2012) used the scale in Study 1B (n = 215 undergraduate students) but did not identify the source. It may have been original since it draws on concepts found in scales he used in previous studies (e.g., Biswas, Dutta, and Pullig 2006; Dutta, Biswas, and Grewal 2007).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was described by Dutta (2012, p. 162) as being higher than .90 (Study 1B).

VALIDITY: Dutta (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Biswas, Abhijit, Sujay Dutta, and Chris Pullig (2006), “Low Price Guarantees as Signals of Lowest Price: The Moderating Role of Perceived Price Dispersion,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (3), 245-257. Dutta, Sujay (2012), "Vulnerability to Low-Price Signals: An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Genuine and Deceptive Signals," Journal of Retailing, 88 (1), 156-167. Dutta, Sujay, Abhijit Biswas, and Dhruv Grewal (2007), “Low Price Signal Default: An Empirical Investigation of its Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 7688.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. __________ offers a low-price guarantee despite knowing that their prices are not the lowest in the market. 2. __________ cares more about attracting people to its store than about providing the lowest market prices. 3. __________ uses its low-price guarantee as a trick to attract people to the store.

1. The name of the focal store should be placed in the blanks.

400

Skepticism Toward the Price Information in the Ad SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's doubt that the regular price of a product was stated truthfully in an advertisement is measured with three, seven point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Krishnan, Dutta, and Jha (2013). It was used in Studies 2 (n = 84) and 3 (n = 72). In both cases, the participants were described as undergraduate business students at a university in the "mid-south." It is assumed that refers to the United States.

RELIABILITY: Krishnan, Dutta, and Jha (2013) reported the alphas for the scale to be .89 and .85 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Krishnan, Dutta, and Jha (2013).

REFERENCES: Krishnan, Balaji C., Sujay Dutta, and Subhash Jha (2013), "Effectiveness of Exaggerated Advertised Reference Prices: The Role of Decision Time Pressure," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 105-113.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I do not believe that the regular price provided is truthful. I am skeptical that I will save as much as the advertisement says. The regular price used in the ad is believable.

401

Social Media Usage SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has ten, seven-point items intended to measure the degree to which a person uses social media to monitor and stay current with brands, retailers, and consumers of products in a certain product category.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Rapp et al. (2013). Feedback from retail store managers and business-to-business sales people was used to generate items which were then refined further in discussions with fellow scholars. While the items were kept reasonably broad, the authors realized that they might have to be modified when used by other researchers in order to be more relevant for their studies. Rapp et al. (2013) reported use of the scale in two studies. The sample for Study 1 was merely described as 97 consumers and the one for Study 2 was 445 subscribers to a magazine related to a particular product category. Both studies also gathered data from supplier salespeople and retail managers related to the retail category. (The category was not clearly identified but appears to have been athletic footwear.)

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated for the scale was reported as .96 in both Studies 1 and 2 (Rapp et al. 2013).

VALIDITY: With data from Study 1, Rapp et al. (2013) conducted analyses that provided evidence in support of the scale's discriminant and nomological validities. The scale's AVE was not specified but was described along with all of the other scales used in the study as being greater than .50.

COMMENTS: Rapp et al. (2013) also created and refined a scale similar to the one shown below for use by retailers as well as one for use by suppliers.

REFERENCES: Rapp, Adam, Lauren Beitelspacher, Dhruv Grewal, and Douglas Hughes (2013), "Understanding Social Media Effects Across Seller, Retailer, And Consumer Interactions," Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 547-566.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

My relationship with the __________ is enhanced by social media.2 I use social media to monitor other __________ in the community.3 I use social media to follow sales and promotions. I use social media to monitor events. 402

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. 2. 3. 4.

People use social media to reach me. I use social media to improve my relationship with different brands. I use social media to keep current on events and trends in __________.4 I use social media to communicate with retailers. I use social media to improve my relationship with retailers. My relationship with my retail store is enhanced by social media.

The extreme verbal anchors used by Rapp et al. (2013) with these items were never / very often. Insert the name of the focal brand or store. Insert a word that refers to other consumers of the focal product category, e.g., runners, hunters, musicians. Insert a word that refers to the context in which the products are used, e.g., the sport, the fashion world, video gaming.

403

Social Status Insecurity SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person believes that others view him/her as socially inferior is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Wu (2001) but not apparently reported in published research until later by some colleagues (Wyatt, Gelb, and Geiger-Oneto 2008). The scale's reliability in that study was .74 (n = 534). As reported below, a couple of the authors of that study performed another study using the scale (Geiger-Oneto et al. 2013). That study was based on data collected from 204 people who had been recruited at an international airport and a parking lot in the same city.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency (composite reliability) of the scale in the study by Geiger-Oneto et al. (2013) was .75.

VALIDITY: Geiger-Oneto et al. (2013) used CFA to examine their multi-item scales. Indeed, the results showed that the model fit the data well and the scales, including the one measuring status insecurity, had discriminant validity with respect to each other.

REFERENCES: Geiger-Oneto, Stephanie, Betsy D. Gelb, Doug Walker, and James D. Hess (2013), "'Buying Status' by Choosing or Rejecting Luxury Brands and Their Counterfeits," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 357-372. Wu, June (2001), The Impact of Status Insecurity on Credit Card Spending, working paper, University of Houston. Wyatt, Rosalind J., Betsy D. Gelb, and Stephanie Geiger-Oneto (2008), "How Advertising Reinforces Minority Consumers’ Preference for National Brands," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 30 (1), 61–70.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

People are biased against me sometimes. Sometimes I have to work very hard just to prove that I am just as good as anyone else. Sometimes others view me as second class.

404

Sophistication (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which something or someone is viewed as stylish and trendy is measured in this scale with three, nine-point, semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Shalev and Morwitz (2012) in Study 4 (n = 166 undergraduate students) but the origin and development of the scale was not described. As mentioned in the article's online Appendix C, a different version of the measure was used in the pretest for Study 1 and it had much better reliability. Given that, it is not clear why this less reliable version was used in Study 4.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .70 (Shalev and Morwitz 2012, p. 969).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Shalev and Morwitz (2012).

COMMENTS: Although Shalev and Morwitz (2012) used the scale with reference to the typical wearer of a brand of clothing, the items seem be amenable for use when describing other people and objects though, retesting is advised.

REFERENCES: Shalev, Edith and Vicki G. Morwitz (2012), "Influence via Comparison-Driven Self-Evaluation and Restoration: The Case of the Low-Status Influencer," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 964-980.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

not sophisticated / sophisticated not stylish / stylish not trendy / trendy

405

Spending Control Failure (Psychological Consequences) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of stress and guilt a consumer feels about poor management of his/her money is measured using four items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Bearden and Haws (2012) but the source was not stated. It appears to have been developed by them for use in Study 1 of the four discussed in the article.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 (Bearden and Haws 2012).

VALIDITY: Bearden and Haws (2012) did not directly address the scale's validity. However, some evidence in support of the scale's nomological validity comes from information they provided that showed the scale was negatively related to two measures of self-control, one of them a general measure and the other focusing on consumer spending.

REFERENCES: Bearden, William O. and Kelly L. Haws (2012), "How Low Spending Control Harms Consumers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 181-193.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

My life would be less stressful if I managed my spending better. I sometimes feel ashamed about how I spend money. I often feel guilty about the way I choose to allocate my financial resources. I add stress to my life because of the way I spend my money.

1. The response scale used with these statements was not described by Bearden and Haws (2012) but it appears to have been a Likert-type with seven-points.

406

Store Attributes Beliefs SCALE DESCRIPTION: Five, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a consumer's beliefs about the degree to which a store has positive attributes such as product variety, fair prices, and good service.

SCALE ORIGIN: Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013) used the scale in a cross-sectional study (Study 1) with a final sample of 5,600 people from 30 cities in which a corporation had stores of the same name. Although not explicitly stated, the data collection appears to have been in Germany. The authors developed the scale by borrowing items from multiple scales used by Chowdhury, Reardon, and Srivastava (1998).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .856 in the study by Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013).

VALIDITY: A tremendous amount of effort was expended by Swoboda, Berg, and Schramm-Klein (2013) to examining the validity of the measures they used. The fit of the measurement model was satisfactory and evidence was provided of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the store attributes scale, its AVE was .550.

COMMENTS: Despite the satisfactory alpha reported for the scale and the good performance in the EFA and CFA, there is no doubt that the items were taken from scales used to measure five different constructs that were shown to be distinct (Chowdhury, Reardon, and Srivastava 1998). Care should be taken in using the scale to test theory until the robustness of its unidimensionality and discriminant validity are confirmed.

REFERENCES: Chowdhury, Jhinuk, James Reardon and Rajesh Srivastava (1998), “Alternative Modes of Measuring Store Image: An Empirical Assessment of Structured Versus Unstructured Measures,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6 (2), 72–86. Swoboda, Bernhard, Bettina Berg, and Hanna Schramm-Klein (2013), "Reciprocal Effects of the Corporate Reputation and Store Equity of Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 89 (4), 447-459.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

_____ has a large variety of products. The prices at _____ are fair. The service at _____ is excellent. _____ is appealing. _____ is convenient. 407

1. The name of the focal store should be placed in the blanks.

408

Store's Price-related Image SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, seven-point Likert-type items, this scale measures a consumer's belief that products purchased at a certain store are cheaper than found at other stores, particularly for those products that are advertised.

SCALE ORIGIN: Puccinelli et al. (2013) used the scale in Studies 1a, 1b, 2 (pre- and post-treatment), and 3. As for the scale's source, the implication was that it was Grewal et al. (1998). However, examination of the latter does not reveal any scale like the one described by Puccinelli et al. (2013). Given that, the scale was probably created by Puccinelli et al. (2013) and they received some inspiration for their scale items from the work by Grewal et al. (1998).

RELIABILITY: Among the several occasions in which Puccinelli et al. (2013) used the scale, the alphas ranged from .67 to .76.

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale's validity was provided by Puccinelli et al. (2013).

REFERENCES: Grewal, Dhruv, R. Krishnan, Julie Baker and Norm Borin (1998), “The Effect of Store Name Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers’ Evaluations and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (3), 331–52. Puccinelli, Nancy M., Rajesh Chandrashekaran, Dhruv Grewal, and Rajneesh Suri (2013), "Are Men Seduced by Red? The Effect of Red Versus Black Prices on Price Perceptions," Journal of Retailing, 89 (2), 115–125.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I would be saving a lot of money if I made my purchases at this store. This store is selling the advertised products at a considerable discount. If I looked around, I could probably find similar products selling at a lower price. (r)

409

Stressfulness (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three, nine-point uni-polar terms to measure how much a person feels under pressure and worried about something. The scale is "general" in the sense that the three items composing the scale are not specific to any particular object or event and can be paired with properly written instructions for any number of contexts.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Zhang and Li (2012) in Experiment 5 (n = 246). The participants in the experiment were undergraduate students at an Asian university. The source of the scale was not identified nor was the language in which the scale was presented to participants.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .87 (Zhang and Li 2012, p. 1072).

VALIDITY: Zhang and Li (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Zhang, Meng and Xiuping Li (2012), "From Physical Weight to Psychological Significance: The Contribution of Semantic Activations," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1063-1075.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

stressful worried pressured

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Zhang and Li (2012) were not at all (1) and very (9). Instructions should be written that ask respondents to use the items to indicate how stressed they feel about something.

410

Substitutability of a Shared vs. Owned Product SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, six-point Likert-type items measure a person's belief that a product that is shared with others is just as good as one that is personally owned.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lamberton and Rose (2012) in Study 1 reported in their article. The source of the scale was not identified. It was probably created by them with some inspiration coming from a scale used by Hennig-Thurau, Henning, and Sattler (2007). The sample for Study 1 was described as being 369 licensed drivers in the U.S. who were recruited from an online panel. Being a licensed driver was relevant to the study because the focus was on a car-sharing system.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .83 (Lamberton and Rose 2012, p. 115).

VALIDITY: Lamberton and Rose (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity though they did state that all items in the study "loaded appropriately on their intended constructs" and correlations between constructs were equal to or less than .5 (p. 116).

REFERENCES: Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Victor Henning, and Henrik Sattler (2007), “Consumer File Sharing of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (October), 1–18. Lamberton, Cait Poynor and Randall L. Rose (2012), "When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems," Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 109–125.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I believe a shared _____ substitutes quite well for a personally owned _____. Sharing a _____ is just as good as owning one. There is no substitute for owning my own _____. (r)

1. The name of the shared object should be placed in the blanks.

411

Superiority (Social) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's feeling of superiority over someone else in particular because of something the former (the respondent) has received is measured with three statements.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) in Study 4. The sample was recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and there were 172 participants in the online study. The source of the scale was not stated and it is assumed that the authors created it.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) was .88.

VALIDITY: Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Jiang, Lan, JoAndrea Hoegg, and Darren W. Dahl (2013), "Consumer Reaction to Unearned Preferential Treatment," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 412-427.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I feel superior getting a __________ ____.2 I feel a sense of winning. I enjoy the bonus of making an impression on ____.3

1. The number of points and the verbal anchors used by Jiang, Hoegg, and Dahl (2013) with the response scale were not specified. Depending upon the instructions used with the items, the extreme anchors could have been something like strongly disagree/strongly agree or not at all/very much. 2. The first (longer) blank should be filled with a phrase describing something specific that the respondent received that makes him/her feel superior to the person named in the second (shorter) blank, e.g., I feel superior getting a table in the restaurant before John. 3. The name of someone in particular whom the respondent feels superior to should be stated in the blank.

412

Support for Customers SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that an organization values him/her personally is measured in this scale with four, seven-point Likert-type items. The phrasing of the items can be tailored for a specific organization and a specific role a person plays with the organization, e.g., shopper, employee, volunteer.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Fombelle et al. (2012) was created by adapting some items from the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) by Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990). Unique to the study of Fombelle et al. (2012), participants filled out the four scale items three times, once for each of three top consumer "identities" they had with an organization, e.g., shopper, teacher, parent. (Sixteen possible identities were identified in a pre-test.) Then, an overall scale score was calculated in a multi-step process (Fombelle 2013). The three scores for item 1 were multiplied. Likewise, the same was done for the other three items. Then, the products of those four multiplications were added as they would be in a normal summated scale. This approach was taken to account for the individual strength of each identity.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was reported as .97 by Fombelle et al. (2012). Keep in mind that the alpha value was affected to some extent by the four scale items being completed three times.

VALIDITY: The CFA conducted by Fombelle et al. (2012) showed that their hypothesized model fit the data well. With respect to the support scale, the AVE was .90.

REFERENCES: Eisenberger, Robert, Peter Fasolo, and Valerie Davis-LaMastro (1990), "Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (1), 51–59. Fombelle, Paul W. (2013), personal correspondence. Fombelle, Paul W., Cheryl Burke Jarvis, James Ward, and Lonnie Ostrom (2012), "Leveraging Customers’ Multiple Identities: Identity Synergy as a Driver of Organizational Identification," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 587-604.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The The The The

_____ _____ _____ _____

cares about my well-being as a/an __________. cares about my opinions as a/an __________. is willing to help me in my role as a/an __________. considers my goals and values as a/an __________.

1. The shorter blank at the beginning of the items should be filled with the name of the focal organization. The longer blanks at the end of the items should be filled with a particular "identity," e.g., shopper, community member, volunteer.

413

Suspensefulness of the Object SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, five-point Likert-type items are used in the scale to measure the degree to which a person was not certain of an event's ending when it was occurring and was interested to find out what would happen. The items seem to be amenable for use with a TV program, an advertisement, an election, or a variety of other things as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Bee and Madrigal (2012) and used in an experiment with 112 undergraduate students. The authors drew ideas for the items in their scale from a measure of advertisement suspense by Alwitt (2002). As phrased by Bee and Madrigal (2012), the scale referred to a game. (Participants watched either a low or a high-suspense basketball game being played by their university's team.)

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .76 (Bee and Madrigal 2012, p. 51).

VALIDITY: Bee and Madrigal (2012) did not directly address the scale's validity. However, some evidence of the scale's predictive validity comes from the results that showed a close scoring game was scored as significantly more suspenseful than a game with a growing score difference between two teams.

REFERENCES: Alwitt, Linda F. (2002), “Suspense and Advertising Responses,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (1), 35–49. Bee, Colleen C. and Robert Madrigal (2012), "It's Not Whether You Win or Lose; It's How The Game is Played: The Influence of Suspenseful Sports Programming on Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 47-58.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I was curious about how this __________ would turn out. This __________ had suspense. I was unsure of what would happen until the very end of the __________.

1. An appropriate generic term for the focal stimulus should be placed in the blanks, e.g., movie.

414

Suspicion of an Ulterior Motive SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a person doubts the veracity of statements made by another person and suspects that he/she is motivated to make inaccurate claims to achieve an unstated purpose.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) was an extension of a two-item version that had been used by the lead author previously (DeCarlo 2005). The scale was used in Study 1 by DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) in which subjects were asked to role-play that they were meeting with a financial advisor to discuss moving funds to one recommended by the advisor. Analysis was based on data from 123 participants selected from a national panel of adults.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .85 (DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh 2013, p. 423).

VALIDITY: DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) used CFA to examine the quality of their measures. The measurement model fit the data and evidence was found in support of the suspicion scale and their other measures' discriminant validities.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was created for use when a customer is evaluating a salesperson, the items seem to be amenable for use in other contexts.

REFERENCES: DeCarlo, Thomas E. (2005), "The Effects of Suspicion of Ulterior motives and Sales Message on Salesperson Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (3), 238–249. DeCarlo, Thomas E., Russell Laczniak, and Thomas W. Leigh (2013), "Selling Financial Services: The Effect of Consumer Product Knowledge and Salesperson Commission on Consumer Suspicion and Intentions," Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (4), 418-435.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

_____ has an ulterior motive. _____’s comments are suspicious. _____ is motivated to exaggerate the __________.

1. A word or name should be placed in the first blank of each item to identify the person whose motives are suspicious. The blank at the end of #3 should be filled with a phrase that briefly describes what is suspicious. DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) used the phrase "performance of this fund."

415

Switching Costs (Store Checkout Method) SCALE DESCRIPTION: This three item scale measures a customer's belief that it is not worth changing from the type of checkout he/she has experience with at a store to another form of checkout.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not identified. Beyond a general indication that they adapted it from previous research along with all of their other scales, the specific source of the items for this scale were not given. They referred to it as checkout inertia though it seems to be what is more commonly called switching costs. It looks like the items were drawn from key phrases in scales by Meuter et al. (2005) and Ping (1993). White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used the scale in two studies with customers of a national (United States) grocery store chain. Study 1 (507 usable responses) was composed of users of the chain's self-service checkout while those in Study 2 (331 usable responses) were non-users of that technology. Prior to Study 1, the authors conducted a pretest with 209 users of the chain's checkout technology in order to purify the scales and refine them if need be.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale were .93 and .91 when used in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012, p. 255).

VALIDITY: White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of the scales in their two studies. In both cases, there was an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Further, evidence was provided of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs were .83 (Study 1) and .80 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Meuter, Matthew L., Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen W. Brown (2005), “Choosing Among Alternative Service Delivery Modes: An Investigation of Customer Trial of Self-Service Technologies,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 61-83. Ping, Robert A., Jr. (1993), “The Effects of Satisfaction and Structural Constraints on Retailer Exiting, Voice, Loyalty, Opportunism, and Neglect,” Journal of Retailing, 69 (Fall), 320-352. White, Allyn, Michael Breazeale, and Joel E. Collier (2012), "The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250–261.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Changing checkout methods would be a bother. For me, it would be inconvenient to switch checkout methods. It’s just not worth the hassle for me to switch checkout methods.

1. The response format used with these items by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not described. It appears to have been a seven-point Likert-type scale, probably with extreme verbal anchors such as strongly disagree /strongly agree.

416

Targetedness of the Ad SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's belief that an advertiser created a particular ad and aimed it at people like him/her is measured with three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier (2000). No information about its development was provided. In the several studies in which it was used by Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier (2000), the alphas were .90 or higher.

RELIABILITY: When used by Johnson and Grier (2012), the scale's alpha was .87 (n = 240 students drawn from a South African university).

VALIDITY: Johnson and Grier (2012) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Aaker, Jenifer L., Anne M. Brumbaugh, and Sonya A. Grier (2000), “Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (3), 127–140. Johnson, Guillaume D. and Sonya A. Grier (2012), "What About the Intended Consequences? Examining the Effects of Race-Stereotyped Portrayals on Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising, 41 (3), 91-106.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

I feel the advertisement was intended for people like me. I do not believe I was in the target market the company created the advertisement for. (r) The advertiser made that advertisement for people like me.

1. The response format used with these items was not described by Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier (2000). It appears to have been a five point Likert-type scale, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree.

417

Taste Evaluation SCALE DESCRIPTION: The tastiness of a particular food, with the emphasis on its moistness and juiciness, is measured in this scale with three, nine-point semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Moore and Lee (2012) in Study 2 (n = 130 undergraduates). They referred to it as taste anticipation because they asked participants to imagine the taste of a certain snack food. Though the authors cited Elder and Krishna (2010), the scale was not mentioned in that article. Perhaps the article was cited because of some inspiration received regarding the construct rather than the measure. Given that, the source of the scale seems to be Moore and Lee (2012).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha in Study 2 was .83 (Moore and Lee 2012, p. 115).

VALIDITY: Moore and Lee (2012) did not address the scale's validity. They did, however, say that their model in Study 2 fit the data well. That implies that the scale met some minimum standards along with the other measures used to test the model.

REFERENCES: Moore, David J. and Seung Pil Lee (2012), "How Advertising Influences Consumption Impulses: The Role of Visualization, Anticipated Emotions, Taste Anticipation, and Hedonic Rationalization," Journal of Advertising, 41 (3), 107-120.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

not very moist / very moist not very juicy / very juicy not very palatable / very palatable

1. The scale stem used by Moore and Lee (2012) was: “Having read the product description, how do you imagine the taste will be?”

418

Taste Evaluation SCALE DESCRIPTION: How well a food tastes is measured in this scale with three, nine-point semantic differentials.

SCALE ORIGIN: Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan (2013) used the scale in the five studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated and is assumed to be original.

RELIABILITY: Over the several studies in which the scale was used by Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan (2013), the alphas ranged from .91 (Study 1) to .96 (Studies 3b and 4).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan (2013).

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used in the studies by Poor, Duhachek, and Krishnan (2013) with foods, it may be suitable for use with beverages as well.

REFERENCES: Poor, Morgan, Adam Duhachek, and H. Shanker Krishnan (2013), "How Images of Other Consumers Influence Subsequent Taste Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 124-139.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

flavorless / flavorful not at all delicious / very delicious bad taste / good taste

419

Telepresence SCALE DESCRIPTION: Eight, seven-point items are used in this scale to measure how much a person has a subjective experience of feeling immersed in a particular virtual environment while physically being in another context.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) is composed of items drawn from the 28 item Presence Questionnaire (Version 2.0) developed by Witmer and Singer (1998). The former referred to their scale as presence and used it in both studies discussed in their article. Study 1 was composed of 85 undergraduate students at a U.S. university while the sample in Study 2 was 108 students at a different U.S. university. According to the lead author (Yim 2013), the reliabilities reported in the article (Appendix 2) were based on the combined samples from both studies.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale by Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012, p. 127) was .86.

VALIDITY: Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used CFA to assess the psychometric quality of their scales. Evidence was provided in support of the presence scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .51.

REFERENCES: Witmer, Bob G. and Michael J. Singer (1998), “Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7 (3), 225–240. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon (2013), personal correspondence. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Vincent J. Cicchirillo, and Minette E. Drumwright (2012), "The Impact of Stereoscopic Three-Dimensional (3-D) Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 113-128.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. How completely were all of your senses engaged? not completely / very completely 2. How much did the visual aspects of the environment involve you? not much / very much 3. How compelling was your sense of objects moving through space? not compelling / very compelling 4. How much did your experiences in the virtual environment seem consistent with your real-world experiences? not much / very much 5. How compelling was your sense of moving around inside the virtual environment? not compelling / very compelling 6. How closely were you able to examine objects? not closely / very closely 7. How involved were you in the virtual environment experience? not involved / very involved 420

8. Were you involved in the experimental task to the extent that you lost track of time? 2 not involved / very involved

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the items were provided by Yim (2013). 2. If the scale is used in a situation that participants would not view as an "experimental task" then something else could replace it or the phrase could be deleted entirely.

421

Telepresence (Internet Shopping) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a consumer typically experiences a sense of being in another reality when shopping online is measured with four statements. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to online shopping in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Rose et al. (2012) is an adaptation of some items from a larger set used by Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) to measure telepresence. They, in turn, modified items developed by Kim and Biocca (1997) to measure the construct. Data were gathered by Rose et al. (2012) using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .895 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .682.

REFERENCES: Kim, Taeyong and Frank Biocca (1997), “Telepresence via Television: Two Dimensions of Telepresence May Have Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (September), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00073.x/. Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322. Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Yiu-Fai Yung (2000), “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach,” Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Using Internet shopping websites creates a new world for me, and this world suddenly disappears when I stop browsing. 2. I forget about my immediate surroundings when I use Internet shopping websites. 3. Internet shopping often makes me forget where I am. 4. After Internet shopping, I feel like I come back to the “real world” after a journey. 1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

422

Telepresence (Negative Physiological Responses) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The construct measured by this scale has to do with the physical sensations a person felt during some experience, with the focus being on how ill and disoriented the person felt. The scale has four, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) was borrowed from Bracken (2005). The former called the scale cybersickness while the latter merely described it as "physiological presence responses." Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used the scale in both studies discussed in their article. Study 1 was composed of 85 undergraduate students at a U.S. university while the sample in Study 2 was 108 students at a different U.S. university.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .72 which was based, apparently, on the combined samples from both studies (Yim 2013).

VALIDITY: Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used CFA to assess the psychometric quality of several, if not all, of their scales. The implication was that support was found for the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales. However, no specific statistics were provided for the measure of negative physiological responses and it is not clear that it was included in the CFA.

REFERENCES: Bracken, Cheryl Campanella (2005), “Presence and Image Quality: The Case of High-Definition Television,” Media Psychology, 7 (2), 191–205. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon (2013), personal correspondence. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Vincent J. Cicchirillo, and Minette E. Drumwright (2012), "The Impact of Stereoscopic Three-Dimensional (3-D) Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 113-128.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

To To To To

what what what what

degree degree degree degree

did did did did

you you you you

experience experience experience experience

stomach awareness __________? nausea __________? dizziness with your eyes open __________? dizziness with your eyes closed __________?

1. A phrase should be placed in the blanks that describes the activity in which the person was engaged. For example, the phrased used by Bracken (2005) was "during the media experience" while Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012) used "while watching the advertising." The extreme verbal anchors used with the items by both Bracken (2005) as well as Yim, Cicchirillo, and Drumwright (2012; Yim 2013) were absent / severe.

423

Temporal Orientation (Present) SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person reports thinking mostly about what is happening at the current time is measured in this scale using five, seven-point Likert-type items. While none of the statements explicitly refer to the past or the future, the implication is that the focus is more on the present than on those other time periods.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Mogilner, Aaker, and Kamvar (2012) was not stated. They used it in Study 3 which was a reanalysis of data referred to in a previous article of theirs (Mogilner, Kamvar, and 2011, p. 5). If they created the scales themselves, it appears they drew upon ideas found in the work of Carstensen (e.g., Carstensen, Isaacowitz, and Charles 1999).

RELIABILITY: In Mogilner, Aaker, and Kamvar (2012, p. 436), the alpha for the scale was reported to be .89 (n = 74).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Mogilner, Aaker, and Kamvar (2012).

REFERENCES: Carstensen, Laura L., Derek M. Isaacowitz, and Susan T. Charles (1999), “Taking Time Seriously: A Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity,” American Psychologist, 54 (March), 165– 81. Mogilner, Cassie, Jennifer Aaker, and Sepandar D. Kamvar (2012), "How Happiness Affects Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 429-443. Mogilner, Cassie, Sepandar D. Kamvar, and Jennifer Aaker (2011), “The Shifting Meaning of Happiness,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2 (4), 395–402.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I often think about the present moment. I typically focus on the present moment. It’s important to me that my thoughts are in the here and now. My mind often focuses on what is happening now. I like to be present.

424

Threatened SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person reports feeling attacked and maligned is measured using six, seven-point, uni-polar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) in a pretest prior to Study 1. The source of the scale was not stated. Participants (n = 58) were divided into three groups, two of which received manipulations meant to evoke feelings of being threatened.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was reported by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) to be .91.

VALIDITY: White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Jennifer J. Argo, and Jaideep Sengupta (2012), "Dissociative versus Associative Responses to Social Identity Threat: The Role of Consumer Self-Construal," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 704-719.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

threatened attacked challenged impugned maligned unhappy

1. The extreme anchors used by White, Argo, and Sengupta (2012) with these items were not at all (1) and very (7).

425

Time Pressure (Grocery Shopping) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using five, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a consumer's desire to save time when shopping for groceries.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo (2013) in a study of grocery shopping behavior in the Netherlands. The language in which the scale was presented to participants was not stated nor was the source of the scale. It is assumed that the authors created the scale to some extent by borrowing phrases from past measures, e.g., Putrevu and Ratchford (1997).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .731 (Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo 2013, p. 612).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Vroegrijk, Gijsbrechts, and Campo (2013).

COMMENTS: The unidimensionality of the scale is in doubt. Item #1 and #5 (below) may be measuring constructs different from time pressure. Caution is urged in using the scale until factor analysis and other tests can be conducted to determine the scale's unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Putrevu, Sanjay and Brian T. Ratchford (1997), “A Model of Search Behavior with an Application to Grocery Shopping,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (4), 463–86. Vroegrijk, Mark, Els Gijsbrechts, and Katia Campo (2013), "Close Encounter with the Hard Discounter: A Multiple-Store Shopping Perspective on the Impact of Local Hard-Discounter Entry," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (5), 606-626.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I like to shop in a grocery store. I carefully plan my grocery store visits, so they will take less time. I’m always in a hurry when I go shopping for groceries. I want to spend as little time as possible on shopping in a grocery store. I like grocery stores that are not too crowded.

1. The anchors used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5).

426

Tiredness from Exercise SCALE DESCRIPTION: The level of fatigue a person feels after engaging in an exercise is measured in the scale with three, seven-point items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Dai and Hsee (2013) used the scale in Experiment 2 of the four described in their article. Data in the experiment came from 220 students from a large university in Hong Kong. The language in which the scale was presented to participants was not stated nor was the source of the scale. The measure appears to have been created by the authors specifically for use in the experiment.

RELIABILITY: Dai and Hsee (2013) reported the scale's alpha to be .91.

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Dai and Hsee (2013).

REFERENCES: Dai, Xianchi (2014), personal correspondence. Dai, Xianchi and Christopher K. Hsee (2013), "Wish Versus Worry: Ownership Effects on Motivated Judgment," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 207-215.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How challenging is the exercise? not challenging at all / extremely challenging How tired are you right now? not tired at all / very tired How physically exhausted are you right now? not exhausted at all / very exhausted

1. The items were provided by Dai (2014).

427

Trust in Companies Producing Green Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person holds the general belief that companies making so-called "green" products are dependable and competent is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Gleim et al. (2013) created the scale based on concepts found in the measure of organizational trust by Morgan and Hunt (1994). The scale was used in Study 2 by Gleim et al. (2013) in which data were gathered from a panel of consumers in the United States. Ultimately, usable data came from 581 respondents.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability reported for the scale by Gleim et al. (2013) was .86.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Gleim et al. (2013) found support for the measurement model involving many constructs. Also, evidence was found in support of the trust scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for the scale was .67.

COMMENTS: The scale seems to be amenable for use with other types of products by merely replacing the phrase "green products" in each item with an appropriate phrase, e.g., fair trade goods, locally produced products, organic foods.

REFERENCES: Gleim, Mark R. (2014), personal correspondence. Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews, and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2013), "Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption," Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44-61. Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20–38.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

Firms that produce green products can be depended on to do what is right. Firms that produce green products are competent. Firms that produce green products can be trusted at all times.

1. Although not clear from the description given in the article, the response format used with these items was seven-point Likert-type (Gleim 2014).

428

Trust in Companies Selling Fair Trade Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale uses three items to measure a person's confidence that companies offering products branded as "fair trade" are being truthful about it.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) in a pilot test prior to Study 1. The source of the scale was not stated and seems to have been created by the authors. The sample for the pilot test consisted of 25 undergraduate students and 45 individuals from the community.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .96 (White, MacDonnell, and Ellard 2012, p. 106).

VALIDITY: White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine, Rhiannon MacDonnell, and John H. Ellard (2012), "Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products," Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 103-118.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I can depend on companies that offer products that are branded as fair trade to be truthful about the products they offer. 2. I can rely on companies that offer products that are branded as fair trade to be truthful about the products they offer. 3. I am confident that companies that offer products that are branded as fair trade are honest about the products they offer.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012). It might have been a sevenpoint agree/disagree scale.

429

Trust in Internet Shopping SCALE DESCRIPTION: With five items, the scale measures a consumer's attitude about shopping online, with an emphasis on issues related to trust such as reliability and privacy. It does not measure a person's attitude about a particular website but rather, shopping online in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: Although Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) received inspiration from previous measures of trust related to shopping online, this scale seems to be original to them. They referred to the measure as channel trust. Data were gathered from college students in the U.S. and South Korea. The Korean version of the questionnaire was translated/back-translated and then pretested.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale were .91 and .82 for the U.S. and South Korean samples, respectively.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's unidimensionality and discriminant validity. The AVEs for the scale were .77 and .61 for the U.S. and South Korean samples, respectively.

REFERENCES: Badrinarayanan, Vishag, Enrique P. Becerra, Chung-Hyun Kim, and Sreedhar Madhavaram (2012), "Transference and Congruence Effects on Purchase Intentions in Online Stores of Multi-channel Retailers: Initial Evidence from the U.S. and South Korea," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 539–557.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Shopping in the Internet is reliable. Internet is safe for me to conduct personal business like shopping. I am comfortable making purchases on the Internet. Internet shopping can be trusted. Internet privacy structures adequately protect me from problems.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described. A Likert-type response format appears to be appropriate (e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree).

430

Trust in Internet Shopping SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's belief that shopping websites are generally reliable and that Internet vendors can be trusted is measured using four items. To be clear, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to online shopping in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: Rose et al. (2012) created the scale using phrases and ideas from a scale by Lee and Turban (2001). Data were gathered by Rose et al. (2012) using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .864 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .614.

REFERENCES: Lee, Matthew K.O. and Efraim Turban (2001), “A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6 (1), 75–91. Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Internet shopping is reliable. In general, I can rely on Internet vendors to keep the promises that they make. Internet shopping can be trusted, there are no uncertainties. Internet shopping is a trustworthy experience.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

431

Trust in the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: A consumer's belief that a brand is dependable and has integrity is measured with ten, sevenpoint items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Herbst et al. (2012) in two studies. Although they did not clearly state the source of the scale, it appears to be original to them. They drew items from the work of three sets of authors: Holmes and Rempel (1989), Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), and Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Herbst et al. (2012) were .91 and .93 for Study 1 (n = 73 college students) and 2 (n = 158 college students), respectively.

VALIDITY: Herbst et al. (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (2), 81–93. Herbst, Kenneth C., Eli J. Finkel, David Allan, and Gráinne M. Fitzsimons (2012), "On the Dangers of Pulling a Fast One: Advertisement Disclaimer Speed, Brand Trust, and Purchase Intention," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 909-919. Holmes, John G. and John K. Rempel (1989), “Trust in Close Relationships,” in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 10, ed. Clyde Hendrick, London: Sage, 187–220. Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh, and Barry Sabol (2002), “Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 15–37.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

I trust this brand. This brand is predictable. This brand is dependable. This brand is reliable. This brand is truthful. This brand is competent. This brand has integrity. This brand is responsive. I rely on this brand. This is an honest brand. This brand is safe. 432

1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Herbst et al. (2012) with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

433

Trust in the Online Store SCALE DESCRIPTION: With three, nine-point Likert-type items, the scale measures how reliable and believable a consumer believes an online store to be. Given the phrasing of one of the items, the consumer has purchased a particular product from the store. To make the scale amenable for use with respondents who may not have purchased from the store, the item can be easily edited.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013) in the three studies reported in their article. The authors apparently created the scale by drawing ideas and phrases from a scale used by Grewal, Hardesty, and Iyer (2004).

RELIABILITY: Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013) reported the alphas for the scale were .97 (Study 1), .96 (Study 2), and .92 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity was provided by Weisstein, Monroe, and Kukar-Kinney (2013). Also, the scale's AVEs were .91 (Study 1), .89 (Study 2), and .90 (Study 3).

REFERENCES: Weisstein, Fei L., Kent B. Monroe, and Monika Kukar-Kinney (2013), "Effects of Price Framing on Consumers' Perceptions of Online Dynamic Pricing Practices," Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 501-514. Grewal, Dhruv, David M. Hardesty, and Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer (2004), "The Effects of Buyer Identification and Purchase Timing on Consumers’ Perceptions of Trust, Price Fairness, and Repurchase Intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (4), 87–100.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I trust this online store from which I purchased my _____.1 I think this online store is reliable. I think this online store is credible.

1. A name for the product should be placed in the blank. Alternatively, if the scale is to be used with respondents who might not have purchased from the store then the sentence can be truncated to "I trust this online store."

434

Trust in the Salesperson SCALE DESCRIPTION: A customer's level of trust in a particular salesperson is measured with seven, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Wilson and Darke (2012) in three experiments. They stated that the scale was an adaptation of the benevolence trust scale by Delgado-Ballester’s (2004).

RELIABILITY: Wilson and Darke (2012; Wilson 2014) reported the alphas for the scale to be .93, .83, and .89 in Experiments 1 (n = 84 undergraduates), 2 (n = 242 undergraduates), and 3 (n = 145 undergraduates), respectively.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale's validity was provided by Wilson and Darke (2012).

REFERENCES: Delgado-Ballester, Elena (2004), “Applicability of a Brand Trust Scale across Product Categories,” European Journal of Marketing, 38 (5–6), 573–92. Wilson, Andrew E. (2014), personal correspondence. Wilson, Andrew E. and Peter R. Darke (2012), "The Optimistic Trust Effect: Use of Belief in a Just World to Cope with Decision-Generated Threat," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 615-628.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

This salesperson can be depended on to do what is right. This salesperson has high integrity. This salesperson would be honest and sincere. I could rely on this salesperson to resolve problems. This salesperson would make every effort to satisfy. This salesperson would compensate in some way if there were a problem. This salesperson can be trusted.

1. The items were provided by Wilson (2014). The statements are phrased hypothetically because of the nature of the experiment in which they were used.

435

Trust in the Salesperson SCALE DESCRIPTION: The truthfulness of a salesperson is measured in this scale with four items.

SCALE ORIGIN: DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) made the scale by drawing heavily on phrases from a scale created by Doney and Cannon (1997) for use with purchasing agents evaluating a supplier's salesperson. The scale was used in Study 2 by DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) in which subjects were asked to role-play a meeting with a financial advisor to discuss moving funds to one recommended by the advisor. Analysis was based on data from 318 participants who appear to have been selected from a national panel of adults.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .85 (DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh 2013, p. 427).

VALIDITY: DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013) used CFA to examine the quality of their measures. The measurement model fit the data and evidence was found in support of the trust scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other scales.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was created for use when a customer is evaluating a salesperson, the items seem to be amenable for use in other contexts too.

REFERENCES: DeCarlo, Thomas E., Russell Laczniak, and Thomas W. Leigh (2013), "Selling Financial Services: The Effect of Consumer Product Knowledge and Salesperson Commission on Consumer Suspicion and Intentions," Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (4), 418-435. Doney, Patricia M. and Joseph P. Cannon (1997), "An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 61 (April), 35–51.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I believe _____:2 1. 2. 3. 4.

is trustworthy. is only concerned about himself. (r) has been truthful. does not make false claims.

1. The response format used with these items was not described by DeCarlo, Laczniak, and Leigh (2013). It was probably a sevenpoint Likert-type scale.

436

2. A name, title, or other identifier should be placed in the blank to identify the salesperson whose truthfulness is to be evaluated.

437

Trust in the Store SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has five items that are used to measure a consumer's belief that a store is dependable, with an emphasis on the security of personal information and transactions.

SCALE ORIGIN: Although Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) received inspiration from previous measures of trust, this scale seems to be original to them. They used it in their study with reference to both physical as well as online stores. Data were gathered from college students in the U.S. and South Korea. The Korean version of the questionnaire was translated/back-translated and then pretested.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale as used with physical stores were .81 and .87 for the U.S. and South Korean samples, respectively. With respect to online stores, the composite reliabilities were .87 and .89 for the U.S. and South Korean samples, respectively.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's unidimensionality and discriminant validity. The AVEs for the scale as used with physical stores were .69 and .77 for the U.S. and South Korean samples, respectively. With respect to online stores, the AVEs were .63 and .65 for the U.S. and South Korean samples, respectively.

REFERENCES: Badrinarayanan, Vishag, Enrique P. Becerra, Chung-Hyun Kim, and Sreedhar Madhavaram (2012), "Transference and Congruence Effects on Purchase Intentions in Online Stores of Multi-channel Retailers: Initial Evidence from the U.S. and South Korea," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 539–557.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

This This This This This

store store store store store

is reliable. is trustworthy. is dependable. offers secure transactions. ensures the security of my information.

1. When these items were used for stores on the web, Badrinarayanan et al. (2012) inserted the word "online" before the word "store." The response scale they used with these items was not described. A Likert-type response format appears to be appropriate (e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree).

438

Typicality (General) SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four, seven-point uni-polar items, the scale measures how commonplace and ordinary something seems to be.

SCALE ORIGIN: Zhu and Argo (2013) used the scale in Study 3 which had a sample composed of 124 undergraduates attending the University of Alberta (Canada). The authors referred to the scale as a "commonality index." The source of the scale was not identified. While it has some similarity with past measures of typicality, the scale has enough differences that it can be considered unique and likely to have been created by these authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .76 (Zhu and Argo 2013, p. 342).

VALIDITY: Zhu and Argo (2013) did not address the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Zhu, Rui (Juliet) and Jennifer J. Argo (2013), "Exploring the Impact of Various Shaped Seating Arrangements on Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 336-349.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

common usual unique (r) atypical (r)

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Zhu and Argo (2013) were not at all (1) and very (7).

439

Typicality of Message Phrasing SCALE DESCRIPTION: How much a person believes a particular message is worded normally rather than being phrased in an unusual way is measured using three items. Although Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) used the scale with respect to an ad-type message, the items are amenable for use with other types of messages.

SCALE ORIGIN: Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012) used the scale in Study 1 (n = 78 undergraduate students) and indicated it was adapted from work by Stemmer (1994).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .82 (Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu 2012).

VALIDITY: Evidence for the scale's validity was not provided by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012).

REFERENCES: Kronrod, Ann, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu (2012), "Enjoy! Hedonic Consumption and Compliance with Assertive Messages," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 51-61. Stemmer, Brigitte (1994), “A Pragmatic Approach to Neurolinguistics: Requests (Re)considered,” Brain and Language, 46 (4), 565–91.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

How typical is the phrasing of this message? How expected is the phrasing of this message? How standard is the phrasing of this message?

1. The sentences shown here were constructed based on phrases provided in the article by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012, p. 54). The response scale was not described. It may have had seven points and verbal anchors commonly used with this type of measure such as not at all / very much.

440

Typicality of the Brand Strategy SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person believes that a certain brand-related marketing strategy is commonly used among competitors in a certain product category is measured with five, ninepoint semantic differentials. The scale appears to be amenable for use with a variety of brandrelated strategies.

SCALE ORIGIN: Barone and Jewell (2013) used the scale in the three studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by them. In Study 1, data were collected from 185 undergraduate students while in Studies 2 (n = 194 adults) and 3 (n = 114 adults), participants were recruited from Amazon.com's mTurk service. In Studies 1 and 2, the scale referred to a comparative advertising strategy whereas in Study 3, it referred to price skimming strategy.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .99, .96, and .97 for Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Barone and Jewell 2013).

VALIDITY: Although Barone and Jewell (2013) did not address the scale's validity per se, some evidence of it comes from use of the scale as a manipulation check. In all three studies the scale showed that the manipulation worked as intended, thus, providing some support for the scale's predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Barone, Michael J. and Robert D. Jewell (2013), "The Innovator's License: A Latitude to Deviate from Category Norms," Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 120-134.

SCALE ITEMS:1 In my opinion, the use of __________ by brands of __________ is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

infrequent / frequent uncommon / common atypical / typical unusual / usual not used by any competitors / used by all competitors

1. An appropriate name or description of the focal strategy should be placed in the first blank while the name of the focal product category should be placed in the second blank.

441

Uncertainty of Downsizing Effects SCALE DESCRIPTION: The four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a customer's level of doubt regarding the negative consequences for him/her due to the reduction in workforce being conducted by a business with which the customer has a relationship.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was created by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012). They drew some concepts from a measure of uncertainty by Rafferty and Griffin (2006). The version of the scale most clearly described in the article by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012) was made for use with managers of businesses that had downsized and it measured how uncertain they believed their company's customers were due to what had happened. That version was used in the manager study but was modified for use in two studies with participants who were asked to imagine they were customers of a business being downsized.

RELIABILITY: In the two customer studies conducted by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012), the alphas were .86 (n = 274) and .77 (n = 501).

VALIDITY: Although Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012) appear to have used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of this scale as used in the customer studies, few specifics were provided in the article. They did report the scale's AVEs to be .60 and .46.

REFERENCES: Homburg, Christian, Martin Klarmann, and Sabine Staritz (2012), "Customer Uncertainty Following Downsizing: The Effects of Extent of Downsizing and Open Communication," Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 112–129. Rafferty, Alannah E. and Mark A. Griffin (2006), “Perceptions of Organizational Change: A Stress and Coping Perspective,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5), 1154–62.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. the 4.

I am uncertain about how to respond to the downsizing. I am unsure how severely the downsizing will affect me. I am worried that the downsizing would negatively affect my business relationship with company. I have doubts about the continuance of my business relationship with the company.

1. The version of the scale explicitly described by Homburg, Klarmann, and Staritz (2012) was for a study of managers. For the two customer studies, the authors merely indicated that the scale was adapted to some degree. Given the information provided, phrasings that are appropriate for use with customers have been constructed here.

442

Understanding the Experience SCALE DESCRIPTION: With four, seven-point items, this scale measures how fully a person understands a particular experience he/she has had in terms of why it was chosen and the reasons it was liked/disliked.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by Moore (2012) was not identified and appears to have been created by her. She used it in Study 2 (n = 102 graduate and professional students) and 3B (n = 70 undergraduates). The "experience" in Study 2 was any hedonic event they could recall and wished to describe in one sentence. In Study 3A, participants were asked to recall a dining experience.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported by Moore (2012) for the scale were .77 and .86 in Studies 2 and 3B, respectively.

VALIDITY: Moore (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity. However, she did indicate that the items loaded on the same factor in an EFA run on data from Study 2 and did not load on another dimension (evaluation of the experience).

REFERENCES: Moore, Sara G. (2012), "Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid: How Word of Mouth Influences the Storyteller," Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1140-1154.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

understand why this experience happened. understand the reasons I like/dislike this experience. can explain my feelings about this experience. know why I chose this experience.

1. The response scale Moore (2012) used with these items had not at all (1) and very much (7) as extreme anchors.

443

Uniqueness of the Brand SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person views a particular brand as being unique and different from other brands in a product category is measured in this scale with three, five-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Malär et al. (2012) was not identified. The authors said that most of the scales they used were based on measures from previous studies but, no explicit source was cited for this scale. Participants in the study came from a variety of sources. Ultimately, there were 3,048 usable responses, about 22.2 for each of 137 brands.

RELIABILITY: The tests conducted by Malär et al. (2012) indicated the scale was internally consistent. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability were both .84.

VALIDITY: Along with several other scales, this one was tested by Malär et al. (2012) using CFA. The model fit the data well and evidence was provided in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .65.

REFERENCES: Malär, Lucia, Bettina Nyffenegger, Harley Krohmer, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), "Implementing an Intended Brand Personality: A Dyadic Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 728-744.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

_____ really stands out from other brands of __________. I perceive _____ as being fundamentally different from competing brands. _____ is unique from other brands of __________.

1. The short line in each item should be filled with the name of the focal brand. The longer blanks in items #1 and #3 should have the name of the product category of which the brand is a member.

444

Value of the Magazine SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point uni-polar items compose the scale and measure the degree to which a person believes a particular magazine is useful and worth reading. The emphasis is on the magazine's utilitarian value rather than its hedonic value.

SCALE ORIGIN: Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013) used the scale in Study 3 of the three discussed in their article. The sample was described as 121 adults contacted in eating establishments on a university campus. The source of the scale was cited as from Dahlén, Granlund, and Grenros (2009). Participants were told that a magazine was soon to be launched and they were to look through a test version and then provide some feedback.

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha was .86 (Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig 2013, p. 324).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013).

COMMENTS: Although used by Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013) with a magazine, the scale appears to be amenable for use with other textual material as well such as newspapers, books, blogs, etc.

REFERENCES: Dahlén, Micael, Anton Granlund, and Mikael Grenros (2009), “The Consumer-Perceived Value of Non-Traditional Media: Effects of Brand Reputation, Appropriateness, and Expense,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 (3), 155–63. Rosengren, Sara, Micael Dahlén, and Erik Modig (2013), "Think Outside the Ad: Can Advertising Creativity Benefit More Than the Advertiser?" Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 320330.

SCALE ITEMS:1 The magazine is:2 1. 2. 3.

valuable worth reading useful

1. The extreme anchors used by Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013) with these items were not described. They might have been do not agree (1) and totally agree (7) as the authors used with some other scales. 2. The scale stem was not described but might have been something like this.

445

Values (Altruistic) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The importance a person places in his/her value system on social goals such as equality and cooperation is measured with four items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) in two studies. Data were gathered in Italy and the final samples used in the analyses appear to have been 325 and 407 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The survey instruments were back-translated and revised as needed. Three items in the altruistic values scale were taken from the set of 56 items used by Schwartz (1992) to measure human values and compare 28 cultures. The source of one item used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) is unknown (#4, below).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 1 by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) was .89. The reliability was not reported for Study 2.

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that the altruistic values scale was included in the analyses that Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) conducted of the variables in each of their two studies. The authors concluded that sufficient evidence was found for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. Tests of common method variance were also conducted and the authors concluded it did not represent a threat to their data.

REFERENCES: Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard Bagozzi (2013), "The Effects of Company Offshoring Strategies on Consumer Responses," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (6), 683-704. Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Mark P. Zanna, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–65.

SCALE ITEMS:1 Below is a list of values; for each value a brief explanation is given. Please indicate how important each value is for you as a guiding principle in your life. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Equality: equal opportunity for all. Social justice: correcting injustice, care for the weak. Helping: working for the welfare of others. Cooperation: increasing positive returns for the community.

1. The response format used with these items was not explicitly described by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013). It appears to have been a seven-point scale with verbal anchors something like not important at all / extremely important.

446

Viral E-Mail Forwarding (Opportunity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A person's expressed inclination to forward e-mail messages if there is the opportunity to do so is measured using four items. The scale stem is phrased for use with "viral" e-mail messages but could be easily adapted for use with other types of messages, e.g., personal, political, charity.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) was not stated. They used the scale in a survey of people who used e-mail (n = 308). It is not clear in what country or language the survey was conducted. It appears to be Spain. If so, the details regarding the translation of the scales into Spanish for the survey and into English for the article were not provided.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .73 and the composite reliability was .83 (San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo 2012, p. 104).

VALIDITY: Using the PLS approach, San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) found evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other reflective variables in their model. The scale's AVE was .55.

REFERENCES: San José-Cabezudo, Rebeca and Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo (2012), "Determinants of Opening-Forwarding E-Mail Messages," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 97-112.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I forward viral messages if . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

have have have have

time at that moment. a good Internet connection. just received it. few e-mails to send.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012). It appears to have been a five-point scale with verbal anchors typically used with Likert-type scales such as agree/disagree.

447

Viral E-Mail Opening (Opportunity) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The four item scale measures a person's expressed tendency to open e-mail messages if the opportunity is available. The scale stem is phrased for use with "viral" e-mail messages but could be easily adapted for use with other types of messages, e.g., personal, political, charity.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) was not stated. They used the scale in a survey of people who used e-mail (n = 308). It is not clear in what country or language the survey was conducted. It appears to be Spain. If so, the details regarding the translation of the scales into Spanish for the survey and into English for the article were not provided.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .81 and the composite reliability was .88 (San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo 2012, p. 104).

VALIDITY: Using the PLS approach, San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) found evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other reflective variables in their model. The scale's AVE was .64.

REFERENCES: San José-Cabezudo, Rebeca and Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo (2012), "Determinants of Opening-Forwarding E-Mail Messages," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 97-112.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I open viral messages if . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

have have have have

time at that moment. a good Internet connection. just received it. few e-mails to read in the inbox.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012). It appears to have been a five-point scale with verbal anchors typically used with Likert-type scales such as agree/disagree.

448

Viral E-Mail Opening (Subject Relevance) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The tendency to open e-mail messages if the subject appears to be interesting and believable is measured with four items. The scale stem is phrased in terms of "viral" e-mail messages but could be easily adapted for use with other types of messages, e.g., personal, political, charity.

SCALE ORIGIN: The origin of the scale used by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) was not stated. They used the scale in a survey of people who used e-mail (n = 308). It is not clear in what country or language the survey was conducted. It appears to be Spain. If so, the details regarding the translation of the scales into Spanish for the survey and into English for the article were not provided.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .78 and the composite reliability was .84 (San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo 2012, p. 104).

VALIDITY: Using the PLS approach, San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012) found evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity with respect to the other reflective variables in their model. The scale's AVE was .57.

REFERENCES: San José-Cabezudo, Rebeca and Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo (2012), "Determinants of Opening-Forwarding E-Mail Messages," Journal of Advertising, 41 (2), 97-112.

SCALE ITEMS:1 I open viral messages if the subject . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

is interesting to me. arouses my curiosity. is clear. is believable.

1. The response scale used with these items was not described by San José-Cabezudo and Camarero-Izquierdo (2012). It appears to have been a five-point scale with verbal anchors typically used with Likert-type scales such as agree/disagree.

449

Visual Appeal SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person views an object as attractive and colorful is measured in this scale with three, seven-point Likert-type items. The scale is most appropriate for use with foods but might be used with other objects as well.

SCALE ORIGIN: Deng and Srinivasan (2013) used this scale in a pretest for Study 1 where participants rated two foods. The sample was composed of 50 people who were most likely undergraduate students. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Deng and Srinivasan 2013, p. 109).

VALIDITY: The scale's validity was not discussed by Deng and Srinivasan (2013). However, since the authors' purpose was to confirm that two foods differed in their visual attractiveness and the results using the scale confirmed there was a significant difference in the expected direction, that provides some evidence of the scale's predictive validity.

COMMENTS: While this scale seems to be most appropriate for use with foods and possibly beverages, it might be used with other objects as well though caution is urged in using it for theory testing until its psychometric qualities are tested.

REFERENCES: Deng, Xiaoyan and Raji Srinivasan (2013), "When Do Transparent Packages Increase (or Decrease) Food Consumption?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 104-117.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

This _____ is visually appealing. This _____ is visually plain. (r) This _____ is colorful.

1. The focal object should be stated in the blank, e.g., food.

450

Warmth SCALE DESCRIPTION: Using three semantic differentials, the scale measures the degree to which something is viewed as caring and unselfish. The items are most suited for describing a person but might in some contexts be applied to an entity such as a business, charity, or government.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Scott, Mende, and Bolton (2013) in the four studies reported in their article. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale in the four studies by Scott, Mende, and Bolton (2013) ranged from were .73 to .87.

VALIDITY: Scott, Mende, and Bolton (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Scott, Maura L., Martin Mende, and Lisa E. Bolton (2013), "Judging the Book by Its Cover? How Consumers Decode Conspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer–Seller Relationships," Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (3), 334-347.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

unhelpful / helpful unselfish / selfish (r) uncaring / caring

1. A seven-point scale was used with these items in Study 1 while a five-point scale was used in the others (Scott, Mende, and Bolton 2013, p. 338).

451

Website Interactivity (Speed of Response) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which shopping websites are viewed as loading fast and responding quickly to a shopper's actions is measured with three statements. As currently phrased, the items are not specific to a particular website but rather to online shopping sites in general.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Rose et al. (2012) is a slight adaptation of some items used by Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) to measure the speed component of interactivity. Data were gathered by Rose et al. (2012) using a web survey instrument with online shoppers mostly from the U.S. and Europe. The final sample consisted of 220 usable questionnaires.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability for the scale was .832 (Rose et al. 2012, p. 318).

VALIDITY: Rose et al. (2012) provided evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the scale was .626.

REFERENCES: Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), "Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 308–322. Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Yiu-Fai Yung (2000), “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach,” Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. the

Pages on Internet shopping websites usually load quickly. Interacting with Internet shopping websites is fast. When I use Internet shopping websites there is little waiting time between my actions and response of the online shopping websites.

1. The nature of the response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Rose et al. (2012). It appears to have been a Likert-type scale of an unknown number of points and verbal anchors with which respondents indicated their level of agreement.

452

Willingness to Pay a Price Premium SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a customer is willing to pay more for a particular brand of a product over competing brands is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale used by Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012) was created by Netemeyer et al. (2004). The latter were studying the core components of customer-based brand equity, one component of which was willingness to pay a price premium. Using feedback from focus groups and marketing professors, the measures were developed and tested. Using four studies that covered 16 brands from six product categories, the authors provided evidence for their scales' unidimensionalities, internal consistencies, and validities (discriminant and nomological). The reported alphas for the willingness to pay a price premium scale ranged from .85 to .91. The reported AVEs for the scale ranged from .61 to .74.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency of the scale was reported for the survey (n = 283 members of a statewide panel) conducted by Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012). The alpha was .87.

VALIDITY: Folse, Netemeyer, and Burton (2012) reported that the measurement model they tested fit the survey data well and that there was evidence in support of the scale's discriminant validity. Its AVE for the scale was .63.

REFERENCES: Folse, Judith Anne Garretson, Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton (2012), "Spokescharacters: How the Personality Traits of Sincerity, Excitement, and Competence Help to Build Equity," Journal of Advertising, 41 (1), 17-32. Netemeyer, Richard G., Balaji Krishnan, Chris Pullig, Guangping Wang, Mehmet Yagci, Dwane Dean, Joe Ricks, and Ferdinand Wirth (2004), “Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 209–235.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. The price of this brand would have to go up quite a bit before I would switch to another brand of _____. 2. I am willing to pay a higher price for this brand of _____ than for other brands of _____. 3. I am willing to pay _____% more for this brand over other brands of _____.

1. With the exception of the first blank of #3, the name of the product category should be used. According to Netemeyer et al. (2004, p. 223), items #1 and #2 are responded to with seven point strongly disagree/strongly agree scales. For item #3, the following seven alternative responses were provided: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30% or more.

453

Willingness to Play the Game Again SCALE DESCRIPTION: After having played a game, a person's desire to play it again sometime in the future is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. The scale is not considered a measure of intention since the statements do not express a specific time to play again but merely that the person "would like to play."

SCALE ORIGIN: Scott and Nowlis (2013) used variations of this scale in five of the six studies they reported and referred to the construct as goal reengagement. The version used in Study 4 is shown below. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the version of the scale used in Study 4 was .89 (Scott and Nowlis 2013, p. 455).

VALIDITY: Scott and Nowlis (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Scott, Maura L. and Stephen M. Nowlis (2013), "The Effect of Goal Specificity on Consumer Goal Reengagement," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 444-459.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3.

I am motivated to play this game again. I would like to play this game again sometime. I would like to play a game like this again in the future.

454

Willingness to Purchase the Company's Products SCALE DESCRIPTION: Five items are used to measure a consumer's attitude about and willingness to buy products from a particular company. Given the hypothetical and temporal vagueness of the items, the construct being measured might also be referred to as attitude toward the act of purchasing. The scale is somewhat unique in that the items do not share a common response format.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used in Studies 1 and 2 by Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012). Based on the citation they gave, the authors apparently created the scale by drawing ideas from various scales reported in Volume 3 of the Marketing Scales Handbook. Item #5 appears to have been borrowed from Bone and Ellen (1992). Some of the other items may have come from scales by Bello, Pitts, and Etzel (1983) and Oliver and Bearden (1985). Although the authors referred to the scale as purchase intention, it is not called that here. The phrasing of the statements only measure a consumer's openness to buying a company's products, not the person's plan to buy a particular product in a specified time frame.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .87 and .91 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl 2012).

VALIDITY: Schreier, Fuchs, and Dahl (2012) did not discuss the scale's validity.

COMMENTS: Because the authors wanted to minimize state-dependence effects they mixed response formats in the items composing the scale. Two of them were seven-point Likert-type scales, two were seven-point semantic differentials, and one was an 11-point vertical scale. Given that, individual scores on the items should be standardized before overall scale scores are calculated.

REFERENCES: Bello, Daniel C., Robert E. Pitts, and Michael J. Etzel (1983), “The Communication Effects of Controversial Sexual Content in Television Programs and Commercials,” Journal of Advertising, 12 (3), 32-42. Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Pam Scholder Ellen (1992), “The Generation and Consequences of Communication-Evoked Imagery,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 93-104. Bruner II, Gordon C., Karen James, and Paul J. Hensel (2001), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures (Volume 3), Chicago: American Marketing Association.

455

Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden (1985), “Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 324340. Schreier, Martin, Christoph Fuchs, and Darren W. Dahl (2012), "The Innovation Effect of User Design: Exploring Consumers' Innovation Perceptions of Firms Selling Products Designed by Users," Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 18–32.

SCALE ITEMS:1 If you had the opportunity, would you consider purchasing a product from this company? 1. 2.

I would seriously consider purchasing products from this company. I would actively search for this company.

To me, purchasing a product from this company is: 3. 4.

very unlikely / likely very improbable / very probable

5. What would be the future purchase probability of products from this company? no chance, would never buy / certain, practically certain

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the first two items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). A seven point response format was used with items #3 and #4. Item #5 was laid out vertically and ranged from 0 (no chance, would never buy) to 10 (certain, practically certain).

456

Willingness to Support the Politician After a Scandal SCALE DESCRIPTION: This Likert-type scale measures a person's readiness to support a political official continuing in office and/or being reelected though being involved in a scandal.

SCALE ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) did not state the source of the scale. It may have been created by them. A three-item version was used in Study 3 (n = 89) and a four-item version was used in Study 5 (n = 213).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .84 and .87 for the versions used in Studies 3 and 5, respectively (Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed 2013).

VALIDITY: The authors did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Americus Reed II (2013), "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: How Moral Decoupling Enables Consumers to Admire and Admonish," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1167-1184.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I would continue to support this _____. The _____ should be allowed to remain in office. I would contribute to this _____’s campaign.2 I would feel comfortable wearing a T-shirt in support of the _____.3

1. The generic title for the politician should be placed in the blanks, e.g., mayor, governor, president. 2. The version of the sentence used in Study 5 had the phrase "reelection campaign" at the end. 3. The version of the scale used by Bhattacharjee, Berman, and Reed (2013) in Study 5 included this item.

457

Willingness to Try the Snack Food SCALE DESCRIPTION: The extent to which a person is open to immediately going to a store and consuming a particular snack food if given the chance is measured with three, nine-point Likert-type items. Given the phrasing of one of the items, the scale is most appropriate for those snack foods sold in a store rather than a vending machine.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Moore and Lee (2012) in two studies and referred to as consumption impulses. Though they cited a couple of articles, those studies did not use the scale. Perhaps the articles were cited because of some inspiration received regarding the construct. Given that, the source of the scale seems to be Moore and Lee (2012).

RELIABILITY: The scale's alpha in Studies 1 (n = 198 undergraduates) and 2 (n = 130 undergraduates) was .89 and .92, respectively (Moore and Lee 2012, pp. 112, 115).

VALIDITY: Moore and Lee (2012) did not address the scale's validity. They did, however, say that their proposed models in Studies 1 and 2 fit the data well. That implies that the scale met some minimum standards along with the other measures used in those studies to represent the modeled constructs.

REFERENCES: Moore, David J. and Seung Pil Lee (2012), "How Advertising Influences Consumption Impulses: The Role of Visualization, Anticipated Emotions, Taste Anticipation, and Hedonic Rationalization," Journal of Advertising, 41 (3), 107-120.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

sample a __________ if you had the chance right now. take a quick __________ snack if you had the chance right now. stop by a __________ store if you were out shopping now.

1. The scale stem was not explicitly stated by Moore and Lee (2012). Apparently, participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they were willing to engage in the behaviors described in the scale items. The blanks should be filled with the name of the snack. If the name of the snack is also the name of the store, such as Cinnabon®, then it should be placed in the blank of #3. If it is not the name of the store then nothing necessarily has to fill in the blank.

458

Word-of-Mouth (Positive) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Four, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure the level of positive conversation a person is aware of regarding a particular brand. Although one item refers to media coverage, the emphasis in two of the items is specifically about what friends are saying.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale is original to Lam et al. (2013; Lam 2014). The sample used was from a European research company's online panel. Specifically, the final dataset was 635 usable responses from panel members in Spain. The questionnaire was developed in English, translated into Spanish, then back-translated. Once some revisions were made, the survey instrument was pretested. The data used for the analyses came from those participants who completed all five waves of the longitudinal study.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .77 to .89 as measured for the focal and competing brands (Lam et al. 2013, Lam 2014).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, data regarding the Word-of-Mouth scale appears to have been included in the EFA conducted by Lam et al. (2013). The results were described as showing all of the items had strong loadings on their intended factors. Further, with one exception (not involving Word-of-Mouth), the tests indicated there was discriminant validity between the pairs of scales.

REFERENCES: Lam, Son (2014), personal correspondence. Lam, Son, Michael Ahearne, Ryan Mullins, Babak Hayati, and Niels Schillewaert (2013), "Exploring the Dynamics of Antecedents to Consumer–Brand Identification with a New Brand," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 234 - 252.

SCALE ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

There has been a lot of media coverage about this brand. My friends have been talking positively about this brand. I am aware that there has been a lot of buzz about this brand. My friends have highly recommended this brand.

459

Word-of-Mouth Intention (Positive) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is composed of three, seven-point items that are used to measure a person's intention to not only say nice things about a company to friends, family, and others but also to recommend they purchase its products.

SCALE ORIGIN: The scale was used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) in two studies. Data were gathered in Italy and the final samples used in the analyses appear to have been 325 and 407 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The survey instruments were back-translated (EnglishItalian) and revised as needed. Inspiration for the items in the word-of-mouth scale apparently came from phrases and concepts in a measure of the construct used by Maxham and Netemeyer (2002).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 1 by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) was .97. The reliability was not reported for Study 2.

VALIDITY: The word-of-mouth scale was included in the analyses that Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) conducted of the variables in each of their two studies. The authors concluded that sufficient evidence was found for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. Tests of common method variance were also conducted and the authors concluded it did not represent a threat to their data. The AVE of this scale was .90.

REFERENCES: Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard Bagozzi (2013), "The Effects of Company Offshoring Strategies on Consumer Responses," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (6), 683-704. Maxham III, James G. and Richard G. Netemeyer (2002), “A Longitudinal Study of Complaining Customers’ Evaluations of Multiple Service Failures and Recovery Efforts,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (October), 57-71.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. I intend to say positive things about this company to friends, relatives, and other people. 2. I intend to recommend to buy products of this company to friends, relatives, and other people. 3. I intend to mention favorable things about the company to my friends, relatives, and other people.

1. The response format used with these items was not explicitly described by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013). It appears to be among the group of scales they described as "Likert-measures on 7-point scales" (p. 689).

460

Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (Negative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: A customer's likelihood of expressing criticism of a store and urging others not to shop there is measured with three items.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not identified. Beyond a general indication that they adapted it from previous research along with all of their other scales, the specific source of the items for this scale were not given. It does bear some similarity, however, to a scale by Voorhees, Brady, and Horowitz (2006). White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used the scale in two studies with customers of a national (United States) grocery store chain. Study 1 (507 usable responses) was composed of users of the chain's self-service checkout while those in Study 2 (331 usable responses) were nonusers of that technology. Prior to Study 1, the authors conducted a pretest with 209 users of the chain's checkout technology in order to purify the scales and refine them if need be.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities for the scale were .91 and .93 when used in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively (White, Breazeale, and Collier 2012, p. 255).

VALIDITY: White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) used CFA to examine the psychometric quality of the scales in their two studies. In both cases, there was an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Further, evidence was provided of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities. The scale's AVEs were .79 (Study 1) and .84 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Voorhees, Clay M., Michael K. Brady, and David M. Horowitz (2006), “A Voice From the Silent Masses: An Exploratory and Comparative Analysis of Noncomplainers,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 514-527. White, Allyn, Michael Breazeale, and Joel E. Collier (2012), "The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250–261.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. Based on __________, I would likely say negative things about _____. 2. Based on __________, I would not recommend _____ to my friends and relatives. 3. Based on __________, I would advise my friends and relatives against shopping at _____.

1. The longer first blank in each item should be filled with the focal event or change that could motivate participants to engage in negative word-of-mouth. The shorter blanks should be filled with the store's name. The response format used with these items by

461

White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012) was not described. It appears to have been a seven-point Likert-type scale, probably with extreme verbal anchors such as strongly disagree and strongly agree.

462

Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (Negative) SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale has three, seven-point items that measure a person's expressed likelihood of advising friends, family, and others not to buy a particular brand.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not identified by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). It is assumed to have been created specifically for their study as were most of their other scales but it is also quite similar to some previous measures of this construct, e.g., Blodgett, Hill, and Tax (1997); White, Breazeale, and Collier (2012). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of their scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .82 (Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus 2013, p. 540).

VALIDITY: As noted above, the items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVEs for the scale shown below was .65.

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects Of Social- And SelfMotives On The Intentions To Share Positive And Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Blodgett, Jeffrey G., Donna J. Hill, and Stephen S. Tax (1997), “The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice on Postcomplaint Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (2), 185–210. White, Allyn, Michael Breazeale, and Joel E. Collier (2012), "The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Responses to Retailer SST Push Policies," Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 250–261.

SCALE ITEMS: How likely would you be to do any of the following? 1. 2. 3.

Warn my friends and relatives not to buy this brand. Complain to my friends and relatives about this brand. Say negative things about this brand to other people.

463

Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (Positive) SCALE DESCRIPTION: Three, seven-point items compose the scale and measure a person's expressed likelihood of recommending a brand to others, particularly those who ask for advice.

SCALE ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not identified by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). It is assumed to have been created specifically for their study as were most of their other scales but it is also quite similar to some previous measures of this construct, e.g., Brüggen, Foubert, and Gremler (2011); Cheema and Kaikati (2010). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to provide evidence of the scales' dimensionalities, reliabilities, and validities (discussed further below).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus 2013, p. 540).

VALIDITY: As noted above, the items intended to measure seven constructs in their model were examined initially with EFA by Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013). While the seven factors were found, some items were eliminated. The seven factor structure was also found in a subsequent CFA though a few more items were removed. The analyses provided evidence in support of the scales' unidimensionalities, validities (convergent and discriminant), and configural invariance. The AVE for the scale shown below was .74.

REFERENCES: Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), "The Effects of Social- and SelfMotives on The Intentions to Share Positive and Negative Word of Mouth," Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 531-546. Brüggen, Elisabeth C., Bram Foubert, and Dwayne D. Gremler (2011), “Extreme Makeover: Short- and Long-Term Effects of a Remodeled Servicescape,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (5), 7187. Cheema, Amar and Andrew M. Kaikati (2010), "The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth," Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 553-563.

SCALE ITEMS: How likely would you be to do any of the following? 1. 2. 3.

Say positive things about this brand. Recommend this brand to others. Recommend this brand to someone else who seeks my advice.

464

Worry SCALE DESCRIPTION: The degree to which a person reports feeling emotionally uncomfortable and upset is measured in this scale with three, five-point unipolar items.

SCALE ORIGIN: Samper and Schwartz (2013) used the scale in Study 3 which recruited 81 participants from a national online sample. The source of the scale was not stated; most likely, it was created by the authors. They called the scale discomfort and used it to measure how participants felt about getting a flu shot.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .81 (Samper and Schwartz 2013, p. 1350).

VALIDITY: Samper and Schwartz (2013) did not discuss the scale's validity.

REFERENCES: Samper, Adriana and Janet A. Schwartz (2013), "Price Inferences for Sacred versus Secular Goods: Changing the Price of Medicine Influences Perceived Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1343-1358.

SCALE ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

disturbed worried uneasy

1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (5). The instructions for use with this scale were not provided by the authors but could have been phrased something like "using the words below, indicate how _____ made you feel."

465