Marketing Scales Handbook: Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Insight Research (Volume 9) 0692845933, 9780692845936

Citation preview

Marketing Scales Handbook ………………………………………………

Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Insight Research

Volume 9 (library version)

Gordon C. Bruner II

GCBII Productions, LLC Fort Worth, Texas USA

Marketing Scales Handbook, Volume 9, library version. Copyright © 2017, Gordon C. Bruner II. All rights reserved.

ISBN-10: 0692845933 ISBN-13: 978-0-692-84593-6

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 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 .................................................................................................. xix Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xx Introduction ........................................................................................... xxi Scale Reviews .......................................................................................... 1 Acceptance of Behavioral Targeting ........................................................ 3 Ad Emphasis on Benefits vs. Attributes ................................................... 5 Ad Incongruence Resolution .................................................................. 6 Ad-Evoked Interest in the Brand ............................................................ 7 Advertising Relevance Expectation ......................................................... 8 Affective Response to the Ad (Vulnerability) .......................................... 10 Altruism ........................................................................................... 12 Anthropomorphism (General) .............................................................. 13 Anthropomorphism of Time ................................................................. 15 Anxiety (Social) ................................................................................ 17 Anxiety (Social) ................................................................................ 19 Appreciation Felt ............................................................................... 21 Argument Strength ............................................................................ 22 Arousal ............................................................................................ 24 Arousal During the Auction ................................................................. 25 Athletic Skill Control .......................................................................... 27 Athleticism ....................................................................................... 28 Attachment to the Employees ............................................................. 29 Attachment to the Other Customers ..................................................... 31 Attention (Experiencing versus Mind Wandering).................................... 33 Attention to the Ad (General) .............................................................. 35 iii

Attention to the Ad (Message Content) ................................................. 36 Attention to the Celebrity’s Image ....................................................... 37 Attitude Predictability ......................................................................... 38 Attitude Strength .............................................................................. 40 Attitude Toward “Green” Advertising (Usefulness) .................................. 42 Attitude Toward “Green” Products ........................................................ 43 Attitude Toward Advertising (Negative) ................................................ 44 Attitude Toward Advertising of a Brand (Future) .................................... 46 Attitude Toward Advertising of a Brand (Past) ....................................... 48 Attitude Toward Non–Core Users ......................................................... 50 Attitude Toward Personal Consumption of Alcohol .................................. 51 Attitude Toward Sex in the Media ........................................................ 53 Attitude Toward the Act (General) ....................................................... 54 Attitude Toward the Act (Installing a Product) ....................................... 55 Attitude Toward the Ad (Activity Judgments) ......................................... 57 Attitude Toward the Ad (Attractiveness) ............................................... 58 Attitude Toward the Ad (Divergence).................................................... 59 Attitude Toward the Ad (Informativeness) ............................................. 61 Attitude Toward the Ad (Liveliness) ...................................................... 62 Attitude Toward the Ad (Meaningfulness) .............................................. 63 Attitude Toward the Ad (Surprising) ..................................................... 65 Attitude Toward the Ad (Vividness) ...................................................... 66 Attitude Toward the Ad’s Personalization............................................... 68 Attitude Toward the Article ................................................................. 70 Attitude Toward the Article (Clarity) ..................................................... 71 Attitude Toward the Ban ..................................................................... 73 Attitude Toward the Brand (Celebrity Endorsement) ............................... 75 Attitude Toward the Brand (Comparative) ............................................. 77 Attitude Toward the Brand (Symbolism) ............................................... 79 iv

Attitude Toward the Company’s Altruism (Positive) ................................ 80 Attitude Toward the Company’s Altruism (Positive) ................................ 82 Attitude Toward the Eco-Label’s Source ................................................ 84 Attitude Toward the Food Product (Nutritiousness) ................................. 85 Attitude Toward the Future ................................................................. 87 Attitude Toward the Gift ..................................................................... 89 Attitude Toward the Object (General) ................................................... 90 Attitude Toward the Posted Complaint (Benign) ..................................... 92 Attitude Toward the Posted Complaint (Serious) .................................... 94 Attitude Toward the Product/Brand (Meaningful) .................................... 96 Attitude Toward the Retailer (Customer Oriented) .................................. 98 Attitude Toward the Retailer (General Evaluative) .................................. 99 Attitude Toward the Sports Team ....................................................... 101 Attitude Toward the Store’s Prices ...................................................... 103 Attitude Toward the Third-Party Label ................................................. 104 Attitude Toward the Website (Content) ................................................ 106 Attitude Toward the Website (Product Assortment) ............................... 107 Attitude Toward the Website (Quality) ................................................. 108 Authenticity Evidence for a Product ..................................................... 109 Authenticity of the Product ................................................................ 110 Authenticity of the Product ................................................................ 111 Autonomy ....................................................................................... 112 Belief in a Just World ........................................................................ 114 Betrayal .......................................................................................... 116 Brand Affordability............................................................................ 118 Brand Importance ............................................................................ 119 Brand Loyalty .................................................................................. 120 Brand Loyalty .................................................................................. 122 Brand Loyalty .................................................................................. 123 v

Brand Parity .................................................................................... 125 Brand Preference .............................................................................. 126 Brand Pride ..................................................................................... 127 Brand Status ................................................................................... 129 Brand’s Effect on Owner’s Status ........................................................ 131 Calmness of the Experience ............................................................... 132 Casual Sex Openness ........................................................................ 134 Cause Participation Conflict ................................................................ 135 Celebrity Worship ............................................................................. 137 Closeness to the Person .................................................................... 138 Closing Time Compliance ................................................................... 140 Commitment (Affective) .................................................................... 142 Communal Orientation ...................................................................... 144 Company Reshoring Motives (Extrinsic) ............................................... 146 Company Reshoring Motives (Intrinsic) ................................................ 148 Compatibility of a Product with Personal Values .................................... 150 Competence .................................................................................... 151 Complaint Intentions ........................................................................ 153 Complexity of the Assortment ............................................................ 154 Concern for the Needy (Friends) ......................................................... 155 Concern for the Needy (Self) .............................................................. 156 Conflicted ........................................................................................ 158 Congruence (Self with Employees) ...................................................... 159 Congruence of Employees .................................................................. 161 Connectedness (Self with Group) ........................................................ 162 Connectedness (Social) ..................................................................... 163 Control of the Space ......................................................................... 164 Convenience of Choosing Products from an Assortment ......................... 165 Co-Production Effort ......................................................................... 166 vi

Co-Production Enjoyment .................................................................. 168 Corporate Social Responsibility (Effect on Customer’s Support) ............... 170 Corporate Social Responsibility (Obligation) ......................................... 172 Counterculturalism ........................................................................... 174 Cultural Identity ............................................................................... 175 Day Quality Expectation .................................................................... 177 Deservingness (Special Purchase for Self) ............................................ 178 Desirability of Control ....................................................................... 180 Desire for Status .............................................................................. 182 Desire to Win the Auction .................................................................. 183 Devotion to Another.......................................................................... 185 Dietary Control Behaviors .................................................................. 187 Disconfirmation of the Experience ....................................................... 189 Dominance-Seeking .......................................................................... 190 Dominating the Brand ....................................................................... 192 Donate to Improve Equality (Social Norms) .......................................... 193 Donation Efficacy ............................................................................. 195 Donation Happiness .......................................................................... 197 Dysfunctional Spending During Travel ................................................. 198 E-mail Message Informativeness......................................................... 200 E-mail Message Irritativeness ............................................................. 202 E-mail Message Riskiness .................................................................. 204 E-mail Sender Trustworthiness ........................................................... 206 Empathy ......................................................................................... 208 Empathy (Mentalizing Likelihood) ....................................................... 210 Employee Rapport ............................................................................ 212 Empowerment (General) ................................................................... 214 Engagement (Felt)............................................................................ 215 Engagement (General) ...................................................................... 217 vii

Engagement in the Choice Process ...................................................... 219 Environmental Impact of the Product .................................................. 220 Environmentalism (Product Choices) ................................................... 222 Environmentalism (Purchasing Behavior) ............................................. 223 Ethnic Identification (Exploration & Commitment) ................................. 225 Exhibitionism of the Person ................................................................ 227 Expertise with Humor........................................................................ 228 Fairness (Business’s Treatment of the Customer) .................................. 229 Fate Malleability ............................................................................... 230 Fear of Negative Evaluation ............................................................... 231 Fearfulness ...................................................................................... 233 Figure-Ground Contrast in the Ad ....................................................... 234 Financial Contentment ...................................................................... 236 Firm's Motivation to Help the Environment ........................................... 237 Focus on Affect During Ad Evaluation .................................................. 238 Fragility (Gender Comparison)............................................................ 239 Frequency of the Experience .............................................................. 240 Gift Certificate Evaluation (Affective) ................................................... 241 Gift Inappropriateness ...................................................................... 242 Goal Commitment ............................................................................ 243 Gratitude Expressed by Others ........................................................... 245 Group Comparison Concerns .............................................................. 246 Group Competitiveness Desire............................................................ 247 Group Image Concerns ..................................................................... 248 Guilt ............................................................................................... 249 Guilt ............................................................................................... 250 Guilt ............................................................................................... 251 Guilt (Not Buying Cause-Related Deal) ................................................ 253 Guilt Appraisal (Donation Failure) ....................................................... 254 viii

Happiness (State) ............................................................................ 255 Happiness with the Experience ........................................................... 256 Health Importance ............................................................................ 257 Healthy Eating Concern (Gender Stereotype) ....................................... 258 Helpfulness ..................................................................................... 259 Homophily ....................................................................................... 260 Homophily ....................................................................................... 261 Hope (Dispositional) ......................................................................... 262 Humanness ..................................................................................... 263 Identification with the Environmental Organization ................................ 265 Imagery Vividness (Visual) ................................................................ 267 Implicit Person Theory ...................................................................... 268 Importance of Having Money ............................................................. 270 Impulse Buying (Product Specific)....................................................... 271 Impulse Buying Tendency .................................................................. 273 Incongruity (General) ....................................................................... 275 Infection Severity ............................................................................. 277 Informativeness (General) ................................................................. 279 Insecurity (Social) ............................................................................ 280 Intelligence ..................................................................................... 282 Intention to Engage in the Exercise ..................................................... 284 Intention to Prevent Heart Disease ..................................................... 285 Intention to Prevent Skin Cancer ........................................................ 287 Intention to Support the Nonprofit ...................................................... 288 Intrusion Pressure from Employees ..................................................... 289 Intrusion Pressure from Employees ..................................................... 290 Involvement (General) ...................................................................... 291 Involvement in the Exercise ............................................................... 293 Involvement with Sales ..................................................................... 295 ix

Involvement with the Internet ............................................................ 297 Involvement with the Product Category (Choice Uncertainty) .................. 298 Involvement with the Product Category (Pleasure) ................................ 300 Involvement with the Product Category (Sign) ...................................... 302 Involvement with the Sport ............................................................... 304 Involvement with the Sports-related Event .......................................... 306 Justice of the Website (Distributive) .................................................... 308 Justice of the Website (Procedural) ..................................................... 309 Knowledge (Domain Specific) ............................................................. 310 Knowledge (Subjective)..................................................................... 312 Lay Rationalism................................................................................ 313 Littering Intention ............................................................................ 315 Love (Dispositional) .......................................................................... 317 Love (State) .................................................................................... 318 Loyalty Intentions ............................................................................ 319 Loyalty to the Store .......................................................................... 321 Malicious Intent by Employees ........................................................... 322 Market Dynamism ............................................................................ 323 Materialism (Parent) ......................................................................... 324 Mind Wandering During a Task ........................................................... 325 Money Saving Behaviors .................................................................... 326 Mood (Global) .................................................................................. 328 Morality .......................................................................................... 329 Morality .......................................................................................... 330 Need for Cognition............................................................................ 331 Need For Help (Person) ..................................................................... 333 Need for Uniqueness (General) ........................................................... 334 Negotiation Power (Customer with Salesperson) ................................... 335 Neutral (State) ................................................................................ 336 x

Norm Reasonability .......................................................................... 337 Novelty of the Advertised Product ....................................................... 338 Organic Food’s Natural Content .......................................................... 339 Organic Food’s Nutritional Value ......................................................... 340 Other Person’s Confidence ................................................................. 341 Other Person’s Goodwill..................................................................... 342 Other Person’s Social Responsibility .................................................... 343 Others-Focused Experience ................................................................ 344 Parental Style (Rejection) .................................................................. 345 Parental Style (Warmth) .................................................................... 347 Patronage Reduction ......................................................................... 349 Personality Adjustability .................................................................... 350 Place Attachment ............................................................................. 351 Place Attachment (Physical) ............................................................... 353 Place Attachment (Social) .................................................................. 355 Place Dependence ............................................................................ 356 Place Distinction ............................................................................... 358 Place Identity .................................................................................. 359 Place Nostalgia................................................................................. 361 Popularity of the New Product ............................................................ 362 Power (Social) ................................................................................. 363 Power Distance ................................................................................ 365 Power Felt (State) ............................................................................ 366 Power from Distinctive Products ......................................................... 368 Powerfulness ................................................................................... 369 Preference for Store Brands ............................................................... 370 Price Believability ............................................................................. 372 Price Consciousness .......................................................................... 373 Price Fairness .................................................................................. 375 xi

Price Liking ...................................................................................... 376 Price-Quality Relationship .................................................................. 377 Privacy Concerns (Company’s Misuse of Information) ............................ 378 Privacy Concerns with Internet Usage ................................................. 380 Privacy of Response .......................................................................... 381 Product Component Centrality ............................................................ 383 Product Component Centrality ............................................................ 384 Product Component Importance ......................................................... 386 Product Design (Aesthetic) ................................................................ 388 Product Design (Functional) ............................................................... 390 Product Design (Symbolic) ................................................................. 392 Product Effectiveness (Energy Stimulation) .......................................... 394 Product Effectiveness (Stimulation Duration) ........................................ 396 Product Evaluation (Beverage) ........................................................... 398 Product Evaluation (Credence) ........................................................... 399 Product Evaluation (Experience) ......................................................... 401 Product Evaluation (Search) ............................................................... 403 Product Selection Freedom ................................................................ 405 Production Effort .............................................................................. 407 Prorelationship Behaviors (Ability) ...................................................... 408 Prorelationship Behaviors (Motivation) ................................................. 409 Prosocial Consumption (Close-Others) ................................................. 411 Prosocial Consumption (Distant-Others) .............................................. 412 Public Nature of Responses ................................................................ 413 Punishment Seeking ......................................................................... 414 Purchase Activism ............................................................................ 415 Purchase Choice Certainty ................................................................. 416 Purchase Intention (Organic Food) ...................................................... 417 Purchase Reward Expectation ............................................................. 418 xii

Purchasing Power ............................................................................. 419 Quality Consciousness ....................................................................... 420 Quality of the Jeans .......................................................................... 422 Quality of the Meal ........................................................................... 423 Quality of the Service Provider’s Facilities ............................................ 425 Quality of the Store (Physical Environment) ......................................... 427 Quality of the Store .......................................................................... 428 Rapport with Employees .................................................................... 429 Reactance (Intrusiveness) ................................................................. 430 Realism of the Purchase Simulation ..................................................... 432 Reasons Against Adopting the Innovation (Risk) ................................... 433 Reasons Against Installing the Product (Cost) ....................................... 435 Reasons Against Installing the Product (Difficulty) ................................. 437 Reasons for Installing the Product (Financial) ....................................... 439 Reasons for Installing the Product (Independence) ................................ 441 Reasons for Using the Product (Convenience) ....................................... 443 Recycling Intention ........................................................................... 444 Reflected Appraisal of Persons in the Ad .............................................. 446 Regret about the Customization Decision ............................................. 448 Regulatory Focus of the Charity .......................................................... 449 Relational Expectations ..................................................................... 451 Relational Sensemaking .................................................................... 452 Relevance of the Slogan .................................................................... 454 Religiosity (Affective) ........................................................................ 455 Religiosity (Behavioral) ..................................................................... 456 Religiosity (Cognitive) ....................................................................... 457 Reproductive Value (Gender Comparison) ............................................ 458 Repurchase Intention Towards the Service Provider .............................. 460 Research Hypothesis Awareness ......................................................... 461 xiii

Responsibility to Help Others ............................................................. 462 Retail Patronage (By Store Type) ........................................................ 463 Retaliation Against Employees ............................................................ 465 Review Helpfulness ........................................................................... 467 Review Writer’s Intention to be Helpful ................................................ 468 Risk (Performance) ........................................................................... 469 Risk in Choosing From an Assortment .................................................. 471 Riskiness of Unprotected Sex ............................................................. 473 Romantic Pursuit .............................................................................. 474 Safety of the Food Product................................................................. 475 Salesperson’s Customer Orientation (Functional) .................................. 477 Salesperson’s Customer Orientation (Relational) ................................... 478 Satisfaction with the Business ............................................................ 480 Satisfaction with the Co-Production Process ......................................... 481 Satisfaction with the Customization Decision ........................................ 483 Satisfaction with the Discount ............................................................ 484 Scarcity (Personal Resources) ............................................................ 485 Self Image Concerns ......................................................................... 486 Self-Accountability for Group Performance ........................................... 487 Self-Concept (Collective) ................................................................... 488 Self-Concept (Relational) ................................................................... 490 Self-Concept (Self-Discipline) ............................................................. 492 Self-Continuity Preference ................................................................. 493 Self-Defining Experience ................................................................... 494 Self-Esteem Attack Likelihood ............................................................ 495 Self-Improvement Motivation ............................................................. 496 Self-Regulatory Exertion (Math Task) .................................................. 497 Self-Regulatory Goal Progress ............................................................ 499 Self-Transformation (Acquiring an Object) ........................................... 500 xiv

Service Dominant Orientation (Concerted) ........................................... 502 Service Dominant Orientation (Developmental) .................................... 504 Service Dominant Orientation (Empowered) ......................................... 506 Service Dominant Orientation (Ethical) ................................................ 508 Service Dominant Orientation (Individuated) ........................................ 510 Service Dominant Orientation (Relational)............................................ 512 Service Failure Attributions (Internal) .................................................. 514 Service Importance .......................................................................... 516 Service Quality (Empathy) ................................................................. 517 Service Quality (Overall) ................................................................... 519 Service Quality (Overall) ................................................................... 520 Severity of the Situation .................................................................... 522 Sharing an Experience with a Brand .................................................... 524 Shopping Choice Difficulty ................................................................. 525 Shopping Convenience (General) ........................................................ 526 Shopping Intention ........................................................................... 527 Shopping List Prioritization ................................................................ 529 Shopping Orientation (Efficiency) ........................................................ 531 Shopping Orientation (Hedonic) .......................................................... 532 Shopping Trip Failure ........................................................................ 533 Shopping Value (Hedonic) ................................................................. 534 Similarity in Employees’ Appearance ................................................... 536 Skepticism of the Product Claim ......................................................... 537 Smoking-Related Beliefs (Negative) .................................................... 538 Sociability ....................................................................................... 539 Social Attraction ............................................................................... 540 Social Attraction via Twitter ............................................................... 542 Social Comparison (Appearance) ........................................................ 544 Social Distance with the Mentally Ill .................................................... 545 xv

Social Identification .......................................................................... 546 Social Presentation Concern ............................................................... 548 Social Support ................................................................................. 549 Special Treatment Entitlement ........................................................... 551 Special Treatment Entitlement from Employees .................................... 552 Spending Aversion ............................................................................ 553 Sponsor/Sponsee Congruence ............................................................ 554 Status (Social) ................................................................................. 556 Store Atmosphere ............................................................................ 557 Store Design (Attractiveness) ............................................................. 558 Store Design (Interior Layout) ............................................................ 560 Store Design (Ordering Costs) ............................................................ 562 Superstitious Beliefs ......................................................................... 564 Support for Lowering the Minimum Drinking Age ................................... 566 Switching Costs (Benefits Lost) .......................................................... 567 Switching Costs (Investment) ............................................................ 569 Switching Costs (Learning) ................................................................ 571 Switching Costs (Uncertainty) ............................................................ 573 Switching Intention........................................................................... 575 Symbolic Embeddedness (Contentment) .............................................. 577 Symbolic Embeddedness (Happiness) .................................................. 578 Symbolic Embeddedness (Love) ......................................................... 579 Symbolic Embeddedness (Love) ......................................................... 581 Symbolic Embeddedness (Pride) ......................................................... 583 Task Difficulty .................................................................................. 584 Task Enjoyment ............................................................................... 585 Taste Evaluation (General) ................................................................ 587 Temporal Proximity .......................................................................... 588 Time Availability ............................................................................... 589 xvi

Time Availability ............................................................................... 590 Time Beneficialness .......................................................................... 592 Time Pressure from Employees ........................................................... 593 Transformational Relationship Event ................................................... 594 Treatment Seeking Likelihood ............................................................ 596 Trust (Interpersonal) ........................................................................ 598 Trust in Feelings ............................................................................... 600 Trust in the Organization’s Treatment of Members ................................ 602 Trust in the Third-Party Label ............................................................. 604 Trustworthiness (General) ................................................................. 606 Uniqueness of the Design .................................................................. 607 Usefulness of the Shopping Aid .......................................................... 609 Value of the Transaction .................................................................... 611 Values (Biospheric) ........................................................................... 612 Values (Egoistic) .............................................................................. 613 Variety Within the Assortment ............................................................ 615 Visibility (Social) .............................................................................. 616 Visual Complexity ............................................................................. 617 Visual Processing Fluency (General) .................................................... 618 Visual Processing Fluency (Product Customization) ............................... 619 Vividness (General) .......................................................................... 621 Vulnerability (Health) ........................................................................ 622 Water Conservation Intention ............................................................. 623 Weariness ....................................................................................... 625 Website’s User-Generated Content ...................................................... 626 Willingness to Pay a Price Premium ..................................................... 627 Willingness to Purchase a Product as a Gift .......................................... 628 Willingness to Purchase the Advertised Brand ....................................... 630 Willingness to Purchase the Company's Products ................................... 632 xvii

Willingness to Share the Product Review via Twitter ............................. 633 Word-of-Mouth (Negative) ................................................................. 634 Word-of-Mouth Intention (Positive) ..................................................... 635 Word-of-Mouth Intention for the Sports Team ...................................... 636 Word-of-Mouth Likelihood (General).................................................... 638 Zero-Sum Beliefs ............................................................................. 640 Subject Index ..................................................................................... 643 About the Author .............................................................................. 6499

xviii

Preface . . . . . We live in a time when many researchers, especially in the market research industry, are tempted to think that gathering primary data is unnecessary. The siren call of Big Data has led them to believe the answers to their questions are already “out there” somewhere. Yet, there are plenty of researchers who realize that Big Data and other secondary sources of information do not address many of their really important questions. Gathering high quality data in surveys and experiments using the most precise measures is still necessary to effectively investigate WHY people do what they do. Thanks to those of you who understand the value of multi-item scales. When you use a measure, I urge you to give credit to those authors who created it. In those cases where the origin is unknown, please cite some of the authors who have previously used a scale. 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. As for finding the right scales for your study, one of the benefits of this ebook format is that it is much easier to search the pages using a variety of terms compared to the effort required with a paper book. A Table of Contents and a Subject Index are provided for your assistance but they have their limitations. Users are urged to utilize whatever search function is available in the software when looking for a particular topic or researcher. As for the future of this work, I expect for it to continue for at least one more volume. I have already begun gathering articles published after the period covered in this volume and will soon begin reviewing the scales they contain. Although the day will come when I will step away from this work, that is not in my plans for the near future. Keep in mind that until the next volume is released, my reviews of new scales will be added to the database at MarketingScales.com in a timely manner. If you do not find something in this book that you are looking for, please search for it at the website. Good luck in your research!

xix

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . As I write descriptions of scales, I primarily depend upon the information in the journals articles and any appendices related to them. There are many cases, however, when I need some critical piece of information or clarification. When that happens, I attempt to contact the authors. They do not always respond and, if they do not, it may mean their work is not reviewed. Listed below are those authors who did respond to my requests while working on this volume. I appreciate their assistance. Thomas Allard Alexis Allen Lucy Atkinson Ernest Baskin Jordan Etkin Berger Christopher Berry Amit Bhattacharjee Keith Botner Lisa Cavanaugh Boyoun (Grace) Chae Luca Cian Sarah De Meulenaer Rod Duclos Robert J. Fisher Michael D. Giebelhausen Colleen Harmeling Jonathan Hasford Ilona de Hooge

Auke Hunneman Christopher K. Hsee Szu-chi Huang Xun (Irene) Huang Kineta Hung Veronika Ilyuk Hyeongmin Christian Kim Junghan Kim Atul A. Kulkarni JaeHwan Kwon Kevin Lehnert Peggy Liu Donald J. Lund Frank May Juan Meng Sarah Moore Stephanie Noble John Peloza

Kate Pounders Marina Puzakova Ryan Rahinel Rebecca Walker Reczek Marsha L. Richins Sara Rosengren Ayalla A. Ruvio Anthony Salerno Rom Y. Schrift Ioannis G. Theodorakis Rima Touré-Tillery Merel Walraven Caleb Warren Katherine White Adelle X. Yang Yang Yang Eric Yorkston

As with previous volumes, I thank my wife for understanding the time and effort I put into this work. That is doubly true now that I am retired and could be doing things she believes would be more “fun.” Sometimes I wonder as well why I continue to do it. Hmmm . . . maybe this is “fun” for the scholar in me. May your measures always be valid! Fort Worth, Texas February 2017 xx

Introduction . . . . . . . The scales reviewed in this volume were reported in articles published in 2014 and 2015. While that does not necessarily mean a scale was first reported during that time period, it does mean that none of the scales in this volume were in a previous volume of this series. In that sense, the scales are new to the series. If users are looking for something that is not in this book, they are urged to check out the full database at MarketingScales.com where several thousand scales that were previously reviewed are available. Similar to Volumes 4 to 8, this volume is composed entirely of scales that were used in scholarly research of “consumers” or similar groups of respondents, e.g., viewers, patients, donors, citizens, etc. Despite that, 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 recent articles were not included because they were the same or very similar to ones that had been reviewed in previous volumes. They were not ”new” and, because of that, there are no scales in this book with lots of uses reported over many years in the top marketing journals. The more recent uses of older scales may have been cited in the reviews at the database, however. Another criterion used to focus the work was at the construct level. The question asked was, how many unique, alternative measures of a construct have already been reviewed and are housed in the repository at MarketingScales.com? 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. But, at some point, 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 this constraint, suffice it to say that the xxi

greater the number of different measures of a construct that have already been reviewed, 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 because there are limits to the number of pages a book printer (CreateSpace) will allow for paperback books. With that in mind, an initial examination was conducted of over 600 articles published in six top marketing journals during 2014 and 2015. (The journals are specified in the table on the next page.) From that group, 215 articles received greater scrutiny because they appeared to have measures of the type focused on in the series. 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 187 articles from the marketing literature domain with 433 scales that were reviewed for this book. As for assigning names to scales, it is a more challenging task than might be imagined. It is not as simple as calling them what the users did. In some cases, the researchers described a scale without giving 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 widely known with a more general construct name or one that would make more sense to readers, e.g., temporary abandonment vs. Shopping Trip Failure. Given this, several things were taken into account when deciding what to call each scale: what did the creators call it, what have other researchers called measures of the same construct, what is the most popular name of the construct itself among marketing scholars, and how can a long name be condensed to a reasonable length? The layout of reviews is similar to the last few volumes but a few minor changes have been made. Details about the type of information found in the various sections of each scale review are provided in the table on the next page.

xxii

TABLE Scale Review Format The top of the page on which a scale review begins has a short, descriptive name. Several issues are taken into account when assigning a name and it may not be the one used by the users of the scale. See the discussion on the previous page for more details. Just below the scale name are a few sentences that 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 described as well.

ORIGIN: Information about the creation of the scale is provided in this section, 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 likely 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 “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. For those unfamiliar with these 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. Few of those scales are included in the book.

xxiii

VALIDITY: There are several types of validity and no single 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 is 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 a scale’s validation that the work is merely summarized and readers are urged to consult the cited article for more details.

COMMENTS: This field is used occasionally when something significant was observed and was deemed important enough to mention in its own section of the review. For example, if something about a scale is judged to be deficient then readers may be urged in this section to exercise caution in using the scale. Another example is that in many cases a scale was phrased by its creators for use in a particular context but it is pointed out that with a little modification the scale seems to usable in other contexts.

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 to a review. As stated in the Acknowledgements, in many cases the scale users themselves were contacted. If they responded and provided useful information, they are cited.

ITEMS: The statements, adjectives, or questions composing a scale are listed in this field and are generally referred to as scale items. Also, an indication of the response format is provided in this section or its footnote unless it is has been adequately specified in the description at the beginning of the review. For example, many of the measures were merely described as “Likert-type” by their authors but the specific verbal anchors of the response scale were not stated. It can be assumed the extreme anchors were strongly agree / strongly disagree or xxiv

some close variant. The graphic version of the scales and how to lay them out in a questionnaire are not provided in the reviews here because they are almost never provided in the published articles though they might be in web appendices. Concerned readers should consult books that deal with survey development or types of measurement scales. 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 an article’s composition, review, editing, and publication process, users of scales are urged to examine items closely to determine which ones should be reverse-coded. The instructions for respondents that were used with scales in the questionnaires are rarely provided in the reviews here because authors of the articles in which the scales were found rarely provided them. Users of scale should feel free to contact the scale authors and ask them about the instructions and any other questions related to using the measure.

xxv

SCALE REVIEWS

ACCEPTANCE OF BEHAVIORAL TARGETING Three, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure a person’s willingness to let a particular website track and analyze his/her navigation through the World Wide Web.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 1 and implied that Malhotra, Kim, and Agarwal (2004) were the source. However, only one word per item comes from a scale by the latter and even those words come from one of the most popular scales used in scholarly consumer research to measure behavioral intention. (For more details about that construct and its measurement, see the review in Bruner [2013, pp. 73-82].) Given all of this, the scale is considered here to be original to Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) though drawing upon key words used in previous scales. It is also worthy of note that the scale was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .96 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 71).

VALIDITY: While Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did provide evidence in support of its discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was very high (.88).

REFERENCES: Bruner II, Gordon C. (2013), Marketing Scales Handbook: The Top 20 Multi-Item Measures Used in Consumer Research, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Malhotra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal (2004), “Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Constructs, the Scale, and a Causal Model,” Information Systems Research, 15 (4), 336–355. Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

3

ITEMS: 1. I would probably allow the website to evaluate my surfing behavior. 2. It is likely that I would consent to an analysis of my surfing behavior. 3. I would be willing to agree to an evaluation of my surfing behavior.

4

AD EMPHASIS ON BENEFITS VS. ATTRIBUTES The scale measures the extent to which a person believes that a particular advertisement he/she has been exposed to focuses more on the benefits consumers could experience from the product rather than just the product’s characteristics apart from the benefits. Three, seven-point items compose the scale.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Hernandez, Wright, and Rodrigues (2015) in the pretest for Study 1 to help test if two ads varied in their emphasis on either product benefits or product attributes. Data were collected in the pretest from 50 adults recruited from an online panel. The source of the scale was not stated but it seems likely it was created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 (Hernandez, Wright, and Rodrigues 2015, p. 247).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Hernandez, Wright, and Rodrigues (2015). Although the scale was not referred to as a manipulation check, it seems that is how it was used. Since the ad expected to emphasize benefits scored significantly differently from the ad emphasizing attributes, it provides some limited evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Hernandez, José Mauro da Costa, Scott A. Wright, and Filipe Ferminiano Rodrigues (2015), "Attributes Versus Benefits: The Role of Construal Levels and Appeal Type on the Persuasiveness of Marketing Messages," Journal of Advertising, 44 (3), 243-253.

ITEMS:1 1. In your opinion, does this specific advertisement focus more on the benefits one would gain by using this product or on specific product attributes? 2. The ad focuses on benefits over attributes. 3. The ad emphasizes product attributes over benefits. (r)

-------------1. The extreme anchors use with item #1 were Attributes (12) and Benefits (7). For the other two items, the extreme anchors were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7).

5

AD INCONGRUENCE RESOLUTION The degree to which a person was easily able to understand the meaning of an ad which had an unexpected aspect to it is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Hutter and Hoffmann (2014) used the scale in what they referred to as Follow-up Studies A, B, and C. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Follow-up Study A was .94. (The reliability was not mentioned for the other follow-up studies.)

VALIDITY: CFA was explicitly used by Hutter and Hoffmann (2014) with the scales in Follow-up Studies A and B. In both cases, the measurement models (which contained the ad incongruence resolution scale shown below) were confirmed. Further, evidence was found for the discriminant validity between the resolution scale and the other scales included in the models. The AVE for the scale in Follow-up Study A was .86. (AVE was not reported for the other two follow-up studies.)

REFERENCES: Hutter, Katharina and Stefan Hoffmann (2014), "Surprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 93-110.

ITEMS: 1. I quickly realized what the ad was about. 2. It was easy to understand the ad’s intention. 3. I easily recognized the ad’s objective.

6

AD-EVOKED INTEREST IN THE BRAND A consumer’s interest in a brand that results from exposure to an ad is measured with five, seven-point items. The interest referred to in the items ranges from learning more about the product to planning to buy it.

ORIGIN: Zhao, Muehling, and Kareklas (2014) created the scale by drawing concepts from the literature, especially Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991). The scale was used in Study 1 and possibly Study 2 as well.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale in Study 1 was .86 (Zhao, Muehling, and Kareklas 2014, p. 249). Although it was implied by the authors that the scale was used in Study 2 (p. 251), no explicit information about its use and reliability was provided.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Zhao, Muehling, and Kareklas (2014).

REFERENCES: Dodds, Williams B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991), “The Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3), 307–319. Zhao, Guangzhi, Darrel D. Muehling, and Ioannis Kareklas (2014), "Remembering the Good Old Days: The Moderating Role of Consumer Affective State on the Effectiveness of Nostalgic Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 244-255.

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

I would consider purchasing the advertised __________ if I need to buy one. If the price is right, it is very likely that I will purchase the advertised __________. After reading the ad, I feel I want to learn more about __________. After reading the ad, I feel I want to visit the website of __________ After reading the ad, I feel I want to try the advertised __________.

-------------1. The name of the brand and possibly the model as well should be placed in the blanks. The phrase “model of Kodak camera” and slight variations were used by Zhao, Muehling, and Kareklas (2014). The extreme anchors for the response scale were Definitely no (1) and Definitely yes (7).

7

ADVERTISING RELEVANCE EXPECTATION With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s belief that a specific set or type of ads will be personally worthwhile and of interest.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 1 and indicated its source was Laczniak and Muehling (1993). Although some words were drawn from a few items measuring ad relevance used by the latter, the scales are different enough that it is more precise to say that the scale shown below was created by Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014). It is also worthy of note that the scale was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: While Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did provide evidence in support of its discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was good (.70).

REFERENCES: Laczniak, Russell N. and Darrel D. Muehling (1993), “The Relationship Between Experimental Manipulations and Tests of Theory in an Advertising Message Involvement Context,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (3), 59-74. Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I will see _____ ads that are relevant to me. I will receive useful information through _____ ads. _____ advertisements will be interesting to me. _____ advertisements will be worth paying attention to.

8

-------------1. By means of a scale stem and/or study setting, a frame of reference may be provided to participants which is likely to affect what word(s) goes in the blanks. In the study by Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014), the stem was “If I allow the website to evaluate my nonpersonally identifiable surfing information . . .” (p. 72). Along with that, the term “online” was used in the blanks.

9

AFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE AD (VULNERABILITY) Five, seven-point Likert-type items are used measure the degree to which a person reports that an ad made him/her feel exposed and unsafe.

ORIGIN: Aguirre et al. (2015) created the scale to better understand if a negative effect of personalized advertising was that consumers could feel vulnerable. The scale was developed in a series of qualitative and quantitative studies. Briefly, based on theory as well as feedback from qualitative interviews, the authors viewed the construct as being more than just a cognitive understanding of risk; they strongly believed it included feelings of discomfort as well. Using a second qualitative study, 15 potential scale items were reduced to seven. In a pilot test with 108 college students, analysis led to a singlefactor model with five items and its alpha was .864. Support for the scale’s validity is discussed below.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .88 (n = 120 participants from an online panel) and .93 (n = 194 participants from an online panel) in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Aguirre et al. 2015).

VALIDITY: Using data and tests from the studies, Aguirre et al. (2015) stated that they found evidence supporting the discriminant, convergent, and nomological validities of the scale.

REFERENCES: Aguirre, Elizabeth, Dominik Mahr, Dhruv Grewal, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels (2015), "Unraveling the Personalization Paradox: The Effect of Information Collection and Trust-Building Strategies on Online Advertisement Effectiveness," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 34-49.

ITEMS:1 To what extent did the advertisement make you feel . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

Exposed Unprotected Susceptible Unsafe 10

5. vulnerable

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with these items were strongly disagree and strongly agree (Aguirre et al. 2015, p. 40). The instructions used with the scale were not explicitly stated in the article. The scale stem shown here is based on the authors’ general description of what participants were asked to do.

11

ALTRUISM How much a person views another person as generous and caring is measured in this scale with four unipolar items. Application of this scale to measuring the altruism of entities other than individual persons seems possible.

ORIGIN: Berman et al. (2015) used the scale in Study 5 of the seven studies reported in their article. Data were collected from 200 people in the U.S. for the online study. The source of the scale was not clear but appears to be original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .87 (Berman et al. 2015, p. 99).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed.

COMMENTS: While Berman et al. (2015) used the scale with regard to a person, the items appear to be relevant for describing the altruism of other entities such as groups of people, companies, governments, and religions. If such a usage is intended, pretesting the scale for that context is recommended.

REFERENCES: Berman, Jonathan Z., Emma E. Levine, Alixandra Barasch, and Deborah A. Small (2015), "The Braggart's Dilemma: On the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 90-104.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

generous kind selfish (r) caring

-------------1. The anchors used with these items were not explicitly stated by Berman et al. (2015) but appear to be the same as used with several other scales in their studies: not at all (1) and extremely (7).

12

ANTHROPOMORPHISM (GENERAL) The general tendency to attribute distinct human mental capacities to nonhumans is measured with 15 questions.

ORIGIN: Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley (2010) constructed the scale and referred to it as the Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism Questionnaire (IDAQ). In multiple studies, the authors provided evidence of the instrument’s psychometric quality. For example, CFA was used to show that there were two first order factors (anthropomorphism of animals and anthropomorphism of non-animals) and a second order factor (general anthropomorphism). The temporal stability of the IDAQ (12-19 week test-retest correlation) was .55. The internal consistency (alpha) was reported as being .82 or higher in all of their studies. The instrument was used by Kim and Kramer (2015) in a second pilot study before the Study 1. Data were collected from 92 members of Amazon Mechanical Turk.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .87 in the study by Kim and Kramer (2015).

VALIDITY: Kim and Kramer (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: Because the instrument is a combination of two sets of items (anthropomorphism of animals and anthropomorphism of non-animals), it seems reasonable that just one set could be used if it is the only factor of interest. Although there is no reason to believe the psychometric quality would be inadequate if just one set of items was used, it should be examined prior to use in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian) and Thomas Kramer (2015), "Do Materialists Prefer the 'Brand-as- Servant'? The Interactive Effect of Anthropomorphized Brand Roles and Materialism on Consumer Responses," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 284-299. Waytz, Adam, John Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley (2010), “Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 219–232. 13

ITEMS:1 1. To what extent does technology—devices and machines for manufacturing, entertainment, and productive processes (e.g., cars, computers, television sets)— have intentions? 2. To what extent does the average fish have free will? 3. To what extent does the average mountain have free will? 4. To what extent does a television set experience emotions? 5. To what extent does the average robot have consciousness? 6. To what extent do cows have intentions? 7. To what extent does a car have free will? 8. To what extent does the ocean have consciousness? 9. To what extent does the average computer have a mind of its own? 10. To what extent does a cheetah experience emotions? 11. To what extent does the environment experience emotions? 12. To what extent does the average insect have a mind of its own? 13. To what extent does a tree have a mind of its own? 14. To what extent does the wind have intentions? 15. To what extent does the average reptile have consciousness?

-------------1. The response format used by Kim and Kramer (2015) with these questions was not stated. Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley (2010) used an 11-point scale with the following anchors: not at all (0) and very much (10).

14

ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF TIME A person’s attribution of humanlike qualities to time (free will, emotions, intentions) is measured using six, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: May and Monga (2014) developed the scale for use in some of the studies described in their article. They adapted several of the items from a measure created by Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley (2010) called Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism Questionnaire (IDAQ).

RELIABILITY: The scale was used by May and Monga (2014) in the pilot study where it was adapted for use with each of several creatures and objects, including time. The alphas for them all were described as being above .85. For Study 1 and the Study 2 pretest, the alphas for the time anthropomorphism scale were .93 and .95, respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by May and Monga (2014). However, given that the scale was used in the Study 2 pretest to show the manipulation of time anthropomorphism was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: May, Frank and Ashwani Monga (2014), "When Time Has a Will of Its Own, the Powerless Don’t Have the Will to Wait: Anthropomorphism of Time Can Decrease Patience," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 924-942. Waytz, Adam, John Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley (2010), “Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 219–32.

ITEMS:1 To what extent do you think of time as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

having having having having having

a will of its own? intentions of its own? free will? a mind of its own? emotions of its own? 15

6. being a person?

-------------1. The anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

16

ANXIETY (SOCIAL) The general level of discomfort a person reports feeling in the presence of others is measured with six statements.

ORIGIN: In several studies, Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) developed and refined the anxiety scale along with the other two parts of a self-consciousness instrument. (The other two parts were public and private self-consciousness.) The findings repeatedly showed that items for measuring the three constructs loaded on their respective factors. In a test of temporal stability, the 2 week test-retest correlation was .73 for the social anxiety portion of the instrument. As used in research of consumer behavior, the scale was employed by Ratner and Hamilton (2015) in Study 2. Data were gathered from two online panels: 100 participants from the U.S. and 101 from India completed the study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk while 70 Chinese participants completed the study on a Chinese site similar to mTurk. In all cases, materials were presented in English.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale when used by Ratner and Hamilton (2015, p. 272) was .85.

VALIDITY: Ratner and Hamilton (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975), “Public and Private SelfConsciousness: Assessment and Theory,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43 (4), 522–527. Ratner, Rebecca K. and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2015), "Inhibited from Bowling Alone," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 266-283.

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

It takes me time to overcome my shyness in new situations. I have trouble working when someone is watching me. I get embarrassed very easily. I don't find it hard to talk to strangers. (r) I feel anxious when I speak in front of a group. 17

6. Large groups make me nervous.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not described by Ratner and Hamilton (2015). It appears to have been a seven-point, Likert-type scale, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree. Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975, p. 523) used a fivepoint response scale anchored by extremely uncharacteristic/extremely characteristic.

18

ANXIETY (SOCIAL) This seven item, 10 point Likert-type scale measures a type of social anxiety that primarily occurs as a result of interacting with other people.

ORIGIN: Wan and Wyer (2015) used the scale shown below in Study 1 (n = 320 males). The items were drawn from a 15 item scale developed by Leary (1983). He referred to the scale as interaction anxiousness which was intended to focus on the anxiety resulting from responses of other people rather than situations in which one's social responses are not strongly determined by others. Leary’s studies provided support for several forms of reliability and validity for the 15 item scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the version of the scale used by Wan and Wyer (2015, p. 583) was .86.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Wan and Wyer (2015).

COMMENTS: It is not clear on what basis Wan and Wyer (2015) selected the ten items from Leary’s (1983) scale to form their measure. Although support was provided by the latter for the 15-item scale’s validity, caution should be exercised in assuming the 10 item subset shown below is just as valid. Revalidating the abbreviated scale with the more rigorous methods available now is encouraged.

REFERENCES: Leary, Mark R. (1983), “Social Anxiousness: The Construct and Its Measurement,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 47 (1), 66–75. Wan, Lisa C. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2015), "Consumer Reactions to Attractive Service Providers: Approach or Avoid?" Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 578-595.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I often feel nervous even in causal get-togethers. I usually feel uncomfortable when I am in a group of people I don’t know. Parties often make me feel anxious and uncomfortable. I am probably less shy in social interactions than most people. (r) 19

5. I wish I had more confidence in social situations. 6. I seldom feel anxious in social situations. (r) 7. I usually feel relaxed around other people, even people who are quite different from me. (r)

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (10).

20

APPRECIATION FELT Three, seven-point items are used to measure how much a person feels appreciated by a business or other party based on some action it has taken, e.g., expressing gratitude for his/her business.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in six studies reported by Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015). In each case, participants were responding to a note from a party thanking them for something such as their help, business, or feedback. The source of the scale was not stated but appears to be original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: Across the six studies in which the scale was used by Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015) the alphas were very high, ranging from .95 to .98.

VALIDITY: Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Liu, Peggy J., Cait Lamberton, and Kelly L. Haws (2015), "Should Firms Use Small Financial Benefits to Express Appreciation to Consumers? Understanding and Avoiding Trivialization Effects," Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 74-90.

ITEMS:1 __________, . . .2 1. how appreciated do you feel by _____ for what you have done for its business?3 2. how valued do you feel by _____ for what you have done for its business?4 3. how satisfied do you feel with _____ response to what you have done for its business?5

-------------1. This is the phrasing of the items used in Studies 1b, 3, and 4. The wording used in Studies 1a and 1c was very similar except that the final phrase was “for providing customer feedback” while in Study 2a it was “for your help.” The name of the party expressing its gratitude (business, organization, or person) should be stated in the blank of the each item. 2. The action taken by the appreciative party should be briefly stated in the blank. The phrase used by Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015) was “After receiving this note” which referred to an expression of gratitude sent by the thankful party. 3. The extreme anchors used with this item were not at all appreciated (1) and very much appreciated (7). 4. The extreme anchors used with this item were not at all valued (1) and very much valued (7). 5. The extreme anchors used with this item were not at all satisfied (1) and very much satisfied (7).

21

ARGUMENT STRENGTH Five, nine-point semantic differentials are used in this scale to measure how much a person believes that a message was persuasive and changed what he/she thought about a topic.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yeh and Jewell (2015) in the two studies reported in their article. Data for the studies came from undergraduate students attending a large Midwestern university in the United States. The source of the scale was not stated. It is clear, however, that three of the items are very similar if not the same as used in a scale by Lord, Lee, and Sauer (1995) to measure argument strength.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale used by Yeh and Jewell (2015) in Studies 1 and 2 were .87 (n = 273) and .89 (n = 211), respectively.

VALIDITY: Yeh and Jewell (2015) did not address the scale’s validity per se. However, they did note that the items composing the scale were factor analyzed in each study and only one factor emerged. In both cases, the one factor explained the majority of the variance and average item loadings were very high. Further, the scale was used in both studies as a manipulation check. Since the manipulations were successful, some evidence was provided of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Lord, Kenneth R., Myung-Soo Lee, and Paul L. Sauer (1995), “The Combined Influence Hypothesis: Central and Peripheral Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (Spring), 73–85. Yeh, Marie A. and Robert D. Jewell (2015), "The Myth/Fact Message Frame and Persuasion in Advertising: Enhancing Attitudes Toward the Mentally Ill," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 161-172.

ITEMS:1 I felt the ad content for __________ was . . . 1. very weak / very strong 2. not very persuasive / Very persuasive 3. not very powerful / very powerful 22

4. not at all informative / very informative 5. Made me think of __________ in the exact same way / Made me think of __________ in a completely different way.

-------------1. The name for the focal issue should be stated in the blanks. Also, if the “argument” is presented in something besides an ad, such as in a movie or a sales presentation, then that can be stated in the scale stem.

23

AROUSAL The degree to which a person reports feeling mellow or, at the other extreme, very energetic is measured with three, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Barasch and Berger (2014) used the scale in Study 2 with 170 college students. They borrowed the measure from Berger (2011). In his work, the scale’s alpha was .85 when used with 93 student subjects. The scale was also used in five studies reported by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015). Although they did not cite the source of the scale, it is clearly the one created by Berger (2011).

RELIABILITY: In its use by Barasch and Berger (2014, p. 290), the scale’s alpha was .84. The alphas for the scale in the studies by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) ranged from .87 (Study 3, n= 117) to .93 (Study 2, n = 59).

VALIDITY: Neither Barasch and Berger (2014) nor Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) discussed the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Barasch, Alixandra and Jonah Berger (2014), "Broadcasting and Narrowcasting: How Audience Size Affects What People Share," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 286299. Berger, Jonah (2011), “Arousal Increases Social Transmission of Information,” Psychological Science, 22 (7), 891–893. Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS: 1. passive / active 2. mellow / fired up 3. low energy / high energy

24

AROUSAL DURING THE AUCTION This three item, eleven-point Likert-type scale is intended to measure how stimulated and competitive a person felt when bidding against other people in a particular auction.

ORIGIN: In Study 2 by Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015), the scale was used in a lab experiment with 216 participants (undergraduate students at a German university). The authors apparently created two of the items themselves and based the third item on a measure used by Malhotra (2010). Initial phrasing of the items was examined by colleagues and the feedback led to some changes. Following that, the revised items were pretested with 72 students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .905 (Adam, Krämer, and Müller 2015, supplementary appendix).

VALIDITY: The results of an EFA showed that the items composing this scale loaded strongly on the same factor and had very low loadings on the other scales used in the study. While this provides evidence of the scale’s unidimensionality, Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015, supplementary appendix) interpreted it as evidence of discriminant validity. They also viewed the high alpha for the scale as being evidence of convergent validity. These are not strong tests of validity and the conclusions should be viewed as preliminary.

REFERENCES: Adam, Marc T.P., Jan Krämer, and Marius B. Müller (2015), "Auction Fever! How Time Pressure and Social Competition Affect Bidders’ Arousal and Bids in Retail Auctions," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 468-485. Malhotra, Deepak (2010), “The Desire to Win: The Effects of Competitive Arousal on Motivation and Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111 (2), 139–146.

ITEMS:1 1. I was aroused during the auction.2 2. It was fun to bid against the other bidders. 3. I felt competitive during the auction.

-------------25

1. The scale appears to have been administered to participants in German. These English translations were provided in the supplementary material of the article (Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015, supplementary appendix). Responses were made on an eleven-point Likert-type scale. Although not explicitly stated in the article, the extreme verbal anchors were likely to have been the German equivalents of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (11). 2. If a misleading or inappropriate conation of the word “arousal” is deemed to be likely with English-speaking participants, another term should be used such as excited or energized.

26

ATHLETIC SKILL CONTROL The degree to which a person believes that people have a lot of control over their athletic abilities and performance is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Cutright and Samper (2014) used the scale as a manipulation check in Study 2. Data were gathered from 162 undergraduate students attending Arizona State University. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 (Cutright and Samper 2014, p. 734).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Cutright and Samper (2014). 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: Cutright, Keisha M. and Adriana Samper (2014), "Doing It the Hard Way: How Low Control Drives Preferences for High-Effort Products and Services," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 730-745.

ITEMS:1 1. People have a great deal of control over their athletic outcomes. 2. People have a great deal of control over how they perform on athletic tasks. 3. People can significantly improve their athletic skills if they really want to.

-------------1. The response format used with these items had the following extreme anchors: completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5),

27

ATHLETICISM How much a person is viewed as sporty and healthy is measured in this scale with four unipolar items.

ORIGIN: Berman et al. (2015) used the scale in Study 5 of the seven studies reported in their article. Data were collected from 200 people in the U.S. for the online study. The source of the scale was not clear but appears to be original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .81 (Berman et al. 2015, p. 99).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed.

COMMENTS: Berman et al. (2015) had participants use the scale to evaluate a person described to them in a scenario. The scale appears to be amenable for use if the goal was to have participants evaluate their own athleticism. However, in that case, it is urged that the social desirability bias of the scale be considered and examined.

REFERENCES: Berman, Jonathan Z., Emma E. Levine, Alixandra Barasch, and Deborah A. Small (2015), "The Braggart's Dilemma: On the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 90-104.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

athletic sporty unhealthy (r) active

-------------1. The anchors used with these items were not explicitly stated by Berman et al. (2015) but appear to have been the same as used with several other scales in their studies: not at all (1) and extremely (7).

28

ATTACHMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES The scale uses six, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a customer’s social bond with the employees at a specific retail establishment. To be clear, the scale is intended to measure attachment to the workers at a location-specific business rather than the attachment to the employees at all locations in a chain or the general tendency to bond with employees.

ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 1 (n = 196) and 2 (n = 907). The authors referred to the scale as social bonds with employees. In a commendable series of steps, the authors constructed the scale along with several companion measures by clearly specifying the domains, generating items with focus groups as well as experts, and by adapting items from related scales. With multiple samples, the scales were purified for the main studies.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliabilities of the scale to be .94 and .96 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: In both studies, Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) used CFA to test the psychometric quality of this scale and the others in their studies. The models had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validity. The AVEs for this scale in particular were .74 (Study 1) and .82 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

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

The employee relationships I have in this _____ are important to me. The employees in this _____ are like family. I feel a social connection to the employees at this _____. I have a bond with the employees in this _____. I am not willing to go to another _____ because of the relationships I have with the employees here. 29

6. I have a special relationship to the people that work at this _____.

-------------1. A generic name for the focal place should be put in the blanks. The generic place names used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) were apparently bar, club, and restaurant.

30

ATTACHMENT TO THE OTHER CUSTOMERS The strength of the relationship and bond a customer has with other customers of a particular retailer is measured with six, seven-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale is intended to measure attachment to the people who come to a location-specific establishment. The scale does not measure attachment to the physical dimensions of the place, attachment to customers at all locations in a chain, or the general tendency to bond with other customers.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community). The authors referred to the scale as social bonds with customers.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability of the scale to be .96.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and the others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validity. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .82.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items appear to be adaptable for use with other retail as well as nonretail establishments as long as they have some social quality to which people could become attached. The word “customers” in the items could be replaced with something more relevant to an establishment such as “members” or “patrons.”

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

31

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

The customer relationships I have in this place are important to me. The customers in this place are like family. I feel a social connection to the customers at this place. I have a bond with the customers at this place. I am not willing to go to another place because of the relationships I have with the customers here. 6. I have a special relationship to the customers that visit this place.

32

ATTENTION (EXPERIENCING VERSUS MIND WANDERING) With seven, seven-point items, the scale is used to measure the degree to which a person is characterized by one of two trait-like “modes” of attention: focus on the immediate environment (experiencing) or stimuli-independent thought (mind wandering).

ORIGIN: The scale was referred to as EvMW (experience versus mind wandering) by Rahinel and Ahluwalia (2015) and was used numerous times in the main studies and pretests described in their article. The researchers thought the frequency subscale of the Imaginal Processes Inventory (Singer and Antrobus 1972) was limited in capturing the modes of attention. Given that, they modified the measure by refining and expanding it. In particular, the authors added items adapted from the acting-with-awareness subscale by Baer et al. (2006).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale in its many uses by Rahinel and Ahluwalia (2015) ranged from .83 to .92. The scale’s temporal stability (3 week test-retest) was examined in pretests related to Study 1 and found to be high (r = .84).

VALIDITY: Rahinel and Ahluwalia (2015, p. 219) stated that they tested the scale for validity. Although the items in the scale were found to load on a single factor in Study 1 (n = 223), more rigorous tests of validity and their results were not explicitly discussed in the article.

REFERENCES: Baer, Ruth A., Gregory T. Smith, Jaclyn Hopkins, Jennifer Krietemeyer, and Leslie Toney (2006), “Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness,” Assessment, 13 (1), 27–45. Rahinel, Ryan and Rohini Ahluwalia (2015), "Attention Modes and Price Importance: How Experiencing and Mind-Wandering Influence the Prioritization of Changeable Stimuli," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 214-234. Singer, Jerome L. and John S. Antrobus (1972), “Daydreaming, Imaginal Processes, and Personality: A Normative Study,” in The Function and Nature of Imagery, ed. Peter W. Sheehanand John S. Antrobus, New York: Academic Press, 175–202.

33

ITEMS:1 1. When engaged in an activity, my attention tends to remain focused on what I’m doing, without really wandering off in other directions, such as my thoughts or feelings or daydreams. 2. I notice the details in my current realm of experience and activity. 3. My attention is focused more on what I am doing and experiencing as opposed to what I am thinking, feeling, and imagining. 4. My mind is often distracted by thoughts or feelings about things that are not relevant to what I’m doing at the time. (r) 5. My mind easily wanders away from what I am currently engaged in doing or experiencing. (r) 6. I find myself getting lost in my internal thoughts or feelings. (r) 7. I don’t pay attention to what is going on in what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise distracted. (r)

-------------1. The anchors used by Rahinel and Ahluwalia (2015, p. 229) on the response scale with these items were never (1) and all the time (7).

34

ATTENTION TO THE AD (GENERAL) Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a person paid attention to an ad and was absorbed by it. The scale is general in the sense that the statements do not state what attribute of the ad was focused on. Further, given the phrasing of one item in particular, the scale might be considered a measure of ad engagement.

ORIGIN: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) used the scale in six studies. The source of the scale was not stated. However, key terminology used in the three items can also be found in a scale by Ghani and Deshpande (1994) to measure what they called concentration.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .84 (Study 1, n= 94) to .91 (Study 3, n = 117 and Study 5a, n = 230).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015).

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. Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS:1 1. I paid close attention to the ad. 2. I fully concentrated upon the ad. 3. I was deeply engrossed in the ad.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

35

ATTENTION TO THE AD (MESSAGE CONTENT) A person’s expressed interest in the message content of an ad and the attention he/she paid to it is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yoon (2015) in three studies. She borrowed and adapted three items from a larger scale created by Nabi and colleagues (Nabi, Moyer-Guseé, and Byrne 2007; Wolski and Nabi 2000).

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Yoon (2015) in all three studies described in the article, the exact reliability of the scale was only reported for Study 1 (alpha = .94).

VALIDITY: Yoon (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Nabi, Robin L., Emily Moyer-Guseé, and Sahara Byrne (2007), “All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages,” Communication Monographs, 74 (1), 29–54. Wolski, Stacey and Robin L. Nabi (2000), “Message Processing Quality: Confirmatory Analysis of an Elaboration Depth Measure,” paper presented at the 50th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. Yoon, Hye Jin (2015), "Humor Effects in Shame-Inducing Health Issue Advertising: The Moderating Effects of Fear of Negative Evaluation," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 126139.

ITEMS: 1. I was interested in what the ad had to say. 2. I paid close attention to the ad’s arguments. 3. I didn’t let myself get distracted from focusing on the message content.

36

ATTENTION TO THE CELEBRITY’S IMAGE How interested and excited a person is when exposed to the image of a particular celebrity is measured with five, seven-point semantic differentials. The emphasis is on how compelling the image is rather than its favorability.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Hasford et al. (2015) in Study 1 and seems to have been created by them. As used in their experiment, a poster of a celebrity was placed next to some displayed products in a simulated store environment. After the purchase task, participants completed an exit survey that included this scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .96 (Hasford 2016).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Hasford et al. (2015).

REFERENCES: Hasford, Jonathan (2016), personal correspondence. Hasford, Jonathan, David M. Hardesty, and Blair Kidwell (2015), "More Than a Feeling: Emotional Contagion Effects in Persuasive Communication," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (6), 836-847.

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

not compelling / compelling not interesting / interesting not exciting / exciting not intriguing / intriguing did not capture my attention / captured my attention

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items by Hasford (2016; Hasford et al. 2015) was “The image placed next to the store items was . . . . .”

37

ATTITUDE PREDICTABILITY Three, nine-point items are used to measure the confidence in one’s ability to predict his/her future attitude toward some object. To be clear, the scale measures a person’s certainty in his/her ability rather than the objective accuracy of the prediction.

ORIGIN: Moore (2015) used the scale in Studies 4A (n = 106) and 4B (n = 169). Data were collected for both studies from undergraduates at the University of Alberta, Canada. The context of the scale’s usage was that participants had to choose whether or not to watch a movie (Study 4A) or read a book (Study 4B) based on online reviews they read. Although not perfectly clear, Moore (2015) appears to have created the scale, drawing ideas for items from Rucker and Petty (2004) as well as Tormala and Rucker (2007).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94 and .72 for Studies 4A and 4B, respectively (Moore 2015, pp. 38, 39). It is unusual for alphas to vary so much when studies are so similar and the participants are from the same population. Why the large differences occurred in this case is unknown.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Moore (2015).

REFERENCES: Moore, Sarah G. (2015), "Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 30-44. Rucker, Derek D. and Richard E. Petty (2004), “When Resistance Is Futile: Consequences of Failed Counterarguing for Attitude Certainty,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (2), 219–235. Tormala, Zakary L. and Derek D. Rucker (2007), “Attitude Certainty: A Review of Past Findings and Emerging Perspectives,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1 (1), 469–492.

ITEMS:1 1. How confident are you in predicting your attitude toward this _____? 2. How certain are you of your attitude toward this _____? 3. How well can you predict your attitude toward this _____?

38

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with the focal object. The objects were a movie in Study 4A and a book in Study 4B. The verbal anchors used with these items were not stated in the article by Moore (2015). Perhaps they were the same as used with some other scales described in the article: not at all / very much.

39

ATTITUDE STRENGTH The importance of a person’s attitude about a particular object or topic and the certainty of his/her attitude is measured with five, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015) in Study 3 of the six reported in their article. They sometimes referred to scale as metacognitive measures. Data for the study were collected from 81 undergraduate students at the University of Iowa. The source of the scale was not identified; it appears to be original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .76 in Study 3 (Kwon and Nayakankuppam 2015, p. 325).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015).

REFERENCES: Kwon, JaeHwan (2016), personal correspondence. Kwon, JaeHwan and Dhananjay Nayakankuppam (2015), "Strength without Elaboration: The Role of Implicit Self-Theories in Forming and Accessing Attitudes," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 316-339.

ITEMS:1 1. My opinion about __________ is . . . NOT at all Important / Very Important 2. To what extent are you certain about your opinion of __________? NOT Certain at all / Very Certain 3. To what extent is your opinion of __________ self-relevant? NOT at all Self-relevant / Very Self-relevant 4. How much have you thought about __________? Have NOT thought about it at all / Have thought about it a GREAT deal 5. How difficult would it be to change your opinion about __________? Easy to change my opinion / Difficult to change my opinion 40

-------------1. The items were provided Kwon (2016). The blanks should be filled with the name of the focal object. Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015) used the name of a fictitious charity called World Aid.

41

ATTITUDE TOWARD “GREEN” ADVERTISING (USEFULNESS) The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a consumer believes that advertising for so-called “green” products is generally helpful in making purchase decisions.

ORIGIN: Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) used the scale in Study 2 conducted with Austrian consumers. They referred to the scale as “informational utility.” Although not perfectly clear, the authors appear to have created the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .83 (Matthes and Wonneberger 2014, p. 124).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not explicitly addressed by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014). However, they did say that the measurement model fit well and was superior to a onefactor model. This suggests that all of the scales in the model (including this measure of “green” advertising attitude) had an adequate level of discriminant validity with respect to each other.

REFERENCES: Matthes, Jörg and Anke Wonneberger (2014), "The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the Relationship Between Green Consumerism and Skepticism Toward Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 115-127.

ITEMS: 1. I find most of the information in green ads useful. 2. Green ads are helpful for my buying decisions. 3. Green ads deliver the information that I need for my buying decisions.

42

ATTITUDE TOWARD “GREEN” PRODUCTS Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s attitude regarding so-called “green” products, with an emphasis on how much the person likes them and believes they are good for the environment.

ORIGIN: Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) used the scale in two studies. The items were taken from three different scales used by Chang (2011). In both studies conducted by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) the scale was used to measure one of the three hypothesized dimensions of a higher-order factor they called “green consumerism.” The results of both studies confirmed the hypothesized model of “green consumerism.”

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .90 and .84 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014).

VALIDITY: The analyses conducted by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) provided evidence in support of attitude toward “green” products being distinct from the other two dimensions of “green consumerism.”

REFERENCES: Chang, Chingching (2011), "Feeling Ambivalent About Going Green," Journal of Advertising, 40 (4), 19-32. Matthes, Jörg and Anke Wonneberger (2014), "The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the Relationship Between Green Consumerism and Skepticism Toward Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 115-127.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I like green products. I feel positive toward green products. Green products are good for the environment. I feel proud when I buy/use green products.

43

ATTITUDE TOWARD ADVERTISING (NEGATIVE) The degree to which a person has negative beliefs about advertising in general is measured with five, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) by heavily borrowing phrasing and concepts from a scale by Gaski and Etzel (1986). In an impressive set of studies, Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) used the scale along with several other consumer trait-related measures to examine temporal stability in the traits. Data were gather from 1,411 Dutch consumers over a period of 12 years. The language in which the questionnaires were phrased for respondents was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The authors provided evidence of each trait-related scale’s temporal stability based on an evaluation of configural invariance as well as the scalar invariance. With respect to the scale measuring attitude toward advertising, alphas over a 12 year period ranged from .70 to .82 (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 293). Test-retest correlations were examined over the 12 year period as well. There were 11 lag-1 test-retest correlations, 10 lag-2 correlations, 9 lag-3 correlations, and so on. The correlation between the scores on attitude toward advertising decreased over time from .69 (comparing scores from the second year to the first) to .52 (comparing the last year to the second to last year). In total, these measures indicate the scale has adequate internal consistency and temporal stability for the long periods studied.

VALIDITY: Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) did not report examining the validity of their scales per se in these studies. Although it is likely that some validity checks were conducted, that discussion was not the purpose of this particular article.

REFERENCES: Gaski, John F. and Michael J. Etzel (1986), “The Index of Consumer Sentiment Toward Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 71-81. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Alberto Maydeu-Olivares (2015), "Stability and Change in Consumer Traits: Evidence from a 12-Year Longitudinal Study, 2002–2013," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 287-308.

44

ITEMS:1 1. Most advertisements are more to mislead the consumer rather than to give them good information. 2. For the consumer it would be better if most advertising would disappear. 3. I like most advertisements. (r) 4. In most advertisements are false promises made. 5. Most advertisements are really annoying.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5) (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 292). Also, the authors scored the items in the opposite direction as shown here so that higher scores would indicate more positive attitudes.

45

ATTITUDE TOWARD ADVERTISING OF A BRAND (FUTURE) The scale has three, seven-point Likert-type items that are intended to measure a consumer’s attitude about the future advertising of all types that he/she may be exposed to for a particular brand.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not stated by Rosengren and Dahlén (2015) but it is probably original. They referred to the construct as willingness to approach advertising. Further, they clarified that items #1 and #2 (below) were supposed to measure “expected value” while item #3 was expected to measure “volitional intent.”

RELIABILITY: The scale was used in Studies 2-5 reported in the article by Rosengren and Dahlén (2015) but reliability was explicitly reported for just Study 2. In that case, the alpha was .968.

VALIDITY: Tests of the scale’s validity were not described by Rosengren and Dahlén (2015). However, the results of the EFA run in Study 2 indicated that the three items composing the scale had high loadings on the same factor and were distinct from items measuring two other constructs in their study.

COMMENTS: The phrasings of the scale items listed in the article are grammatically awkward for native English speakers. Upon request, the lead author (Rosengren 2015) provided translations from the original Swedish that are clearer.

REFERENCES: Rosengren, Sara (2015), personal correspondence. Rosengren, Sara and Micael Dahlén (2015), "Exploring Advertising Equity: How a Brand's Past Advertising May Affect Consumer Willingness to Approach Its Future Ads," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 1-13.

46

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Think about all of the advertising you have seen or heard for _____ in the past (for example, in magazines, TV, or on the Web). How well do the following statements fit your expectations of that advertising? 1. I look forward to _____’s future advertising. 2. I will find _____’s future advertising worthwhile. 3. I want to pay attention to future advertising of _____.

-------------1. The name of the focal brand should be placed in the blanks of the instructions and the items.

47

ATTITUDE TOWARD ADVERTISING OF A BRAND (PAST) A consumer’s summary attitude about the advertising of all types that he/she has been exposed to with respect to a particular brand is measured with three, seven-point Likerttype items.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale is Rosengren and Dahlén (2015). They referred to the construct as advertising equity and said the operationalization was deliberately broad in order to include as many advertising uses and value as possible.

RELIABILITY: The scale was used in all five studies reported in the article by Rosengren and Dahlén (2015) but reliability was explicitly reported for just Study 2. In that case, the alpha was .975.

VALIDITY: The results of EFAs used in Studies 1 and 2 indicated that the three brand advertising items loaded together. The CFA run in Study 3 supported a five factor solution of which brand advertising was one of the factors. Further analyses by the authors provided evidence of the measure’s discriminant validity with respect to the other constructs in their model.

REFERENCES: Rosengren, Sara and Micael Dahlén (2015), "Exploring Advertising Equity: How a Brand's Past Advertising May Affect Consumer Willingness to Approach Its Future Ads," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 1-13.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Think about all of the advertising you have seen or heard for _____ in the past (for example, in magazines, TV, or on the Web). How well does the following statement describe your overall assessment of this advertising? I think that _____’s advertising is typically . . . 1. interesting 2. worth my attention 3. worthwhile

48

-------------1. The name of the focal brand should be placed in the blanks of the instructions.

49

ATTITUDE TOWARD NON–CORE USERS The attitude that a core-user of a brand has towards a group of non-core users is measured with three, seven-point semantic differentials. Even though the scale was used by Bellezza and Keinan (2014) to measure attitudes of a brand’s core users toward non-core users, the items themselves appear to be flexible for use in a wide variety of situations where a person’s general opinion of another group of people needs to be measured.

ORIGIN: The scale seems to have been used in three of the six studies reported by Bellezza and Keinan (2014). The context of Study 1 was examining full-time Harvard students’ attitudes of those who only attended a summer session. For Study 3, the framing context was owners of luxury fashion brands (either Prada or Marc Jacobs) and their attitudes toward a hypothetical person who received a free Prada/Marc Jacobs collectors’ paper shopping bag. In Study 4, people who had participated in Tough Mudder events were asked about those who merely attended an event.

RELIABILITY: For each of the three studies in which it was used, Bellezza and Keinan (2014) reported the alphas to be .94.

VALIDITY: Bellezza and Keinan (2014) did not provide any information about the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Bellezza, Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014), "Brand Tourists: How Non–Core Users Enhance the Brand Image by Eliciting Pride," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 397-417.

ITEMS:1 1. I dislike them / I like them 2. I react unfavorably to them / I react favorably to them 3. I feel negative about them / I feel positive about them

-------------1. The exact instructions used with the scale in the three studies were not provided by Bellezza and Keinan (2014). Although the instructions might change from context to context, the items can remain substantially the same.

50

ATTITUDE TOWARD PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL With three Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s belief that drinking alcohol in excess is not a behavior in which he/she desires to engage.

ORIGIN: Park and Morton (2015) used the scale in a survey with data collected from undergraduate students attending a large university in the Southeastern United States. The final sample used for analysis was 251 responses. The scale itself was apparently created by Campo and Cameron (2006). Its pre- and post-message alphas were .60 and .62, respectively (p. 213).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .75 in the study by Park and Morton (2015, p. 343).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Park and Morton (2015).

COMMENTS: Although the internal consistency of the scale was acceptable in the study by Park and Morton (2015), the low alphas in the study by Campo and Cameron (2006) indicate that the scale can have low reliability at times.

REFERENCES: Campo, Shelly, and Kenzie A. Cameron (2006), “Differential Effects of Exposure to Social Norms Campaigns: A Cause of Concern,” Health Communication, 19 (3), 209–219. Park, Sun-Young and Cynthia R. Morton (2015), "The Role of Regulatory Focus, Social Distance, and Involvement in Anti-High-Risk Drinking Advertising: A Construal-Level Theory Perspective," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 338-348.

ITEMS:1 1. I don’t have to get drunk to have a good time. 2. I think drinking to get drunk is a bad idea. 3. I feel better when I do not drink.

51

-------------1. Park and Morton (2015) reverse-scored the items so that high scores reflected positive attitudes towards getting drunk. The number of points they used on the response scale was stated as five and yet the extreme anchors were reported to be “1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).” Campo and Cameron (2006) used a 5-point scale.

52

ATTITUDE TOWARD SEX IN THE MEDIA A person’s attitude about the appropriateness of sex being used in advertising, TV programs, and other media is measured with three items.

ORIGIN: Theodorakis, Koritos, and Stathakopoulos (2015) used the scale in Study 2 with 201 college students. They borrowed the scale from Mittal and Lassar (2000) who called it sexual liberalism. The latter indicated that the three items loaded on one factor.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .89 when used in Study 2 by Theodorakis, Koritos, and Stathakopoulos (2015, p. 20).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Theodorakis, Koritos, and Stathakopoulos (2015). However, they did say that the scale was unidimensional.

REFERENCES: Mittal, Banwari, and Walfried M. Lassar (2000), “Sexual Liberalism as a Determinant of Consumer Response to Sex in Advertising,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 15 (1), 111–127. Theodorakis, Ioannis G., Christos Koritos, and Vlasis Stathakopoulos (2015), "Rhetorical Maneuvers in a Controversial Tide: Assessing the Boundaries of Advertising Rhetoric," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 14-24.

ITEMS:1 1. In my opinion, there is too much sex on TV programs. 2. There is too much degradation of women and men as sex objects in the media today. 3. In general, do you like or dislike the use of sex in advertising?

-------------1. The nature of the response scale was not described by Theodorakis, Koritos, and Stathakopoulos (2015). It was probably a seven point scale since all of their other scales had seven points. As for the verbal anchors, they were probably the same as used by Mittal and Lassar (2000). For items #1 and #2, the verbal anchors were strongly disagree / strongly agree. For item #3, they were strongly like / strongly dislike.

53

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACT (GENERAL) A person’s favorability towards a particular behavior due to its importance and expected benefits is measured with four, seven-point semantic-differentials.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yoon (2015) in three studies. Each study had to do with a situation in which the person might feel shame. For example, being tested for a human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted disease, was the focus in Study 1. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Yoon (2015) in all three studies described in the article, the exact reliability of the scale was only reported for Study 1 (alpha = .94).

VALIDITY: Yoon (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Yoon, Hye Jin (2015), "Humor Effects in Shame-Inducing Health Issue Advertising: The Moderating Effects of Fear of Negative Evaluation," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 126139.

ITEMS: After seeing the ad, what were your thoughts __________?1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very unfavorable / Very favorable A very bad idea / A very good idea Not at all beneficial / Very beneficial Not at all important / Very important

-------------1. The blank in this scale stem should describe the focal behavior. As used by Yoon (2015) in Study 1, the space was filled with “on seeking prevention and treatment for HPV?”

54

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACT (INSTALLING A PRODUCT) The degree to which a consumer has a favorable attitude about installing a particular product is measured with three, five-point Likert-type items. The product as well as the place and timing of installation can be customized for a variety of situations. However, it should be understood that this is not a measure of purchase intention per se but is an antecedent of it.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 house owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes: micro wind turbines. The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing heavily on concepts found in the work of Westaby and colleagues (2005; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .86 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .68.

COMMENTS: Although the statements in the scale were made for installation of a product in a home, it seems the scale sentences could be adjusted for installation of energy-saving devices in other structures (garage, shed, barn) or vehicles (car, motorcycle, bicycle). The items might even be adapted with respect to the installation of devices in one’s body such as pacemakers and hearing aids. Of course, the more the items are modified, the more it is prudent to revalidate the scale.

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Westaby, James D. (2005), "Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97–120. 55

Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010), "Leadership DecisionMaking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481–495.

ITEMS:1 1. Installing _____ _____ would be very good. 2. Installing _____ _____ would offer a lot of advantages. 3. Installing _____ _____ would add a lot of value.

-------------1. As used by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015), the name of the product was placed in the first blank of each item while the time period was placed in the second blank. For example, they phrased item #1 thusly: Installing micro wind turbines on your house in the next 12 months would be very good. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

56

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (ACTIVITY JUDGMENTS) The degree to which a person believes that an ad is exciting and energetic is measured with four, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Puccinelli, Wilcox, and Grewal (2015) used the scale in Study 2 as well as in pretests prior to Studies 2, 4, and 5. Although the source of the scale was not clearly stated, the authors appear to have created the scale by drawing items and concepts from work by Russell and Mehrabian (1977) as well as Barrett and Russell (1998).

RELIABILITY: Puccinelli, Wilcox, and Grewal (2015) reported the alphas for the scale to be .81 (Study 1 and Study 2 pretest) and .83 (Study 4 and 5 pretests).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Puccinelli, Wilcox, and Grewal (2015).

REFERENCES: Barrett, Lisa F. and James A. Russell (1998), “Independence and Bipolarity in the Structure of Current Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 967– 984. Puccinelli, Nancy M., Keith Wilcox, and Dhruv Grewal (2015), "Consumers' Response to Commercials: When the Energy Level in the Commercial Conflicts with the Media Context," Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 1-18. Russell, James A. and Albert Mehrabian (1977), “Evidence for a Three-Factor Theory of Emotions,” Journal of Research in Personality, 11 (3), 273–294.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

not energetic / energetic dull / exciting not animated / animated inactive / active

-------------1. The instructions used with this scale were not provided in the article by Puccinelli, Wilcox, and Grewal (2015). In general, they probably asked participants to use the scale items to describe the commercial they had watched.

57

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (ATTRACTIVENESS) With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes a particular advertisement is visually appealing.

ORIGIN: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) used the scale in several of the pretests and main studies reported in their article. They referred to the measure as visual appearance. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were consistently high, ranging from .94 (Study 4 pretest, n= 83) to .97 (Study 2 pretest, n = 83 and Study 5a, n = 230).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015).

REFERENCES: Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS:1 1. I like the way the ad looks. 2. The ad is attractive. 3. The ad is aesthetically appealing.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

58

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (DIVERGENCE) A person’s belief that a particular advertisement is different from others to which he/she knows of is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. The statements are general and do not indicate how the ad is different.

ORIGIN: The scale used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) in their Studies 1, 2, and 3 was created by Smith et al. (2007). The latter reported the scale’s alpha to be .88. The sample in Study 1 by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) was composed of 124 students from a large Midwest university in the United States. The sample in Study 2 was 50 people recruited at a large university in Columbia (p. 280). Using two independent native speakers, the survey instrument was developed by translating an English version into Spanish, back-translating it, and then cross-checking it. Finally, data were gathered in Study 3 from 15 advertising practitioners in the United States (p. 281).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale as used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) were said to be above .97 in Study 1 (p. 278), above .90 in Study 2 (p. 280), and above .80 in Study 3 (p. 282).

VALIDITY: Evidence in support of the scale’s convergent and discriminant validities was provided from tests run in Studies 1, 2, and 3 by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014).

REFERENCES: Lehnert, Kevin (2015), personal correspondence. Lehnert, Kevin, Brian D. Till, and José Miguel Ospina (2014), "Advertising Creativity: The Role of Divergence versus Meaningfulness," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 274-285. Smith, Robert E., Scott B. MacKenzie, Xiaojing Yang, Laura M. Buchholz, and William K. Darley (2007), “Modeling the Determinants and Effects of Creativity in Advertising,” Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819-833.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The ad was different. The ad was uncommon. The ad was unusual. 59

-------------1. The items were provided by Lehnert (2015).

60

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (INFORMATIVENESS) The scale uses four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a person believes a particular advertisement is understandable and useful.

ORIGIN: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) used the scale in several of the pretests and main studies reported in their article. They referred to the measure as informativeness. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .80 (Study 5b, n= 96) to .93 (Study 4 pretest, n = 83).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015).

COMMENTS: It is strongly recommended that users of this scale conduct factor analysis to determine the scale’s unidimensionality. It seems quite possible that people could believe an ad is very informative and yet not believe it is sufficient for their needs.

REFERENCES: Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS:1 The ad is . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

informative. useful. understandable. sufficient.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

61

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (LIVELINESS) Composed of three very simple, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale is purported to measure the degree to which a person views a particular advertisement as being energetic and “alive” in a visual sense.

ORIGIN: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) used the scale in Study 2 (n = 59) and Study 3 (n = 117), both with data collected from undergraduate students. The source of the scale was not stated but, coincidentally or not, the items were part of an ad-related scale created by Edell and Burke (1987). In that case, however, the scale measured the person’s affective reaction to an ad which is different from the scale reviewed here which is used to describe an ad.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94 and .89 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Kim and Lakshmanan (2015, pp. 99, 101).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015).

REFERENCES: Edell, Julie E. and Marian C. Burke (1987), “The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 421-433. Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS:1 The ad you just saw appeared . . . 1. alive. 2. lively. 3. energetic.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

62

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (MEANINGFULNESS) With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a particular advertisement is believed by a person to be appropriate and useful to him/herself.

ORIGIN: The scale used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) in their Studies 1, 2, and 3 was borrowed from work by Smith et al. (2007). The latter called the scale “ad-to-consumer relevance” and reported its alpha to be .92 (p. 826). The sample in Study 1 by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) was composed of 124 students from a large Midwest university in the United States. The sample in Study 2 was 50 people recruited at a large university in Columbia (p. 280). Using two independent native speakers, the survey instrument was developed by translating an English version into Spanish, back-translating it, and then cross-checking it. Finally, data were gathered in Study 3 from 15 advertising practitioners in the United States (p. 281).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale as used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) were described as above .97 in Study 1 (p. 278), above .90 in Study 2 (p. 280), and above .80 in Study 3 (p. 282).

VALIDITY: Evidence in support of the scale’s convergent and discriminant validities was provided from tests run in Studies 1, 2, and 3 by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014).

REFERENCES: Lehnert, Kevin (2015), personal correspondence. Lehnert, Kevin, Brian D. Till, and José Miguel Ospina (2014), "Advertising Creativity: The Role of Divergence versus Meaningfulness," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 274-285. Smith, Robert E., Scott B. MacKenzie, Xiaojing Yang, Laura M. Buchholz, and William K. Darley (2007), “Modeling the Determinants and Effects of Creativity in Advertising,” Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819-833.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3.

The ad was meaningful to me. The ad was appropriate for me. The ad was useful to me

63

4.

The ad was valuable to me.

-------------1. The items were provided by Lehnert (2015).

64

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (SURPRISING) The scale has three, seven-point semantic differentials that measure how much a person believes a particular advertisement is atypical and unexpected.

ORIGIN: Hutter and Hoffmann (2014) used the scale in a main study and three follow-up studies. The authors developed the scale and began by creating a pool of items used in previous measures. Then, using a focus group of eight marketing experts, three items were chosen to measure the construct. The face validity of the selection was confirmed with a focus group of five consumers. The scale was examined in two small pretests and found to be unidimensional as well as having acceptable internal consistency. One of the pretests provided evidence of nomological validity.

RELIABILITY: The alphas were .70 and .86 for the main study and Follow-up Study A. (The reliability was not mentioned for the other follow-up studies.)

VALIDITY: CFAs were explicitly used by Hutter and Hoffmann (2014) with the scales in their main study as well as Follow-up Studies A and B. In those cases, the measurement models (which contained the surprising scale shown below) were confirmed. Further, evidence was found for the discriminant validity between the surprising scale and the other scales included in the models. The AVEs for the scale were .47 and .68 in the main study and Follow-up Study A, respectively. (AVE was not reported for the other two follow-up studies.)

REFERENCES: Hutter, Katharina and Stefan Hoffmann (2014), "Surprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 93-110.

ITEMS: The advertisement is . . . 1. not surprising / surprising 2. usual / unusual 3. conventional / unconventional

65

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD (VIVIDNESS) The scale has four, seven-point semantic differentials that are intended to measure the visual clarity and intensity of a particular advertisement.

ORIGIN: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) used the scale in Study 2 (n = 59 undergraduate students). The source of the scale was not stated but it is known that two of the items were used previously in another scale to measure the same or a similar construct (Krishnamurthy and Sujan 1999).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .76 (Kim and Lakshmanan (2015, p. 99).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015).

COMMENTS: One concern about this scale is that all four items are anchored at one end by phrases using the word “not” as if it represents the extreme of construct. According to the premise underlying the semantic differential, items should be constructed so that the poles are adjective pairs describing opposites of the semantic continuum (Dawes and Smith 1985, p. 534; Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957, pp. 29, 83). When the form x/not X is used in a semantic differential scale it is possible that the full variance of the construct is not being captured.

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. Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111. Krishnamurthy, Parthasarathy and Mita Sujan (1999), “Retrospection Versus Anticipation: The Role of the Ad Under Retrospective and Anticipatory Self-Referencing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 55-69. Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 66

ITEMS: Please rate the advertisement you saw earlier: 1. 2. 3. 4.

not not not not

vivid / vivid specific / specific concrete / concrete detailed / detailed

67

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AD’S PERSONALIZATION The scale uses four statements to measure whether a person believes that an ad was deliberately personalized for his/her situation. To be clear, the scale does not measure if someone liked/disliked the personalization but rather if some degree of personalization was noted in the ad.

ORIGIN: Aguirre et al. (2015) used the scale in Studies 1 (n = 120) and 2 (n = 194), both with participants from an online panel. The scale was a manipulation check to determine if participants believed that an ad they were exposed to was personalized for them. The source of the scale was Dijkstra (2005) who used it to see if smokers thought some antismoking information they saw was tailored for them. Aguirre et al. (2015) slightly adapted the items for use with personalized advertising.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .93 and .90 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Aguirre et al. 2015).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Aguirre et al. (2015). However, since the scale was used a manipulation check in both studies and showed that the manipulations worked as intended, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Aguirre, Elizabeth, Dominik Mahr, Dhruv Grewal, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels (2015), "Unraveling the Personalization Paradox: The Effect of Information Collection and Trust-Building Strategies on Online Advertisement Effectiveness," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 34-49. Dijkstra, Arie (2005), “Working Mechanisms of Computer-Tailored Health Edu-cation: Evidence from Smoking Cessation,” Health Education Research, 20 (5), 527–539.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

This advertisement is directed to me personally. I recognize my personal situation in this advertisement. This advertisement takes into account the problem I faced. This advertisement takes into account my personal situation.

68

-------------1. The nature of the response scale used by Aguirre et al. (2015) was not stated in their article. The verbal anchors were likely to have been the typical Likert-type such as strongly disagree / strongly agree. As for the number of points, it was likely to have been seven since that is what the authors used with their other scales.

69

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ARTICLE Eight, seven-point semantic differentials are used to measure a person’s attitude about an article with an emphasis on its usefulness and credibility.

ORIGIN: Park and John (2014) used the scale in a pretest for Study 3 with a sample of undergraduate students (n = 56). The source of the scale was not identified. While the items are typically used in measures of attitude toward the ad, credibility, and usefulness, the set as a whole seems to be original to Park and John (2014).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .90 (Park and John 2014, p. 240).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Park and John (2014).

COMMENTS: While Park and John (2014) used the scale with respect to an article that was read by their sample, the measure appears to be amenable for use with other focal objects that could be considered “informative” such as books, TV news programs, and websites.

REFERENCES: Park, Ji Kyung and Deborah Roedder John (2014), "I Think I Can, I Think I Can: Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 233-247.

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

bad / good unfavorable / favorable negative / positive unreliable / reliable untrustworthy / trustworthy incredible / credible uninformative / informative not at all useful / useful

-------------1. The article or other object being rated should be stated in the instructions or scale stem.

70

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ARTICLE (CLARITY) Four questions with seven-point semantic differential responses are used to measure how well written and easy-to-understand an article was. One of the items refers to “arguments,” referring to reasons for or against something. Given that, the scale makes most sense to use when respondents have been exposed to information that was intended to affect their attitudes.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015) in Studies 2 (n = 111) and 3 (n = 81), with data collected in both cases from undergraduate students at the University of Iowa. The source of the scale was not clear. The authors cited Levy et al. (1998) as well as Park and John (2010) but it appears that inspiration for only a couple of items were from those articles. Greater similarity is found with a measure of “fluency” by Chae and Hoegg (2013, p. 229).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015) were .78 (Study 2) and .83 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015).

COMMENTS: Even though this scale is most suited as currently written for respondents who have just read an article, it appears relatively simple to modify the instructions and the items if wanting to measure the clarity of information from other sources, e.g., what was heard in a speech, what was presented in a video, what was stated in an ad, etc.

REFERENCES: 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. Kwon, JaeHwan (2016), personal correspondence. Kwon, JaeHwan and Dhananjay Nayakankuppam (2015), "Strength without Elaboration: The Role of Implicit Self-Theories in Forming and Accessing Attitudes," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 316-339. 71

Levy, Sheri R., Steven J. Stroessner, and Carol S. Dweck (1998), “Stereotype Formation and Endorsement: The Role of Implicit Theories,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1421–1436. Park, Ji K. and Deborah R. John (2010), “Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brands Personalities Rub Off on Consumers?” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 655–669.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Please answer the following questions about the article you have just read. Please note that, in this stage, you are not allowed to go back and read the article again. Please answer whatever comes to your mind first. 1. How well were the arguments organized? NOT at all Well-organized / Very Well-organized 2. How clear was the writing? NOT Clear at all / Very Clear 3. Was there a logical progression from an idea to the next? NOT at all Logical / Very Logical 4. Was the information presented in an easy-to-understand manner? NOT easy at all / Very easy-to-understand

-------------1. The instructions and items were provided Kwon (2016).

72

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BAN How much a person disagrees with a particular ban is measured with three, nine-point items. Along with instructions that can be created for use with the scale, the items are flexible for use with a variety of bans.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 of the six main studies described by Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons (2015). Analysis was based on data from 290 American members of Amazon Mechanical Turk. The authors used the scale to measure attitudes toward an actual ban of large soda drinks proposed by the mayor of New York City in 2012. The source of the scale was not stated; it was probably created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .93 (Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons 2015, p. 82).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons (2015).

COMMENTS: See also Study 6 by Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons (2015, p. 88) in which the items in this scale were included in a seven item scale that was more idiosyncratic to their research.

REFERENCES: Shepherd, Steven, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2015), "When Brands Reflect Our Ideal World: The Values and Brand Preferences of Consumers Who Support versus Reject Society's Dominant Ideology" Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 7692.

ITEMS:1 1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this ban? (r) 2. Overall, I support the idea of banning __________.2 (r) 3. This ban is bad policy.

-------------1. The response scale anchors used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (9). The authors said they coded the items this way to keep the direction of effects consistent across their studies.

73

2. A few words describing the ban should be placed in the blank. As used by Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons (2015, p. 82), the phrase was “the sale of large soda.”

74

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BRAND (CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT) A person’s confidence in a brand that has been endorsed by a particular celebrity and willingness to buy the product is measured with three, six-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Hung (2014) in Study 2 with Chinese participants. Although not stated, it is assumed that the scale and the rest of the survey were in Chinese. That is also suggested in a companion article by the author (Hung, Chan, and Tse 2011, p. 614). The scale appears to be have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .885 (Hung 2014, p. 161).

VALIDITY: Hung (2014) examined the validity of several scales used in the same study. Based on the analyses, evidence was provided for the scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. As clarified by Hung (2015), the scale’s AVE was .669.

COMMENTS: Given the phrasing of one of the items, the scale may only be appropriate for products in which “taste” is an important concern. As confirmed by Hung (2015), that term is meant in the sense of knowing what is appropriate for social situations. Users of the scale in English should consider if that term could be confusing to respondents and should be replaced with a word that more clearly represents the intended construct.

REFERENCES: Hung, Kineta (2014), "Why Celebrity Sells: A Dual Entertainment Path Model of Brand Endorsement," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 155-166. Hung, Kineta (2015), personal correspondence. Hung, Kineta, Kimmy W. Chan, and Caleb H. Tse (2011), “Assessing Celebrity Endorsement Effects in China: A Consumer-Celebrity Relational Approach,” Journal of Advertising Research, 51 (4), 608–623.

ITEMS:1 1. I am confident in the brands endorsed by _____. 75

2. I think the brands endorsed by _____ have taste. 3. I am willing to buy the brands endorsed by _____.

-------------1. The name of the celebrity should be placed in the blanks.

76

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BRAND (COMPARATIVE) Three, nine-point semantic differentials along with a scale stem measure a person’s attitude about a focal brand compared to a referent brand within a stated product category.

ORIGIN: Barone and Jewell (2014) used the scale in Studies 2 and 3. They did not identify the source of the scale. However, it is a simple adaptation of bi-polar adjectives commonly used in consumer research for measuring attitudes.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha in Study 2 as well as Study 3 was .98 (Barone and Jewell 2014, pp. 315, 317).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Barone and Jewell (2014).

COMMENTS: Although Barone and Jewell (2014) used these items with respect to laptop computers, the scale stem can be easily changed for use with other objects and people. Of course, thorough pretesting of the modified scale’s psychometric quality is recommended before it is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Barone, Michael J. and Robert D. Jewell (2014), "How Brand Innovativeness Creates Advertising Flexibility," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (3), 309-321.

ITEMS: Compared to _____, my opinion of _____ __________ is:1 1. more unfavorable / more favorable 2. more negative / more positive 3. worse / better

77

-------------1. The name of a referent brand should be stated in the first blank of this scale stem. The name of the focal brand should be stated in the second blank. The third blank should have a name for the product category. For example, “Compared to Apple, my opinion of Dell laptop computers is . . . .”

78

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BRAND (SYMBOLISM) Four, nine-point items measure how positive a person feels about a brand and how well it represents the ideal values one has for his/her country.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Studies 3, 4, and 5 by Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons (2015). In each case, the items were modified slightly to fit the focal brand. The source of the scale was not stated; it was probably created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .88, .80, and .95 for Studies 3, 4, and 5, respectively (Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons 2015).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Shepherd, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons (2015). There was an implication that the items loaded on a single dimension in a factor analysis but, the details were not provided (p. 83).

REFERENCES: Shepherd, Steven, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2015), "When Brands Reflect Our Ideal World: The Values and Brand Preferences of Consumers Who Support versus Reject Society's Dominant Ideology" Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 7692.

ITEMS:1 1. Right now, to what extent do you, personally, see _____ as representing your ideal values for __________? 2. Right now, to what extent would you, personally, say that _____ is a symbol of __________? 3. Right now, based on what you know about the brand, how ethical do you think _____ is as a brand? 4. Right now, how do you feel about _____?

-------------1. The short blank in each item should be filled with the name of the focal brand, e.g., Disney. The longer space in items #1 and #2 should be filled with the focal country, e.g., America. The anchors used on the nine-point response scale were not at all / extremely for items #1 and #2, very unethical / very ethical for item #3, and very negative / very positive for item #4.

79

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COMPANY’S ALTRUISM (POSITIVE) The level of care, concern, and helpfulness exhibited by a company to its customers is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto (2015) called the scale community relationship norms and used it in an experiment (Study 4). Data were gathered from 288 business students who were asked to imagine they were long-time customers of an electronics company. Items for the scale appear to have been drawn from a measure created by Aggarwal (2004).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 (Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto 2015, p. 70).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto (2015).

COMMENTS: Four of the items measure a person’s attitude about a company’s altruism but one item (#4) measures one’s feelings for the company. Factor analysis should be conducted to determine if the items are unidimensional.

REFERENCES: Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87–101. Kwak, Hyokjin, Marina Puzakova, and Joseph F. Rocereto (2015), "Better Not Smile at the Price: The Differential Role of Brand Anthropomorphization on Perceived Price Fairness," Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 56-76. Puzakova, Marina (2016), personal correspondence.

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

At _____, they care for you. They help you in time of need. _____ would help you even if it is not good for business. You have warm feelings for _____. At _____, they enjoy responding to your needs. 80

-------------1. The full list of items was provided by Puzakova (2016). The name of the company should be placed in the blanks. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

81

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COMPANY’S ALTRUISM (POSITIVE) The degree to which a person believes that a particular organization cares about its customers and is helpful is measured with this five-point scale. A two and a four item version are discussed. While the scale was made for use in the hospitality industry, it could be easily used with many other businesses as well. With a minor change in one of the items, the scale could be used with non-businesses as well.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Bolton and Mattila (2015) in Studies 1 (n = 130), 2 (n = 135) and 3 (n = 277) with data being gathered in each case from people in a paid commercial panel. The source of the scale was not stated. Also, the items were adapted somewhat depending upon the business being studied. In Studies 1 and 3, it was a hotel while in Study 2 it was a restaurant. Further, all four items were used in Study 1 while only two were used in the other studies.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the four item version of the scale was .89 in Study 1. The item correlations for the two item version used in Studies 2 and 3 were .71 and .79, respectively.

VALIDITY: Bolton and Mattila (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Bolton, Lisa E. and Anna S. Mattila (2015), "How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Consumer Response to Service Failure in Buyer–Seller Relationships?" Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 140-153.

ITEMS:1 Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: 1. This _____ is concerned for others. 2. This _____ cares about its customers.2

How would you rate the _____ as: 82

1. Caring 2. Helpful

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the first two items by Bolton and Mattila (2015, p. 151) were disagree and agree. With the other two items, the end points of the response scale were labeled as not at all and very. The short space in the first two items and the scale stem for the last two items should be filled with an appropriate generic name for the organization being studied. In Study 1, all four items were used. Only #3 and #4 were used in Study 2 and 3. 2. The scale could be used with a wider variety of organizations including charities, governments, schools, et cetera, if the term “customers” is changed to something more appropriate for the entity being studied, e.g., donors, citizens, students.

83

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ECO-LABEL’S SOURCE A person’s attitude about a particular third-party that sponsors certification seals that attest to environmentally-related product attributes is measured using five, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) used the scale with a sample of students in a class at a university in the southwestern United States (n = 233). The authors referred to the scale as source attitude but did not discuss its origin or development.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .84 (Atkinson and Rosenthal 2014, p. 37).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, Lucy and Sonny Rosenthal (2014), "Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 33-45.

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

good / bad innovative / old fashioned high quality / poor quality concerned about the environment / not concerned about the environment expensive / cheap

-------------1. The instructions and/or scale stem used with these items was not stated by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014).

84

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE FOOD PRODUCT (NUTRITIOUSNESS) A consumer’s nutrition-focused attitude about a food product is measured using five, seven-point Likert-type items. Because of the limitations of one of the items, a four item version is also described that can be used with a wider variety of foods.

ORIGIN: Connell, Brucks, and Nielsen (2014) used the scale in each of the four studies reported in their article. In each study it was used with respect to a brand of cereal. In one case (Study 2), it was also used to evaluate a brand of fast-food French fries. A five-item version of the scale was used with the cereals in each case except in Study 2 when, to be consistent with the version used with French fries, one of the items was dropped. (See more details below.)

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale as used with cereals ranged from .74 to .86. The alpha for the version used with French fries was .73.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Connell, Brucks, and Nielsen (2014). However, as explained below, EFAs was run in Study 2 and the results indicated that the five item version worked well for cereals but the version used for French fries did not. Given that, there is evidence that the four item version is unidimensional for cereals and French fries but the dimensionality of the five item version is not consistent.

COMMENTS: When used with French fries in Study 2, the authors substituted a salt-related item for the sugar-related one. However, factor analysis showed that the latter did not load well with the other items. Feedback from participants indicated that sometimes salt has positive connotations (taste) but other times it is viewed as an unhealthful attribute of a food.

REFERENCES: Connell, Paul M., Merrie Brucks, and Jesper H. Nielsen (2014), "How Childhood Advertising Exposure Can Create Biased Product Evaluations That Persist into Adulthood," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 119-134.

85

ITEMS:1 The _____ : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

is healthy is nutritious has a lot of fiber is low in calories has a lot of added sugar (r)

-------------1. The actual scale stem was not described by Connell, Brucks, and Nielsen (2014). It may have been something simple as shown here. Also, the response format was not described. The authors did say “Likert-type” which implies the extreme verbal anchors were something like strongly disagree and strongly agree. The four item version of the scale did not include #5.

86

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE FUTURE The degree to which a person believes his/her future is open with many opportunities is measured using ten, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) used the scale in Studies 2A and 2B. The measure was developed by Lang and Carstensen (2002).

RELIABILITY: In the Studies 2A and 2B by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014), the alphas were .92 and .85, respectively.

VALIDITY: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity per se. They did, however, say that the scale was negatively correlated with age. That provides some predictive validity for the measure since older people are expected to view their futures as more limited than younger folks.

COMMENTS: Translations of the scale are available for several languages at the Carstensen Life-span Development Lab.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit and Cassie Mogilner (2014), "Happiness from Ordinary and Extraordinary Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 1-17. Lang, Frieder R., and Laura Carstensen (2002), “Time Counts: Future Time Perspective, Goals, and Social Relationships,” Psychology and Aging, 17 (1), 125–39.

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

Many opportunities await me in the future. I expect that I will set many new goals in the future. My future is filled with possibilities. Most of my life lies ahead of me. My future seems infinite to me. I could do anything I want in the future. There is plenty of time left in my life to make new plans. 87

8. I have the sense that time is running out. (r) 9. There are only limited possibilities in my future. (r) 10. As I get older, I begin to experience time as limited. (r)

-------------1. The anchors used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) with these items were very untrue (1) and very true (7),

88

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE GIFT How much a person likes a particular gift is measured with four, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Baskin et al. (2014) used the scale in Study 1. The final sample was 80 people recruited in the U.S. from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were asked to imagine they were either receiving or giving various birthday gifts. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated but appears to have been developed by them for use in the study.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .95 (Baskin et al. 2014, p. 172).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale’s validity was provided by Baskin et al. (2014).

REFERENCES: Baskin, Ernest (2015), personal correspondence. Baskin, Ernest, Cheryl J. Wakslak, Yaacov Trope, and Nathan Novemsky (2014), "Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Receivers than to Givers: A Construal-Level Approach to Gift Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 169-182.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

How How How How

much do you like this item as a gift? good is this gift? appropriate is this gift? positive is this gift?

-------------1. The extreme anchors used with the items were not at all (1) and very much (7) (Baskin et al. 2014, p. 172). The phrasing of the items themselves was clarified by Baskin (2015).

89

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE OBJECT (GENERAL) A person’s attitude about a particular object is measured using three questions with seven-point response formats. The scale is general in that it could be used to evaluate organizations, people, or activities, among other things. Further, the scale has more to do with one’s overall feeling rather than beliefs about specific attributes.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015) in Study 3 of the six reported in their article. Data for the study were collected from 81 undergraduate students at the University of Iowa. The source of the scale was not identified. The semantic differentials used to respond to the questions are rather common to many attitude scales.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .76 in Study 3 (Kwon and Nayakankuppam 2015, p. 325).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015).

COMMENTS: Although not clear, the scale may have been used in some of the other studies by Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015). Alpha was only reported for its usage in Study 3.

REFERENCES: Kwon, JaeHwan (2016), personal correspondence. Kwon, JaeHwan and Dhananjay Nayakankuppam (2015), "Strength without Elaboration: The Role of Implicit Self-Theories in Forming and Accessing Attitudes," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 316-339.

ITEMS:1 1. How favorable do you feel about __________? Unfavorable / Favorable 2. How likable is this __________? Dislikable / Likable

90

3. How positive is __________? Negative / Positive

-------------1. The items were provided Kwon (2016). The blanks should be filled with the name of the focal object. Kwon and Nayakankuppam (2015) used the name of a fictitious charity they called World Aid. The extreme verbal anchors were unfavorable (-4) and favorable (4)

91

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE POSTED COMPLAINT (BENIGN) Three, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s interpretation of a complaint made in a social medium as being more amusing than it was expressing a serious concern.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not stated by McGraw, Warren, and Kan (2015) who used the scale in Study 5 of the six described in their article. In the experiment, respondents were asked to read a particular complaint and imagine that it was posted by a close friend at a social media site. Some saw a moderately humorous version of the complaint while the others saw a version that was not humorous. The results indicated that perceived humor appears to reduce how much the reader judges that the complainer is seeking sympathy or redress.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was reported to be .76 (McGraw, Warren, and Kan 2015, p. 1164).

VALIDITY: McGraw, Warren, and Kan (2015) did not provide any information regarding the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: This scale was one of a pair used by McGraw, Warren, and Kan (2015) to measure how respondents interpreted the complaint. The other scale was called violation appraisal. The concern is that of the six items composing the two scales, five appear to measure how serious a complaint appears to be. Since the discriminant validity of the two scales was not addressed by the authors, it is far from clear that they measure two distinct constructs.

REFERENCES: McGraw, A. Peter, Caleb Warren, and Christina Kan (2015), "Humorous Complaining," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1153-1171.

ITEMS:1 1. It seems playful. 2. It seems serious. (r) 3. It expresses concern. (r) 92

-------------1. The exact instructions were not provided in the article but probably asked participants to respond to these statements with respect to the posted comment they read.

93

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE POSTED COMPLAINT (SERIOUS) With three, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person interprets a complaint made in a social medium as expressing dissatisfaction because of a problem that has occurred.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not stated by McGraw, Warren, and Kan (2015) who used the scale in Study 5 of the six described in their article. They referred to the measure as violation appraisal. In the experiment, respondents were asked to read a particular complaint and imagine that it was posted by a close friend at a social media site. Some saw a moderately humorous version of the complaint while the others saw a version that was not humorous. The results indicated that perceived humor appears to reduce how much the reader perceives the complainer to be seeking sympathy or redress.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was reported to be .85 (McGraw, Warren, and Kan 2015, p. 1164).

VALIDITY: McGraw, Warren, and Kan (2015) did not provide any information regarding the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: This scale was one of a pair used by McGraw, Warren, and Kan (2015) to measure how respondents interpreted the complaint. The other scale was called benign appraisal. The concern is that of the six items composing the two scales, five appear to measure how serious a complaint appears to be. Since the discriminant validity of the two scales was not addressed by the authors, it is far from clear that they measure two distinct constructs.

REFERENCES: McGraw, A. Peter, Caleb Warren, and Christina Kan (2015), "Humorous Complaining," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1153-1171.

ITEMS:1 1. It expresses dissatisfaction. 2. It communicates a problem. 94

3. It indicates that something went wrong.

-------------1. The exact instructions for use with these items were not provided in the article but probably asked participants to respond to these statements with respect to the posted comment they read.

95

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PRODUCT/BRAND (MEANINGFUL) Four, seven-point Likert-type items measure the degree to which a product or brand is considered by a consumer to be appropriate and useful to him/herself.

ORIGIN: The scale used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) in their Studies 1, 2, and 3 was borrowed from work by Smith et al. (2007). The latter called the scale “brand-toconsumer relevance” and reported its alpha to be .94 (p. 826). The sample in Study 1 by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) was composed of 124 students from a large Midwest university in the United States. The sample in Study 2 was 50 people recruited at a large university in Columbia (p. 280). Using two independent native speakers, the survey instrument was developed by translating an English version into Spanish, back-translating it, and then cross-checking it. Finally, data were gathered in Study 3 from 15 advertising practitioners in the United States (p. 281).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale as used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014) were described as greater than .97 in Study 1 (p. 278), greater than .90 in Study 2 (p. 280), and greater than .80 in Study 3 (p. 282).

VALIDITY: Evidence in support of the scale’s convergent and discriminant validities was provided from tests run in Studies 1, 2, and 3 by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014).

REFERENCES: Lehnert, Kevin (2015), personal correspondence. Lehnert, Kevin, Brian D. Till, and José Miguel Ospina (2014), "Advertising Creativity: The Role of Divergence versus Meaningfulness," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 274-285. Smith, Robert E., Scott B. MacKenzie, Xiaojing Yang, Laura M. Buchholz, and William K. Darley (2007), “Modeling the Determinants and Effects of Creativity in Advertising,” Marketing Science, 26 (6), 819-833.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The The The The

_____ _____ _____ _____

was was was was

meaningful to me. appropriate for me. useful to me valuable to me.

96

-------------1. The items were provided by Lehnert (2015). The blank can be filled with a generic name of the focal product category or the name of a specific brand. Optionally, it can have the phrase “product or brand” as used by Lehnert, Till, and Ospina (2014; Lehnert 2015).

97

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE RETAILER (CUSTOMER ORIENTED) A person’s opinion of a retailer that focuses on how well the business satisfies customers with low prices and customer service is measured with six, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Roggeveen, Goodstein, and Grewal (2014) in Study 1 of the several described in their article. Data were gathered from 320 non-student subjects who were part of a national Internet panel. The source of the scale was not stated but the implication was that it was developed by the authors for the study.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .94 (Roggeveen, Goodstein, and Grewal 2014, p. 32).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Roggeveen, Goodstein, and Grewal (2014). However, they did say that a factor analysis conducted on the six items showed they loaded on one factor.

REFERENCES: Roggeveen, Anne L., Ronald C. Goodstein, and Dhruv Grewal (2014), "Improving the Effect of Guarantees: The Role of a Retailer's Reputation," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 27-39.

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

This store offers value to its customers. The prices at this store are very competitive. It’s very unlikely that I’ll find lower prices elsewhere. This store takes good care of its customers. The employees at this store are fair to customers. Employees in this store have an objective of satisfying customers.

98

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE RETAILER (GENERAL EVALUATIVE) Six semantic differentials are used to measure a consumer’s attitude about a retailer, with the emphasis on beliefs that could be considered most relevant when comparing online retailers.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Studies 1 and 3 by Bodur, Klein, and Arora (2015). Data were gathered in Study 1 from 63 undergraduate students at a Canadian university while in Study 3 data were gathered from 171 members of a national consumer panel. The source of the scale was not identified. The scale was used by the authors with respect to information provided at a price comparison site for a product offered by several online retailers. Given this and the facets covered by the scale’s items, the measure may make most sense for use with retail websites.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was reported as .94 in both Study 1 and 3 (Bodur, Klein, and Arora 2015, pp. 131, 134).

VALIDITY: The scale was included in the CFAs conducted by Bodur, Klein, and Arora (2015) for Studies 1 and 3. Few details were provided but the authors reported in both cases that evidence was found in support of the attitude scale’s discriminant validity with respect to another scale, what they referred to as “price validity.”

REFERENCES: Bodur, H. Onur, Noreen M. Klein, and Neeraj Arora (2015), "Online Price Search: Impact of Price Comparison Sites on Offline Price Evaluations," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 125139.

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

might not / would have my product in stock might not / would deliver my product at the price stated a retailer I would / would not want to buy from provides low / high quality service not at all / very trustworthy 99

6. not at all / very reputable

-------------1. Although the number of points on the response scales used with all six items were indicated to be nine, other information indicated that #5 and #6 used five-point formats (Bodur, Klein, and Arora 2015, p. 129). While not impossible to have a different number of points for items in the same scale, it is very rare. Thus, the most likely case is that all items were measured with nine-point scales.

100

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SPORTS TEAM The scale uses eight, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a fan’s attitude about a particular sports team. The emphasis is on the team’s high standards and its efforts to please loyal fans.

ORIGIN: Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) referred to the scale as relationship quality. They created it by drawing ideas from measures used by Garbarino and Johnson (1999). The former used the scale in surveys associated with a team franchise of the National Basketball Association (NBA) located in the Southeastern United States. Data were gathered via online surveys prior to three consecutive seasons: 2009-2010 (n = 943), 2010-2011 (n = 632), and 2011-2012 (n = 833).

RELIABILITY: Composite reliabilities calculated for the scale were .95 (2009 and 2010 seasons) and .94 (2011 season).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) found that there was an acceptable fit of their hypothesized measurement models to the data for each of the three data sets. Evidence was found in support of each scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVEs for the attitude toward the sports team scale were .70 (2009 season), .71 (2010 season), and .73 (2011 season).

REFERENCES: 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. Lacey, Russell, Pamela A. Kennett-Hensel, and Chris Manolis (2015), "Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Motivator or Hygiene Factor? Insights into its Bivalent Nature," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 315-332.

ITEMS:1 1. In general, I am satisfied with the experiences I get from attending this team’s games. 2. I am happy with the efforts this ___ team is making towards loyal fans like me. 3. As a loyal fan, I have a high quality relationship with this ___ team. 4. This ___ team has high integrity. 5. This ___ team can be trusted by fans. 101

6. This ___ team is honest and truthful to fans. 7. I really care about this ___ team. 8. It is worthwhile for me to support this ___ team.

-------------1. The league’s name should be placed in the blanks. Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) used “NBA,” a well-known acronym in the United States for the National Basketball Association. Alternatively, the blanks could be filled with a generic name for the type of sport being studied, e.g., basketball, football, baseball. It is also possible that the items would even make sense if the blanks are deleted so long as the instructions or context make it clear which team is to be evaluated.

102

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE STORE’S PRICES The degree to which a customer of a store believes its prices are “good” and better than the competing stores is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 2 of the four discussed in their article. They referred to it as price basis for loyalty. Analysis was based on data from 151 participants who were customers of a European jewelry store chain. The authors implied that the sources of the scale were Gustafsson, Johnson, and Roos (2005) as well as Oliver (1999). However, since nothing like the scale is in those articles, Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) probably meant that they got ideas for creating the scale from the work of the cited researchers.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .80 in Study 2 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, p. 27).

VALIDITY: Information regarding the scale’s validity was not explicitly provided by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014). Related to it, however, is that the model they tested of the relationships between various constructs (including attitude toward the store’s prices) had an acceptable fit. Further, the AVE for the scale was .60.

REFERENCES: Gustafsson, Anders, Michael D. Johnson, and Inger Roos (2005), “The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 210–218. Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 33–44. Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

ITEMS: 1. This store offers better prices than its competitors. 2. I am very satisfied with the prices I have received at this store in the past. 3. In my opinion, this store offers very good prices.

103

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE THIRD-PARTY LABEL Four, seven-point items are used to measure a person’s attitude about the usefulness of the third-party label on a package that attests to some aspect of the product’s quality.

ORIGIN: Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) used the scale in a study with a sample of students in a class at a university in the southwestern United States (n = 233). They referred to the scale as eco-label attitude because their study focused on “green” advertising. The ideas and phrases from which the scale was built were drawn from items used individually (not as a summated scale) by D’Souza et al. (2007).

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale used by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014, p. 37) was .70.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014).

COMMENTS: Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) used the scale as part of a study of “green” advertising but, it appears it is amenable for use with a variety of third party labels. As always, proper pretesting of a revised scale’s psychometric quality is urged before it is used to test theory.

REFERENCES: Atkinson, Lucy (2015), personal correspondence. Atkinson, Lucy and Sonny Rosenthal (2014), "Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 33-45. D’Souza, Clare, Mehdi Taghian, Peter Lamb, and Roman Peretiatko (2007), “Green Decisions: Demographics and Consumer Understanding of Environmental Labels,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (4), 371–76.

ITEMS:1 1. _____ labels are usually hard to understand. 2. _____ labels are generally accurate. 104

3. _____ labels are useful most of the time. 4. Products with _____ labels are usually of better quality than products without _____ labels.

-------------1. The items were provided by Atkinson (2015). A name describing the third-party label should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors were not identified by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) but appear to have been Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree / strongly agree.

105

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WEBSITE (CONTENT) With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s satisfaction with a website, particularly the usefulness of its content and the desire to visit the site frequently.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 3 and called it utility of the website. As for the source, they indicated the scale was adapted from work by Chen and Wells (1999). A comparison of the two scales shows that two of the items in Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene’s (2014) scale were modifications of items in Chen and Wells’ (1999) attitude toward the website scale and one item was completely new. It is also worthy of note that the scale was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method. The scale was pretested along with all of their other scales.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .83 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: Although Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did examine the discriminant validity of all their scales using data from the pretest as well as Study 3. In both cases, the authors concluded that all of their scales showed adequate evidence of discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was acceptable (.66).

REFERENCES: Chen, Qimei and William D. Wells (1999), “Attitude Toward the Site,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (5), 27–37. Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

ITEMS: 1. The content of this website is useful to me. 2. I am satisfied with the content of this website. 3. I would like to visit this website frequently. 106

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WEBSITE (PRODUCT ASSORTMENT) The likeability of the product options within a specified product category at a store’s website is measured using three, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was reported by Diehl, van Herpen, and Lamberton (2015) to have been used in four studies. They referred to the measure as assortment perceptions. No source of the scale was stated. It appears to have been created by the authors themselves.

RELIABILITY: Eight calculations of the scale’s internal consistency were reported by Diehl, van Herpen, and Lamberton (2015), varying across the studies and conditions. The alphas ranged from .81 to .92.

VALIDITY: Diehl, van Herpen, and Lamberton (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Diehl, Kristin (2016), personal correspondence. Diehl, Kristin, Erica van Herpen, and Cait Lamberton (2015), "Organizing Products with Complements versus Substitutes: Effects on Store Preferences as a Function of Effort and Assortment Perceptions," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 1-18.

ITEMS:1 1. How satisfied are you with the assortment of _____ on the store's web page? not at all satisfied / extremely satisfied 2. The assortment of _____ on the store's web page was . . . not at all attractive / very attractive 3. The assortment of _____ on the store's web page is . . . not at all inviting / very inviting

-------------1. The items were provided by Diehl (2016). As phrased by the author and her co-authors, the items varied somewhat across the four studies in which the scale was used. These are generalized versions of the items. The blanks should be filled with a name for the focal product category, e.g., shirts.

107

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WEBSITE (QUALITY) The belief that a certain website is of high quality, particularly with respect to its design and content, is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 3 and created it for that purpose. It was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method. As with all of the other scales in the study, this website quality scale was pretested several ways.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: Although Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did examine the discriminant validity of all their scales using data from the pretest as well as Study 3. In both cases, the authors concluded that all of their scales showed adequate evidence of discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was good (.79).

REFERENCES: Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

ITEMS: 1. The content of this website has high quality. 2. The design of this website seems very professional to me. 3. Overall, this website is of high quality.

108

AUTHENTICITY EVIDENCE FOR A PRODUCT Nine-point Likert-type items are used to measure a consumer’s belief that there is evidence that a particular product is genuinely a particular brand rather than a fake or confusingly similar one. A two- and a four-item version are provided.

ORIGIN: Newman and Dhar (2014) used a three item version of the scale in Experiment 1 and a four item version in Experiment 2. The source of the items was not identified nor was an explanation given for making a change in the item composition for the second study. (Only two of the five items shown below were shared in the two versions.)

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94 and .88 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively (Newman and Dhar 2014).

VALIDITY: Neither version of the scale’s validity was discussed by Newman and Dhar (2014).

REFERENCES: Newman, George E. and Ravi Dhar (2014), "Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 371-386.

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

In a factual sense, these are _____ __________. It is accurate to say that these are _____ __________. There is evidence of a connection between these __________ and the _____ brand. It is legitimate to sell this product in a retail store as _____ __________. These __________ are not a knock-off or replica.

-------------1. The shorter blanks of items #1-#4 should be filled with the focal brand name, e.g., Levi’s ®. The longer blanks found in all of the items should have a generic name for the product, e.g., jeans. The items used by Newman and Dhar (2014) in Experiment 1 were #1-#3 while all of the items were used in Experiment 2 except #3.

109

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PRODUCT A consumer’s belief that a particular product contains the legitimate and genuine character of a particular brand is measured with three, nine-point Likert-type items. The scale could also be referred to as measuring “contagion” or “transferred essence.”

ORIGIN: Newman and Dhar (2014) used the scale in Experiment 1 with 253 adults recruited from an online panel. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was reported to be .98 by Newman and Dhar (2014, p. 375).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Newman and Dhar (2014).

REFERENCES: Newman, George E. and Ravi Dhar (2014), "Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 371-386.

ITEMS:1 1. These _____ contain the true essence of the _____ brand. 2. These _____ reflect the heritage of the _____ brand. 3. These _____ embody the pedigree and history of the _____ brand.

-------------1. A generic term for the focal product should be placed in the first blank of each item, e.g., jeans. The brand name goes in the second blank of each item, e.g., Levi’s ®.

110

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PRODUCT With four items, the scale measures the degree to which a product is believed to be genuine and original in some unstated way.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a) used the scale in Study 4. Analyses appears to have been based on a final sample of 263 participants from a U.S. online sample. The source of the scale itself was not identified but it seems to have been the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b, p. 11).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that CFA and two different tests were used to provide evidence of the discriminant validity between this scale (authenticity) and another scale meant to measure the embeddedness of love in a product (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015a, p. 106).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015a), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110. Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015b), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), web appendix.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The product is genuine. The product is real. The product is original. I think the product is authentic.

-------------1. Items for this scale were provided in a web appendix (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b). The response format used with the items was not described but is assumed to have been the same as used with another scale in the study which was described as having strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

111

AUTONOMY The scale uses six statements to assess how much a person believes someone or something is true to itself and does not follow social conventions. As written, the items are best suited for describing others but with minor editing, the scale could be used to describe the respondent's perceived level of autonomy.

ORIGIN: Warren and Campbell (2014) created the scale and used it in Studies 2, 3, 4a, and 4b. The authors conducted several pretests to develop the scale. The six items (shown below) were consistently unidimensional and the scale had high reliability.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94 (Study 2), .91 (Study 3), and .89 (Study 4b, Warren 2015). For Study 4a, the scale was used with several brands and the alphas calculated in each case were indicated to be above .73.

VALIDITY: As noted above, multiple pretests were conducted and the items were repeatedly found to load on the same factor. Some unpublished validation effort was conducted as well (Warren 2015), but the details are unknown. Besides that, the scale was used as a manipulation check in all of the main studies. To the extent that that manipulations were all successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

COMMENTS: The scale was used in Study 2 and 4a with respect to brands. In Study 3, the autonomy of a band (music group) was rated in Study 3 and a person was rated in Study 4b.

REFERENCES: Warren, Caleb (2015), personal correspondence. Warren, Caleb and Margaret C. Campbell (2014), "What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived Coolness," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 543563.

ITEMS:1 1. Lives how _____ wants to live whether or not it pleases others. 2. Doesn’t do things just to fit in. 112

3. 4. 5. 6.

Pays little attention to established social norms or conventions. Rarely caves into social pressure. Doesn’t change who _____ is to suit others. Breaks rules when _____ feels like it.

-------------1. The blanks should be filled the appropriate pronoun for the context, e.g., he, she, it, they. Depending upon the pronoun, some minor editing of grammar in the items may be necessary. The verbal anchors used with the response scales in Studies 2, 3, and 4a were not descriptive and descriptive whereas in Study 4b they were the more typical disagree / agree (Warren 2015). The number of points used on the response scales were seven in Studies 2 and 4b but were five in Studies 3 and 4a (Warren and Campbell 2014, p. 559).

113

BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD With seven items, the scale measures the extent to which a person generally believes that people get what they deserve in life because “the world” is fair.

ORIGIN: Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014) used the scale in Study 2 of the five studies discussed in their article. The scale was borrowed from Lipkus (1991) and a variety of evidence in support of its validity has been provided in multiple studies over time (Dalbert et al. 2001).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale when used by Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014) was .82.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014).

REFERENCES: Dalbert, Claudia, Isaac M. Lipkus, Hedvig Sallay, and Irene Goch (2001), "A Just and an Unjust World: Structure and Validity of Different World Beliefs," Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (4), 561-577. Lipkus, Isaac (1991), “The Construction and Preliminary Validation of a Global Belief in a Just World Scale and the Exploratory Analysis of the Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale,” Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (11), 1171–1178. Reczek, Rebecca Walker, Kelly L. Haws, and Christopher A. Summers (2014), "Lucky Loyalty: The Effect of Consumer Effort on Predictions of Randomly Determined Marketing Outcomes," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1065-1078.

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

I I I I I I I

feel that people get what they are entitled to have. feel that a person's efforts are noticed and rewarded. feel that people earn the rewards and punishments they get. feel that people who meet with misfortune have brought it on themselves. feel that people get what they deserve. feel that rewards and punishments are fairly given. basically feel that the world is a fair place.

114

-------------1. Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014) did not describe the response scale they used with the items. Perhaps it was a Likerttype format as has been used previously (Dalbert et al. 2001, p. 565).

115

BETRAYAL Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s belief that he/she has been misled and taken advantage of by another party.

ORIGIN: Harmeling et al. (2015) adapted the scale from a measure of the same construct created by Grégoire and Fisher (2008). The former used the scale in Study 2 with a sample of people from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel. The scale was only used with the 108 participants who were assigned randomly to the negative relational disconfirmation experimental condition.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .91 (Harmeling et al. 2015, p. 48).

VALIDITY: The CFA used by Harmeling et al. (2015) showed an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Evidence was provided of betrayal scale’s discriminant validity with the other measures in the model. The scale’s AVE was .72 (Harmeling et al. 2015, p. 48).

COMMENTS: The scale was also used in Study 3 by Harmeling et al. (2015) in a business-to-business context. Because of that, the phrasing of the items was slightly different from what is shown below in order to have the proper syntax.

REFERENCES: Grégoire, Yany and Robert J. Fisher (2008), “Customer Betrayal and Retaliation: When Your Best Customers Become Your Worst Enemies,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (2), 247-261. Harmeling, Colleen M., Robert W. Palmatier, Mark B. Houston, Mark J. Arnold, and Stephen A. Samaha (2015), "Transformational Relationship Events," Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 39-62.

ITEMS:1 Because of this experience, I felt . . . 1. betrayed by _____. 116

2. _____ took advantage of me. 3. _____ misled me. 4. _____ let me down when I needed them.

-------------1. The name of the entity (person, group, or company) that is blamed for the betrayal should be stated in the blanks. The extreme anchors used by Harmeling et al. (2015, p. 51) for the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

117

BRAND AFFORDABILITY A person’s attitude regarding the cost of a brand and its affordability is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Yoo (2014) used the scale with respect to a cruise line in an experiment with 228 college students. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .81 (Yoo 2014, p. 92).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Yoo (2014).

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Yoo (2014) with regard to a cruise line, the items appear to be flexible enough for use with most brands in a variety of product categories.

REFERENCES: Yoo, Chan Yun (2014), "Branding Potentials of Keyword Search Ads: The Effects of Ad Rankings on Brand Recognition and Evaluations," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 85-99.

ITEMS:1 1. _____ __________ is relatively inexpensive. 2. _____ is a high-priced __________. (r) 3. _____ __________ is affordable.

-------------1. The brand name should be placed in the shorter blank of each item while the name of the product category goes in the longer blank. For example, in Yoo’s (2014) study, item #2 was phrased as “Thompson is a high-priced cruise line.”

118

BRAND IMPORTANCE Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a person places so much importance on the brand that his/her decisions within a particular product category are limited to the just the preferred brands.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not identified by Habel and Klarmann (2015). They used it in a survey of 1,522 adult residents of the U.S. who were members of an online panel. Except for education, the sample was considered to be representative of the U.S. population in terms of several typical demographic variables. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of 29 product categories to evaluate various aspects of that category.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .91 (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 777). This was apparently calculated across 29 product categories.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Habel and Klarmann (2015). They did, however, state that the scale’s AVE was .71 (p. 777).

REFERENCES: Habel, Johannes and Martin Klarmann (2015), "Customer Reactions to Downsizing: When and How is Satisfaction Affected?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 768-789.

ITEMS:1 When it comes to _____, . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

the brand is very important to me. I care about the brand very much. I choose among my preferred brands only. there are certain brands which I would not consider for my choice.

-------------1. The blank should be filled with the name of the focal product category, e.g., mobile phones. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were fully disagree and fully agree (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 779).

119

BRAND LOYALTY A consumer’s commitment to a brand and intention to continue purchasing it is measured with four items.

ORIGIN: Rosengren and Dahlén (2015) cited Grohmann (2009) who, in turn, cited Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Worth noting is that the latter two sets of authors treated the four items as measures of two types of loyalty, with two items measuring attitudinal loyalty and the other two measuring behavioral loyalty. (Chaudhuri and Holbrook [2001] referred to the second type as “purchase loyalty.”)

RELIABILITY: The scale was used in several of the studies reported by Rosengren and Dahlén (2015) but reliability was only reported for Study 2. In that case, the alpha was .844.

VALIDITY: The result of the EFA used on Study 2 data indicated that the four brand loyalty items loaded together. The CFA run in Study 3 supported a five factor solution of which brand loyalty (measured with the four items) was one of the factors. However, that analysis also showed that the scaled failed to have discriminant validity with the measure the authors used to measure purchase intention.

COMMENTS: Whether brand loyalty should be measured with one scale or two, especially when using these four items, is an open question. Data from the studies cited here lead to different conclusions.

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. Grohmann, Bianca (2009), “Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 105–119. Rosengren, Sara and Micael Dahlén (2015), "Exploring Advertising Equity: How a Brand's Past Advertising May Affect Consumer Willingness to Approach Its Future Ads," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 1-13.

120

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

am committed to this brand. would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand than other brands. will buy this brand next time I buy _____.2 intend to keep purchasing this brand.

-------------1. The first two items measure attitudinal loyalty while the last two items measure behavioral loyalty. The response format used with these items was not described by Rosengren and Dahlén (2015). It appears to have been a seven-point, Likert-type scale (agree/disagree). 2. A name for the product category should be placed in the blank.

121

BRAND LOYALTY Six, seven-point Likert-type items are used in this scale to measure a person’s commitment to buy one particular brand in a product category, even if it is more expensive than competing brands or not in stock.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jensen and Grunert (2014) in their study of price knowledge while shopping for groceries. Analysis was based on data gathered from 1,040 shoppers interviewed in two stores in a large city in Denmark. The language in which the scale and the rest of the survey instrument was phrased was not stated in the article. The source of the scale was not clearly stated but appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: Jensen and Grunert (2014, p. 345) reported the scale’s alpha to be .91.

VALIDITY: Although Jensen and Grunert (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity they did provide the results of an EFA run on the scale’s items along with the items used to measure three other constructs of interest in the study. The items loaded well on their respective factors which provided some evidence of each scale’s unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Jensen, Birger Boutrup and Klaus G. Grunert (2014), "Price Knowledge During Grocery Shopping: What We Learn and What We Forget," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 332-346.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I switch between different _____ brands. (r) I buy the same _____ brand every time. I prefer to buy my favorite brand of _____ regardless of the price of other brands. I don’t believe other brands of _____ can fulfill my needs as well as my favorite brand. 5. Generally, I compare different brands when I buy _____. (r) 6. I postpone buying _____ if my favorite brand is out of stock.

-------------1. The name of the product category should be placed in the blanks. The anchors of the response scale used by Jensen and Grunert (2014, p. 339) with these statements were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

122

BRAND LOYALTY A consumer’s general tendency to purchase the same brand over time and not switch to other brands that are available is measured in this scale with five, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) by borrowing items from previous scales the lead author had used to measure the construct in previous research with other colleagues (Ailawadi, Pauwels, and Steenkamp 2008; Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2006). In an impressive set of studies, the scale was used along with several other consumer trait-related measures to examine temporal stability in the traits. Data were gather from 1,411 Dutch consumers over a period of 12 years. The language in which the questionnaires were phrased for respondents was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The authors provided evidence of each trait-related scale’s temporal stability based on an evaluation of the scale’s configural invariance as well as the scalar invariance. With respect to the brand loyalty scale, alphas over the 12 year period were rather consistent, ranging from .85 to .89 (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 293). Test-retest correlations were also examined over the 12 year period. There were 11 lag-1 testretest correlations, 10 lag-2 correlations, 9 lag-3 correlations, and so on. As may be expected, the correlation between the scores on the brand loyalty scale for the respondents decreased over time from .80 (comparing scores from the second year to the first) to .68 (comparing the last year to the second to last year). Despite the gradual decrease in these correlations, the results indicate a high level of stability for the periods involved.

VALIDITY: Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) did not report examining the validity of their scales per se in these studies. Although it is likely that some validity checks were conducted, that issue was not the purpose of this particular article.

REFERENCES: Ailawadi, Kusum L., Koen Pauwels, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2008), “Private Label Use and Store Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November), 19–30.

123

Baumgartner, Hans and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2006), “An Extended Paradigm for Measurement Analysis Applicable to Panel Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (August), 431–442. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Alberto Maydeu-Olivares (2015), "Stability and Change in Consumer Traits: Evidence from a 12-Year Longitudinal Study, 2002–2013," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 287-308.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

After I get used to a brand, I don’t like to switch. I see myself as a brand loyal person. I feel really committed to the brands I buy. Even though certain products are available in a number of different brands, I always tend to buy the same brand. 5. I prefer the brand I always buy instead of trying something new I am not sure about.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5) (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 292).

124

BRAND PARITY With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a consumer’s general belief that brand name products in a certain product category are essentially the same as those brands owned by the store. (How they are viewed as “the same” is not stated in the items.)

ORIGIN: Koschate-Fischer, Cramer, and Hoyer (2014) created the scale after some interviews with experts and a review of the commoditization literature. The authors referred to the scale as degree of commoditization. They used the scale along with other measures in a study conducted in Germany. Participants (17,324) were recruited from a pool maintained by a large market research company.

RELIABILITY: The alpha calculated by Koschate-Fischer, Cramer, and Hoyer (2014) for the scale was .84.

VALIDITY: Information about the scale’s validity was not provided by Koschate-Fischer, Cramer, and Hoyer (2014).

REFERENCES: Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Johannes Cramer, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2014), "Moderating Effects of the Relationship Between Private Label Share and Store Loyalty," Journal of Marketing, 78 (2), 69-82.

ITEMS:1 1. Overall, I see no major difference between brand name products and the store’s own brands in __________. 2. Overall, brand name products and store’s own brands are equivalent in __________. 3. In __________, I could substitute brand name products and store’s own brands for each other.

-------------1. The name of the focal product category should be stated in the blanks, e.g., ground coffee.

125

BRAND PREFERENCE The scale has three, six-point items that measure how much a consumer prefers a brand from one company verses the brand of another company.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) used the scale in Study 3. Data were collected from 402 people recruited from an online panel in the United States. The source of the scale was not identified but it appears to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .99 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, p. 105).

VALIDITY: Using CFA and two different tests, evidence of discriminant validity was found for the scale with respect to a measure of the symbolic embeddedness of love in a product (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, p. 105).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110.

ITEMS:1 1. I would definitely prefer to buy the _____ from __________. 2. I would choose the _____ from __________. 3. I would purchase the __________ _____.

-------------1. The name of the product should be placed in the shorter blank of each item. The longer blank is responded to using a sixpoint scale with the name of one brand at one end and the name of the other brand at the other end.

126

BRAND PRIDE The scale is composed of eight Likert-type items that measure a consumer’s pride with being associated with a brand and his/her emotional attachment to it.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 4 (n = 83) by Bellezza and Keinan (2014). They referred to the scale as brand patriotism and viewed it as measuring something more or different from attachment and identification. Interestingly, the authors said the construct intentionally focused on "smugness and superiority" (p. 400) and yet, those attitudes are not clearly represented in the items. The scale itself is an adaptation of the Patriotism scale by Kosterman and Feshbach (1989). Six of the eight items (below) are clearly modifications of items in that scale while two appear to be new (#7 and #8).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .88 (Bellezza and Keinan 2014, p. 408).

VALIDITY: Bellezza and Keinan (2014) did not provide any information about the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: Various facets of the construct are evident in the items: pride, commitment, emotional attachment, community, and switching behavior. Given that, the unidimensionality of the scale is in question and should be examined carefully before the measure is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Bellezza, Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014), "Brand Tourists: How Non–Core Users Enhance the Brand Image by Eliciting Pride," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 397-417. Kosterman, Rick, and Seymour Feshbach (1989), “Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes,” Political Psychology, 10 (2), 257–274.

ITEMS:1 1. I love __________. 2. I am proud to be a __________.2 127

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

In a sense, I am emotionally attached to __________. I feel a great pride in that I am part of the __________ community. When I see the __________ logo I feel great. The fact that I am a __________ is an important part of my identity.3 I would not want to switch to a different _____.4 __________ _____ are one of the best in the world.5

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not described by Bellezza and Keinan (2014). Most likely they treated as a Likert-type scale as did as Kosterman and Feshbach (1989) with extreme verbal anchors being strongly disagree and strongly agree. The longer blanks in the items should be filled with the brand name. 2. Kosterman and Feshbach (1989) used the brand name Tough Mudder, with the phrase referring to a core user. In other uses, it may be more appropriate to use the brand name and a word such as loyalist, fan, enthusiast, or aficionado. 3. The same as footnote #2. 4. Kosterman and Feshbach (1989) used the word "event" here but in other contexts, the word "brand" or the generic name for the object may be appropriate, e.g., television. 5. Kosterman and Feshbach (1989) used the word "Tough Mudder runs” here. In other contexts, the brand name paired with the generic name may be most appropriate, e.g., Apple televisions.

128

BRAND STATUS A consumer’s attitude about the sophistication and exclusiveness of a particular brand is measured using eight, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kim and Kramer (2015) in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 487 individuals who were members of Amazon Mechanical Turk. As for the scale’s source, it was implied to be O’Cass and McEwen’s (2004). While there are some similar words and phrases shared by the two scales, they are far from being the same scale. It is more precise to say that Kim and Kramer (2015) created their scale based on inspiration from a measure used by O’Cass and McEwen’s (2004).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was reported to be .99 in the study by Kim and Kramer (2015).

VALIDITY: Kim and Kramer (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, since the status scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, that provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian) and Thomas Kramer (2015), "Do Materialists Prefer the 'Brand-as- Servant'? The Interactive Effect of Anthropomorphized Brand Roles and Materialism on Consumer Responses," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 284-299. O’Cass, Aron and Hmily McEwen (2004), “Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4 (1), 25–39.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Please indicate on the following scale how you evaluate the _____ brand.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The The The The The The The

brand brand brand brand brand brand brand

is prestigious. symbolizes status. is a distinctive brand. is a sophisticated brand. is held in high esteem. indicates success. indicates wealth. 129

8. The brand is an exclusive brand.

-------------1. The extreme anchors used by Kim and Kramer (2015) with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). 2. The blank should be filled with the generic name for the product category with which the brand is identified, e.g., watch.

130

BRAND’S EFFECT ON OWNER’S STATUS Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a consumer’s belief that a brand has the power to affect the perceived socioeconomic status of the person buying it.

ORIGIN: Wang and Wallendorf (2006) created the scale for use in a pretest (n = 54). Its alpha was reported to be .80. Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) borrowed the scale and made minor changes for use in Studies 2 (n = 180) and 3 (n = 405).

RELIABILITY: As used by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) in Studies 2 and 3, the scale’s alphas were .91 and .93, respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014).

REFERENCES: Sundar, Aparna and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2014), "Place the Logo High or Low? Using Conceptual Metaphors of Power in Packaging Design," Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 138151. Wang, Jeff and Melanie Wallendorf (2006), “Materialism, Status Signaling, and Product Satisfaction,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 494–505.

ITEMS:1 1. Can this product help you form an impression of the person purchasing it? 2. Can this product tell you how much discretionary income/spending money its buyer has? 3. Can a product tell you something about the buyer’s social status?2

-------------1. These are the items as phrased in the article by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014, p. 142). To be true to the construct’s name and purpose, however, it seems that the term “product” in each item should be replaced with the word “brand.” Further, the extreme verbal anchors on the response scale were explicitly stated in the article to be strongly disagree and strongly agree which is unusual for use with items stated as questions rather than statements. 2. It is recommended that the beginning phrase in #3 should be “Can this product . . .” rather than “Can a product . . .” in order to be consistent with what items #1 and #2 measure.

131

CALMNESS OF THE EXPERIENCE The degree to which a person believes a particular experience was peaceful and relaxing is measured with four, five-point items.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) used the scale in Studies 3A (n = 249). Participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The items used to measure the calmness of an experience were among 39 drawn from a number of relevant sources that were thought to be potentially useful in differentiating between ordinary and extraordinary experiences. The results of an EFA showed there were 10 clear factors, one of them composed of the four items shown below.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .85 (Bhattacharjee and Mogilner 2014, p. 10).

VALIDITY: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: As used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014), participants described an experience rather than other entities such as self, movies, music, etc. The extent to which the scale is appropriate for use in describing something other than an experience is unknown but it is very similar to measures used for those purposes, e.g., Aaker and Williams (1998), Edell and Burke (1987); Mano (1999).

REFERENCES: Aaker, Jennifer L. and Patti Williams (1998), “Empathy versus Pride: The Influence of Emotional Appeals Across Cultures,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 241261. Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit and Cassie Mogilner (2014), "Happiness from Ordinary and Extraordinary Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 1-17. Edell, Julia A. and Marian Chapman Burke (1987), “The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 421433. 132

Mano, Haim (1999), “The Influence of Pre-Existing Negative Affect on Store Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 75 (2), 149-172.

ITEMS:1 To what extent would you describe the experience as follows? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Calming Peaceful Serene Relaxing

-------------1. The anchors used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) with these items were not at all (1), a little (2), moderately (3), quite a bit (4), and very much (5). The exact phrasing of the items, the scale stem, and the response format were clarified by Bhattacharjee (2015).

133

CASUAL SEX OPENNESS Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s interest in taking advantage of sexual opportunities with different partners.

ORIGIN: Wang and Griskevicius (2014) referred to the measure as mating strategy index and used it in Study 5 with 177 female participants recruited from MTurk. The authors said (2014, p. 844) the items were from the attitude portion of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory by Simpson and Gangestad (1991). A comparison of the two sets of items, however, shows that the former only used one of the three attitude items from the latter’s inventory. Given that, it seems that Wang and Griskevicius (2014) borrowed one item and then created the other two based on concepts they found in the work of Simpson and Gangestad (1991).

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .93 (Wang and Griskevicius 2014, p. 844).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by the Wang and Griskevicius (2014).

REFERENCES: Simpson, Jeffry A., and Steven W. Gangestad (1991), “Individual Difference in Sociosexuality: Evidence for Convergent and Discriminant Validity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (6), 870–883. Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), "Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 834-854.

ITEMS:1 1. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners. 2. I could easily imagine myself enjoying one night of sex with someone I would never see again. 3. I believe in taking sexual opportunities when I find them.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

134

CAUSE PARTICIPATION CONFLICT The scale measures the degree to which a consumer experiences conflict with regard to purchasing a discounted product linked with a charity. The conflict is between personally benefitting by saving money and doing something purely to help the charity. Three, eleven-point Likert-type items compose the scale.

ORIGIN: Andrews et al. (2014) used the scale in what they called Lab Experiment 3. Data were collected for the study from 426 students at a large Chinese university. All scale items used in the study were apparently translated from English into Chinese and then back into English to determine the accuracy of the translation. As for the scale’s source, the authors implied that it was Tyebjee (1979). While the latter did, indeed, study conflict, no direct measure of the construct was made. Perhaps it is best to describe the source of the scale as Andrews et al. (2014) who received some inspiration from the work of Tyebjee (1979).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .94 (Andrews et al. 2014, p. 140).

VALIDITY: Andrews et al. (2014) did not provide any information regarding the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: The purpose of the scale in the experiment by Andrews et al. (2014) is not clear. It does not appear that participants had to choose between a discount for themselves and a donation being made by the company to the charity. If there was, the purpose of the scale would be clearer. Possibly, some people believe if they monetarily benefit from an action (such as buying a discounted product) then it makes their charitable motivation “impure.” The key is that the instructions/manipulations included with the scale must provide a situation that will be seen by some respondents as a clear conflict of motivations while others see little or no conflict.

REFERENCES: Andrews, Michelle, Xueming Luo, Zheng Fang, and Jaakko Aspara (2014), "Cause Marketing Effectiveness and the Moderating Role of Price Discounts," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 120-142. 135

Tyebjee, Tyzoon T. (1979), “Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (3), 295–304.

ITEMS: 1. I feel there is a conflict between taking the discount to benefit myself and helping the charity benefit those who need it. 2. Saving money for oneself conflicts with benefiting others through charity. 3. I feel that the monetary discount is at odds with the charitable donation.

136

CELEBRITY WORSHIP The level of a person’s enjoyment of a celebrity and identification with him/her is measured with three, six-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Hung (2014) in Study 2 with Chinese participants who rated two Chinese celebrities: Andy Lau and Yao Ming. Although not stated, it is assumed that the scale and the rest of the survey was in Chinese. The phrasing of the items shown below are as provided in the article except for the blanks which were used here in place of a celebrity’s name. It appears that the scale was primarily used as a screening mechanism and means of categorizing participants as fans and non-fans. The items themselves were taken and adapted from a larger instrument by McCutcheon, Lange, and Houran (2002) for the measurement of celebrity worship. These items appear to have been selected by Hung (2014) to reflect individual, social, and identification facets of the construct.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .825 and .812 for Andy Lau and Lao Ming, respectively (Hung 2014, p. 161).

VALIDITY: Although Hung (2014) examined the validity of some other scales used in the same study, it does not appear that this scale was part of the analyses.

REFERENCES: Hung, Kineta (2014), "Why Celebrity Sells: A Dual Entertainment Path Model of Brand Endorsement," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 155-166. McCutcheon, Lynn E., Rense Lange, and James Houran (2002), “Conceptualization and Measurement of Celebrity Worship,” British Journal of Psychology, 93 (1), 67–87.

ITEMS:1 1. I enjoy watching, reading, or listening to _____. 2. My friends and I like to discuss what _____ has done. 3. The successes of _____ are my successes also.

-------------1. The name of the celebrity should be placed in the blanks.

137

CLOSENESS TO THE PERSON How much a person likes another person and would like to interact with him/her more is measured with eight, ten-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Huang et al. (2015) used the scale in Study 3 with 49 undergraduate students attending Stanford University. Participants volunteered to be paired with a partner with whom they would experience a 7-day walking program. The scale was completed by participants 4 times during the week with the focus always being the same person (the partner). The scale itself appears to have been developed by Schmitt, Silvia, and Branscombe (2000) with very slight changes being made when used by Huang et al. (2015).

RELIABILITY: The scale was completed by participants four times over the period of a week Huang et al. (2015, pp. 1259, 1260). The alphas were .88, .97, .98. and .97 for days 1, 3, 5, and 7, respectively.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Huang et al. (2015).

REFERENCES: Huang, Szu-chi (2016), personal correspondence. Huang, Szu-chi, Susan M. Broniarczyk, Ying Zhang, and Mariam Beruchashvili (2015), "From Close to Distant: The Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships in Shared Goal Pursuit," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1252-1266. Schmitt, Michael T., Paul J. Silvia, and Nyla R. Branscombe (2000), “The Intersection of Self-Evaluation Maintenance and Social Identity Theories: Intragroup Judgment in Interpersonal and Intergroup Context,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (December), 1598–1606.

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

I feel like I am personally similar to _____. _____ and I have many things in common. As a friend, I like _____. _____ is the kind of person I would like as a roommate. _____ is someone I would like to be closer to. _____ is the kind of person I would like to know better. 138

7. _____ is someone I would like to have as a close friend. 8. I would like to meet and interact with _____ more often.

-------------1. The full list of items was provided by Huang (2016). The name of the person whom the respondent is referring to should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were strongly disagree/strongly agree (Huang 2016).

139

CLOSING TIME COMPLIANCE Four statements are used to measure the extent to which a customer in a retail establishment near the time it is set to close courteously interacted with employees as they engaged in behaviors related to closing the store.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2, 3, and 4 discussed in their article. The authors referred to the construct as accession and described it as occurring when “consumers change their behaviors to physically accommodate the infringer” (p. 79). The “infringers” in their studies were restaurant or store employees. The scale was created by the authors for use in their studies and they drew ideas from the work of Fraine et al. (2007).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .85, .80, and .91 in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models had good fit. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to closing time compliance, the AVEs were .60 (Study 2), .50 (Study 3), and .77 (Study 4).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Fraine, Graham, Sandy G. Smith, Lucy Zinkiewicz, Rebekah Chapman, and Mary Sheehan (2007), “At Home on the Road? Can Drivers’ Relationships with their Cars be Associated with Territoriality,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (3), 204–214. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. I tried to rush to get out of the _____ so I didn’t interfere with the employees’ closing time activities. 2. I apologized to an employee for being in the _____. 3. I told an employee I would be quick. 140

4. I explained to an employee I would not take long so they knew I would be out of the _____ soon.

-------------1. The type of facility the participant was in should be stated in the blanks, e.g., store, restaurant, fitness center. Also, Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items.

141

COMMITMENT (AFFECTIVE) The scale uses four items to measure a customer’s emotional attachment to and identification with an entity which he/she might use. As currently phrased, the items are particularly suited for use regarding a service provider but might be appropriate for use with other entities such as a brand.

ORIGIN: Karpen et al. (2015) used the scale in what they referred to as Stage 5 of developing a set of service-dominant orientation scales. The context was automotive retail and data were collected from 412 members of an Australian online panel. The key phrasing for three of the items in the scale (#2-#4 below) have been used in many measures of the construct, going at least as far back as Allen and Meyer (1990). Karpen et al. (2015) cited Fullerton (2005) for use of the items in a service context. The authors also cited Jones et al. (2007) since their measure of the construct appears to be the source of the fourth item (#1 below).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .918 (Karpen et al. 2015, p. 101).

VALIDITY: As part of testing hypotheses in Stage 5, evidence was provided in support of convergent and discriminant validity for all of the scales used in the structural model. The AVE of the affective commitment scale was .804 (Karpen et al. 2015, p. 101).

REFERENCES: Allen, Natalie J. and John P. Meyer (1990), “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization,” Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63 (1), 1–18. Fullerton, Gordon (2005), “How Commitment Both Enables and Undermines Marketing Relationships,” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (11/12), 1372 – 1388. Jones, Michael A., Kristy E. Reynolds, David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty (2007), “The Positive and Negative Effects of Switching Costs on Relational Outcomes,” Journal of Service Research, 9 (4), 335–355. Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

142

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I use this __________ because I really like it. I feel emotionally attached to this __________. This __________ has a great deal of personal meaning for me. I feel a strong sense of identification with this __________.

-------------1. The blank in each item should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the entity being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

143

COMMUNAL ORIENTATION Fourteen, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s trait-like tendency to be concerned about the needs of others as well as expecting help from them when needed.

ORIGIN: Bolton and Mattila (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 (n = 135) and 3 (n = 277) with data being gathered in both cases from people in a paid commercial panel. The scale was developed by Clark et al. (1987). Its internal consistency was .78 (n = 561) and its 11 week temporal stability with 128 college students was .68 (test re-test correlation). In a factor analysis (n = 565), all items had positive loadings on the first factor. (Concern about the results of this factor analysis is discussed below.)

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale as used by Bolton and Mattila (2015) were .80 (Study 2) and .86 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Bolton and Mattila (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: Although the scale appears to have adequate reliability, its validity is questionable. Based on the limited results of a factor analysis reported by Clark et al. (1987), the loadings of three items (#1, #11, and #14) were below .50. Further, those same three items along with another item (#7) had the highest loadings of the 14 items on the second factor. The scale is in need of further testing to determine if it is unidimensional and has adequate validity.

REFERENCES: Bolton, Lisa E. and Anna S. Mattila (2015), "How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Consumer Response to Service Failure in Buyer–Seller Relationships?" Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 140-153. Clark, Margaret S., Robert Oullette, Martha C. Powell and Sandra Milberg (1987), “Recipient’s Mood, Relationship Type, and Helping,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (1), 94–103.

144

ITEMS:1 1. It bothers me when other people neglect my needs. 2. When making a decision, I take other people's needs and feelings into account. 3. I'm not especially sensitive to other people's feelings. (r) 4. I don't consider myself to be a particularly helpful person. (r) 5. I believe people should go out of their way to be helpful. 6. I don't especially enjoy giving others aid. (r) 7. I expect people I know to be responsive to my needs and feelings. (r) 8. I often go out of my way to help another person. 9. I believe it's best not to get involved taking care of other people's personal needs. (r) 10. I'm not the sort of person who often comes to the aid of others. (r) 11. When I have a need, I turn to others I know for help. 12. When people get emotionally upset, I tend to avoid them. (r) 13. People should keep their troubles to themselves. (r) 14. When I have a need that others ignore, I'm hurt.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Bolton and Mattila (2015, p. 145) were disagree and agree. The terms used by Clark et al. (1987, p. 96) for the end points were extremely uncharacteristic and extremely characteristic.

145

COMPANY RESHORING MOTIVES (EXTRINSIC) The scale uses four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s belief that a company’s decision to bring its activities back into the home country is for the businessrelated benefits it expects to receive.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015) in Study 2. Analysis was based on a convenience quota sample in Italy (n = 120). An English version of the questionnaire was back-translated and refined for use in Italian. The authors are the source of the scale and created it by borrowing key phrases from a scale by Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .88 (Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi 2015, p. 463).

VALIDITY: Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, they did conduct a factor analysis of the scale and implied that the four items loaded high on the same factor.

REFERENCES: Ellen, Pam Scholder, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A. Mohr (2006), “Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 147-157. Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2015), "Consumer Stakeholder Responses to Reshoring Strategies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 453-471.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Express your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the company reshoring decision. 1. I think that the company is taking advantage of reshoring to help its own business. 2. I think that the company is taking advantage of the reshoring incentives available to help its own business. 3. I think that the company, by reshoring its activity, seeks actually to get publicity. 4. I think that the company seeks just to get tax write-offs by reshoring its activity. 146

-------------1. Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015, p. 462) said that respondents “expressed their level of agreement or disagreement on a seven-point Likert scale.” That means the verbal anchors used with the response scale were likely to have been the Italian equivalent of strongly disagree / strongly agree.

147

COMPANY RESHORING MOTIVES (INTRINSIC) A consumer’s belief that a company’s decision to bring back its activities to the home country because of the benefits to the home country is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015) in Study 2. Analysis was based on a convenience quota sample in Italy (n = 120). An English version of the questionnaire was back-translated and refined before use in Italian. The authors are the source of the scale and created it by borrowing key phrases from a scale by Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .85 (Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi 2015, p. 462).

VALIDITY: Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, they did conduct a factor analysis of the scale and implied that the five items loaded high on the same factor.

REFERENCES: Ellen, Pam Scholder, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A. Mohr (2006), “Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 147-157. Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2015), "Consumer Stakeholder Responses to Reshoring Strategies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 453-471.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Express your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the company reshoring decision. 1. I think that the company feels morally obligated to reshore its activity. 2. I think that the company has a real, authentic long term interest in bringing its activities back in the home country. 3. I think that the company believes in the decision to bring activities back in the home country. 148

4. I think that the company wants to make it easier for consumers who care about the "made in" to support it. 5. I think that the company is trying to give something back to its home country.

-------------1. Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015, p. 462) said that respondents “expressed their level of agreement or disagreement on a seven-point Likert scale.” That means the verbal anchors used with the response scale were likely to have been the Italian equivalent of strongly disagree / strongly agree.

149

COMPATIBILITY OF A PRODUCT WITH PERSONAL VALUES The degree to which a consumer believes that using a particular product would be consistent with his/her values is measured with three, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 house owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes (micro wind turbines). The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing concepts and phrases from a scale by Karahanna et al. (2006).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .90 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .75.

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Karahanna, Elena, Ritu Agarwal, and Corey M. Angst (2006), "Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research," MIS Quarterly, 30 (4), 781– 804.

ITEMS:1 1. Using _____ would be in line with my own personal values. 2. Using _____ fits the way I view the world. 3. Using _____ would be consistent with the way I think I should live my life.

-------------1. The name of the product should be placed in the blank of each item, e.g., micro wind turbines. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

150

COMPETENCE The degree to which one person views another person as being competent due his/her assertiveness and apparent status is measured with four, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015) used the scale in Study 4 (n = 210 college students) with respect to a spokesperson in a fictitious radio commercial. The implied source of the scale was Anderson and Kilduff (2009). The scale itself did not appear to have been used by the latter though the concepts were discussed. Given that, it is assumed that Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015) borrowed some key terms and concepts from the article by Anderson and Kilduff (2009) to create the scale.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was calculated to be .88 by Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015, p. 228).

VALIDITY: Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. Of concern is that the items appear to measure different constructs. For example, a person can be viewed as introverted and yet quite competent, e.g., medical records technicians, court reporters, astronomers (Adams 2014). Due to this, the scale lacks strong face validity. Factor analysis is urged to determine the scale’s unidimensionality before the scale is used in theory testing.

COMMENTS: As noted above, Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015) used the scale in order to have participants evaluate the competence of a spokesperson. It is not known how appropriate it would be to have participants use the scale to assess themselves.

REFERENCES: Adams, Susan (2014), "The 10 Best Jobs for Introverts," www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/03/04/the-10-best-jobs-forintroverts/#a6e848d5d636. Anderson, Cameron, and Gavin J. Kilduff (2009), “Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (2), 491–503.

151

Puzakova, Marina, Hyokjin Kwak, and Monique Bell (2015), "Beyond Seeing McDonald's Fiesta Menu: The Role of Accent in Brand Sincerity of Ethnic Products and Brands," Journal of Advertising, 44 (3), 219-231.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Not Competent / Competent Introverted / Extroverted Low Status / High Status Unassertive / Assertive

-------------1. The instructions and scale stem used with these items were not stated by Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015). It is likely that the authors asked participants to use the items to describe the spokesperson they heard in the radio commercial.

152

COMPLAINT INTENTIONS A person’s intentions to not only complain directly to the company but also to news media and multiple levels of government is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015) used the scale in a study in which data were collected from 210 members of a Norwegian consumer panel. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .97 (Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug 2015, p. 343).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015) examined the measurement model and provided evidence of the model’s fit as well as the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. With specific reference to complaint intentions, the AVE was .85.

REFERENCES: Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Kjell Grønhaug (2015), "The Role of Moral Emotions and Individual Differences in Consumer Responses to Corporate Green and Non-Green Actions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 333-356.

ITEMS:1 1. I intend to complain directly to the company. 2. I intend to complain to the news media. 3. I intend to complain to the minister of oil, environment protection agencies or other relevant governmental departments. 4. I intend to complain to the local county officials. 5. I intend to complain to the representatives in Parliament.

-------------1. The government entities stated in items #3-#5 should be modified as needed for the country in which the scale is used. For example, the word “Congress” would be a reasonable replacement for “Parliament” in item #5 if the scale was used in the United States.

153

COMPLEXITY OF THE ASSORTMENT Three statements are used to measure a person’s opinion of the degree of complexity in an assortment of some object due to the number of options available.

ORIGIN: Townsend and Kahn (2014) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 5 reported in the article. They said their scale was adapted from Kahn and Wansink (2004) but the latter had no multi-item measure of complexity. Given this, it is more accurate to say that Townsend and Kahn (2014) created the scale based on inspiration from the work by Kahn and Wansink (2004).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .87 (Study 1), .89 (Study 2), and .83 (Study 5) (Townsend and Kahn 2014).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Townsend and Kahn (2014).

REFERENCES: Kahn, Barbara E. and Brian Wansink (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 519-533. Townsend, Claudia and Barbara E. Kahn (2014), "The “Visual Preference Heuristic: The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 993-1015.

ITEMS:1 1. This assortment of _____ is too complex to consider. 2. It is difficult to keep track of all the various options in this _____ assortment. 3. There are too many options in this assortment of _____.

-------------1. The verbal anchors were not described by Townsend and Kahn (2014). It appears that a nine-point agree/disagree response format was used.

154

CONCERN FOR THE NEEDY (FRIENDS) The scale uses five, seven-point items to measure a person’s belief that those close to him/her promote equality by helping the less fortunate.

ORIGIN: The scale was called the “social benefits motivation” by Winterich and Zhang (2014) and used in their Study 3. The authors adapted items from a scale by Clary et al. (1998) which, along with five other scales, formed the Volunteer Functions Inventory.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 in Study 3 by Winterich and Zhang (2014).

VALIDITY: Winterich and Zhang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Clary, E. Gil, Mark Snyder, Robert D. Ridge, John Copeland, Arthur A. Stukas, Julie Hauge, and Peter Miene (1998), “Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1516–1530. Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274-293.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

My friends try to promote equality by helping others. People I’m close to want me to promote equality by helping others. People I know share an interest in helping improve the future of those less fortunate. Others with whom I am close place a high value on offering aid to improve the lives of others. 5. Helping others to achieve equality is an important activity to the people I know best.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale that Winterich and Zhang (2014) used with these items were not at all important (1) and extremely important (7).

155

CONCERN FOR THE NEEDY (SELF) A person’s concern for people in need and the importance placed on personally helping them is measured with five, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was called “values expressive motivation” by Winterich and Zhang (2014) and was used in their Study 3. The authors borrowed the scale from Clary et al. (1998) who had created it along with five others to form the Volunteer Functions Inventory. Using CFA in several studies, Clary et al. (1998) concluded that a six-factor oblique model fit the data best. The alphas calculated for the values scale was above .80 in the studies. The temporal stability (four week test-retest) of the scale was .78. Evidence was provided in multiple studies of the scale’s predictive validity.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 in Study 3 by Winterich and Zhang (2014).

VALIDITY: Winterich and Zhang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Clary, E. Gil, Mark Snyder, Robert D. Ridge, John Copeland, Arthur A. Stukas, Julie Hauge, and Peter Miene (1998), “Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1516–1530. Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274-293.

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

I I I I I

am concerned about those less fortunate than myself. am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving. feel compassion toward people in need. feel it is important to help others. can do something for a cause that is important to me.

156

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale that Winterich and Zhang (2014) used with these items were not at all important (1) and extremely important (7).

157

CONFLICTED Using three, seven-point items, the scale measures how much a person feels undecided and doubtful about something he/she has done such as choice that was made.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Chen and Sengupta (2014) in Study 2 of the four they discussed. The source of the scale was not identified. Data were collected from undergraduates (n = 111) attending the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .87 (Chen and Sengupta 2014).

VALIDITY: Chen and Sengupta (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Chen, Fangyuan and Jaideep Sengupta (2014), "Forced to Be Bad: The Positive Impact of Low-Autonomy Vice Consumption on Consumer Vitality," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1089-1107.

ITEMS:1 1. torn 2. conflicted 3. ambivalent

-------------1. The instructions Chen and Sengupta (2014) used with these items asked participants to indicate how conflicted they felt about the task in which they engaged (choosing a healthy or unhealthy snack to eat). The response format was a seven-point scale with not at all / extremely as the extreme verbal anchors.

158

CONGRUENCE (SELF WITH EMPLOYEES) The scale measures the degree to which a person believes that he/she can relate to a particular set of employees because they are similar to him/her in some (unstated) way. There are two versions of the scale: one with three statements and one with five.

ORIGIN: Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) used a three item version of the scale in Study 1 and a five item version in Study 2. Respondents in the first study were female members of a consumer research panel. In Study 2, the final sample was 202 female students from a large southwestern university in the United States. The authors implied that Sirgy et al. (1997) as well as Escalas and Bettman (2003) were the sources of the scale. While concepts were drawn from some measures by Sirgy et al. (1997) for items #1 to #3 (below), there was no borrowing of any specific scale. Items #4 and #5 (below) bear more similarity to items in a scale by Escalas and Bettman (2003) called self-brand connection. Given all of this, it is probably best to view the scale below as having been created by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) using concepts and some terminology from the cited sources.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliabilities of the scale were .81 and .94 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Pounders, Babin, and Close 2015, pp. 676, 681).

VALIDITY: In Studies 1 and 2 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), CFAs were used to provide support for the fit of the measurement models. Further, they provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales being used. The AVEs for the measure of congruence between self and employees were .59 (Study 1) and .76 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339–348. Pounders, Kathrynn R., Barry J. Babin, and Angeline G. Close (2015), "All the Same to Me: Outcomes of Aesthetic Labor Performed by Frontline Service Providers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 670-693. 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 159

of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (Summer), 229–241.

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

The employees and I are very much alike. I can identify with these store employees. These employees are not consistent with the way I view myself. (r) I feel a personal connection with these employees. These employees could communicate who I am.

-------------1. In Study 1 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015, p. 688), the scale was composed of items #1-#3 and utilized a five-point response format. In Study 2, all five items were used along with a seven-point format. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not stated but appear to have been Likert-type, e.g., strongly disagree / strongly agree.

160

CONGRUENCE OF EMPLOYEES The degree to which a person believes that a set of employees work together well and stand for similar things is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 and 3 and referred to it as fit. In creating the scale, the authors drew heavily from a measure of congruence by Speed and Thompson (2000). As used by the latter, the congruence being evaluated was between an event and its sponsor whereas with the adapted version by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), the congruence being assessed was among a set of employees.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistencies of the scale were .85 (construct reliability) and .72 (Cronbach’s alpha) in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Pounders, Babin, and Close 2015, pp. 681, 684).

VALIDITY: In Study 2 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), a CFA was used to provide support for the measurement model’s fit. Further, it provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validities for the study’s scales. The AVE for the measure of employees’ congruence was .58.

REFERENCES: Pounders, Kathrynn R., Barry J. Babin, and Angeline G. Close (2015), "All the Same to Me: Outcomes of Aesthetic Labor Performed by Frontline Service Providers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 670-693. Speed, Richard and Peter Thompson (2000), “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

These employees share a logical connection. These employees here fit well together. These employees stand for similar things. It makes sense that these employees work together.

-------------1. The response scale used with these items by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) was merely described as being “seven-point Likert-type” (p. 680). Given that, it is likely the extreme verbal anchors were strongly disagree / strongly agree or something very similar.

161

CONNECTEDNESS (SELF WITH GROUP) With seven, nine-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes he/she is liked by others and part of a group (unspecified).

ORIGIN: McFerran and Argo (2014) used the scale in Study 4 of the five discussed in their article. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale reported by McFerran and Argo (2014, p. 877) was .95.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by McFerran and Argo (2014). It is helpful to note, however, that a factor analysis was used in Study 4 on four scales, including the measure of connectedness. The items were described as loading on the appropriate factors.

REFERENCES: McFerran, Brent and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Entourage Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 871-884.

ITEMS: Right now I feel . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

connected part of a group like I belong like I fit in popular well liked united with others

162

CONNECTEDNESS (SOCIAL) Three, eleven-point items measure the extent to which a person believes that a situation or experience affected him/her in such a way as to feel closer to an individual or a group.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in Studies 2, 3, and 4. Participants completed the scale with regard to an emotional story they had written earlier in the study session. They indicated the extent to which the scale items described what they were feeling while writing. The source of the scale was not stated. It has some similarity to other measures of the construct (e.g., Jiang et al. 2010) but is not similar enough to be a modification. It may have been created by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .87, .88, and .93 in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673. Jiang, Lan, Joandrea Hoegg, Darren W. Dahl, and Amitava Chattopadhyay (2010), "The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similarity on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in a Sales Context," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 778-791.

ITEMS:1 1. To what extent did you feel close or closer to another individual or group? 2. To what extent did you feel more connected to another individual or group? 3. To what extent did it affect the way you thought about your relationship with some individual or group?

-------------1. The instructions provided with this scale should focus respondents’ attention on an event or situation they have experienced. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were not at all (1) and extremely (11).

163

CONTROL OF THE SPACE How much a person feels overwhelmed and lacking control within a particular environment is measured with five, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Chae and Zhu (2014) used the scale in Study 4 with 90 undergraduate students attending the University of British Columbia. The context was such that participants had to wait briefly in an office that was either organized or disorganized, depending upon the manipulation. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .71 (Chae and Zhu 2014, p. 1207).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Chae and Zhu (2014).

REFERENCES: Chae, Boyoun (Grace) (2015), personal correspondence. Chae, Boyoun (Grace) and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2014), "Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1203-1218.

ITEMS:1 1. To what 2. To what control? 3. To what 4. To what 5. To what

extent do you feel that you have control over the space here? (r) extent do you feel that the _____ environment threatens your sense of extent do you feel out-of-control in this _____ space? extent did you feel overwhelmed in this space? extent does this _____ space affect you?

-------------1. The exact phrasing of the scale items was clarified by Chae (2015). The anchors used for measuring responses to the items were not at all (1) and very much (7). The word “space” and the blanks can be replaced with descriptors relevant to the context, e.g., work space, store layout, waiting room.

164

CONVENIENCE OF CHOOSING PRODUCTS FROM AN ASSORTMENT A consumer’s attitude about how quickly and easily he/she is able to find and select products from an assortment provided by a particular retailer is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale is Emricha and Rudolph (2015) who drew primarily upon concepts and phrasing in some measures of convenience by Seiders et al. (2007). The version of the scale shown below was used in Study 2 reported in the article by Emricha and Rudolph (2015). Another version was used in Study 1 that was more general and did not refer to an assortment.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale used in Study 2 was .94 (Emricha and Rudolph 2015, pp. 330).

VALIDITY: Emricha and Rudolph (2015) examined the fit of their measurement model and the discriminant validity of the scales. All were satisfactory. The AVE for the convenience measure was .83 (p. 340).

REFERENCES: Emricha, Oliver, Michael Paul, and Thomas Rudolph (2015), "Shopping Benefits of Multichannel Assortment Integration and the Moderating Role of Retailer Type," Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 326–342. 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.

ITEMS:1 1. Overall, I can choose quickly and easily from the assortment at _____. 2. Choosing from the assortment requires little time and effort at _____. 3. It is easy to find the products in the assortment I am looking for at _____.

-------------1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks.

165

CO-PRODUCTION EFFORT Five unipolar items with a Likert-type response format measure the extent of effort and time invested by a consumer in a specific product assembling process.

ORIGIN: Haumann et al. (2015) referred to the scale as perceived coproduction intensity. They used the scale in a study composed of customers of a multinational seller of ready-toassemble furniture. Customers were contacted and asked to complete an initial questionnaire. Those who responded to that first wave were contacted six weeks later and 803 of those who responded to that second wave indicated that they had purchased and assembled an item. The scale was created by the authors, with key phrases for three of the items coming from a similar measure used by Franke and Schreier (2010, p. 1025).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .96 (Haumann et al. 2015, p. 25).

VALIDITY: Although many details were not provided, tests of measurement validity were conducted by Haumann et al. (2015). Evidence was found in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of all their measures. The AVE of the co-production effort scale was .79.

COMMENTS: A very similar scale as this one was administered by Haumann et al. (2015, p. 24) to participants before they assembled the product. The authors called the scale coproduction expectations. The measure was composed of the first three items shown below and the scale stem was “I expect the assembly process of the product by [firm name] to be . . . .” The scale’s alpha was .92 and its AVE was .66.

REFERENCES: Franke, Nikolaus and Martin Schreier (2010), “Why Customers Value Self-Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (7), 1020–1031. Haumann, Till, Pascal Güntürkün, Laura Marie Schons, and Jan Wieseke (2015), "Engaging Customers in Coproduction Processes: How Value-Enhancing and Intensity166

Reducing Communication Strategies Mitigate the Negative Effects of Coproduction Intensity," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 17-33.

ITEMS:1 Assembling the product was . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

effortful exhausting demanding time-consuming costly (in terms of time and effort)

-------------1. The extreme anchors used with these items were strongly disagree (1) strongly agree (7) (Haumann et al. 2015, p. 30).

167

CO-PRODUCTION ENJOYMENT The interest and fun a customer expresses with respect to assembling products is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Haumann et al. (2015) used the scale in a study composed of customers of a multinational seller of ready-to-assemble furniture. Customers were contacted and asked to complete an initial questionnaire. Those who responded to that first wave were contacted six weeks later and 803 of those who responded to that second wave indicated that they had purchased and assembled an item. The scale was adapted, item-by-item, from a measure created by Franke and Schreier (2010, p. 1025).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .97 (Haumann et al. 2015, p. 25).

VALIDITY: Although many details were not provided, tests of measurement validity were conducted by Haumann et al. (2015). Evidence was found in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of all their measures. The AVE of the co-production enjoyment scale was .88.

REFERENCES: Franke, Nikolaus and Martin Schreier (2010), “Why Customers Value Self-Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (7), 1020–1031. Haumann, Till, Pascal Güntürkün, Laura Marie Schons, and Jan Wieseke (2015), "Engaging Customers in Coproduction Processes: How Value-Enhancing and IntensityReducing Communication Strategies Mitigate the Negative Effects of Coproduction Intensity," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 17-33.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I enjoy assembling _____. Assembling _____ is interesting. I think assembling _____ is quite enjoyable. Assembling _____ is fun. 168

-------------1. The name of the product should be placed in the blanks, e.g., furniture. The extreme anchors used with these items were strongly disagree (1) strongly agree (7) (Haumann et al. 2015, p. 30).

169

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (EFFECT ON CUSTOMER’S SUPPORT) With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person’s support of a particular organization is based on its community involvement and charitable activities.

ORIGIN: Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) referred to the scale as CSR as a Relationship Motivator and used it in surveys associated with a team franchise of the National Basketball Association (NBA) located in the Southeastern United States. Data were gathered via online surveys prior to three consecutive seasons: 2009-2010 (n = 943), 2010-2011 (n = 632), and 2011-2012 (n = 833). The researchers apparently developed the scale by drawing ideas and phrases from measures by Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig (2004).

RELIABILITY: Composite reliabilities calculated for the scale were .86 (2009), .88 (2010 seasons) and .87 (2011 season).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) found that there was an acceptable fit of their hypothesized measurement models for each of the three data sets. Evidence was found in support of each scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVEs for the scale shown below were .68 (2009 season), .70 (2010 season), and .69 (2011 season).

REFERENCES: Lacey, Russell, Pamela A. Kennett-Hensel, and Chris Manolis (2015), "Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Motivator or Hygiene Factor? Insights into its Bivalent Nature," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 315-332. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette E. Drumwright, and Bridgette M. Braig (2004), “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 16-32.

ITEMS:1 1. I support _____ because they include charity in their business activities. 2. My satisfaction with this organization is dependent on their level of community involvement. 170

3. I support _____ because they are involved in corporate giving.

-------------1. The organization’s name should be placed in the blanks. Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) used “this NBA team,” referring to the National Basketball Association. Alternatively, the blanks could be filled with a generic phrase such as was done in item #2 (“this organization”).

171

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (OBLIGATION) Three, seven-point Likert-type items measure the degree to which a person believes that a particular organization should be involved in charitable community activities and he/she would stop supporting the organization if it discontinues such activity.

ORIGIN: Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) referred to the scale as CSR as a Relationship Hygiene Factor and used it in surveys associated with a team franchise of the National Basketball Association (NBA) located in the Southeastern United States. Data were gathered via online surveys prior to three consecutive seasons: 2009-2010 (n = 943), 2010-2011 (n = 632), and 2011-2012 (n = 833). The researchers apparently developed the scale by drawing ideas and phrases from measures by Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig (2004).

RELIABILITY: Composite reliabilities calculated for the scale were .83 (2009 and 2010) and .84 (2011 seasons).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) found that there was an acceptable fit of their hypothesized measurement models for each of the three data sets. Evidence was found in support of each scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVEs for the scale shown below were .62 (2009 season), .63 (2010 season), and .64 (2011 season).

REFERENCES: Lacey, Russell, Pamela A. Kennett-Hensel, and Chris Manolis (2015), "Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Motivator or Hygiene Factor? Insights into its Bivalent Nature," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 315-332. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette E. Drumwright, and Bridgette M. Braig (2004), “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 16-32.

ITEMS:1 1. I believe _____ has an obligation to undertake community service initiatives. 2. I would be dissatisfied with the organization if they were not involved in the community. 172

3. I would stop supporting _____ if they discontinued the charity in their business activities.

-------------1. The organization’s name should be placed in the blanks. Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) used phrases in items #1 and #3 that referred to a NBA team (the National Basketball Association). Alternatively, the blanks could be filled with a generic phrase such as was done in item #2 (“the organization”). The extreme anchors on the response scale used with the items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

173

COUNTERCULTURALISM Six, five-point Likert-type items measure a person’s belief that societal rules and norms are overly restrictive and limit person freedom too much.

ORIGIN: Warren and Campbell (2014) created the scale and used it in Studies 4a and 4b. The authors conducted several pretests to develop the scale. The items (shown below) were consistently unidimensional, the scale had high reliabilities (alphas greater than .80), and discriminant validity was shown with respect to several potentially related measures (autonomy, individualism, need for uniqueness).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .79 (Study 4a) and .83 (Study 4b) as indicated by Warren (2015).

VALIDITY: As noted above, multiple pretests were conducted and the items were repeatedly found to load on the same factor. Some unpublished validation effort was conducted as well (Warren 2015) but the details are unknown.

REFERENCES: Warren, Caleb (2015), personal correspondence. Warren, Caleb and Margaret C. Campbell (2014), "What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived Coolness," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 543563.

ITEMS: 1. Rules and conventions often overly restrict people’s freedom. 2. Society traps people by restricting individual autonomy and independence. 3. Large institutions like corporations and the government exert too much control over our everyday lives. 4. Many of the problems in society are caused by overly restrictive norms and conventions. 5. Authority is usually a bad thing. 6. Society has far too many rules and conventions.

174

CULTURAL IDENTITY The strength with which a person expresses favorable attachment to a particular cultural group is measured in this scale using six, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015) used the scale in Study 1 (n = 60 undergraduate students). Although not stated in the article, the items were drawn from the revised Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure by Roberts et al. (1999).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was calculated to be .92 by Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015, p. 224).

VALIDITY: Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. Of concern is that the items may not form a unidimensional measure. That is suspected given that five of the items were drawn from the affirmation/belonging subscale and one item (#4) was from the exploration subscale by Roberts et al. (1999). Factor analysis is urged to determine the scale’s unidimensionality before the scale is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Puzakova, Marina (2016), personal correspondence. Puzakova, Marina, Hyokjin Kwak, and Monique Bell (2015), "Beyond Seeing McDonald's Fiesta Menu: The Role of Accent in Brand Sincerity of Ethnic Products and Brands," Journal of Advertising, 44 (3), 219-231. Roberts, Robert E., Jean S. Phinney, Louise C. Masse, Y. Richard Chen, Catherine R. Roberts, and Andrea Romero (1999), “The Structure of Ethnic Identity in Young Adolescents from Diverse Ethnocultural Groups,” Journal of Early Adolescence, 19 (3), 301-322.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I have a clear sense of my _____ background and what it means for me. I have a strong sense of belonging to _____ as a group. I have a lot of pride in being _____. I participate in cultural practices of _____ people, such as special food, music, or customs. 5. I feel a strong attachment towards _____as a group. 6. I feel good about _____ cultural background. 175

-------------1. The full list of items was provided by Puzakova (2016). The name of the focal cultural group should be placed in the blanks. The extreme anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

176

DAY QUALITY EXPECTATION Three, seven-point items measure a person’s general belief that the current day will be good rather than bad.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kim, Kulow, and Kramer (2014) in Study 2 as a manipulation check with 316 adults recruited from Amazon MTurk. The source of the scale was not identified by the authors but seems likely to have been created by them for the study.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .93 (Kim, Kulow, and Kramer 2014, p. 1144).

VALIDITY: Kim, Kulow, and Kramer (2014) did not address the scale’s validity. However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides a modicum of evidence in support of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian), Katina Kulow, and Thomas Kramer (2014), "The Interactive Effect of Beliefs in Malleable Fate and Fateful Predictions on Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1139-1148.

ITEMS:1 1. What kind of day do you feel is in store for you? 2. How likely is it that today will be a bad day? 3. How likely is it that today will be a good day? (r)

-------------1. The items were paraphrased in the article by Kim, Kulow, and Kramer (2014) and have been created here as they might have been phrased for participants. The anchors for the response scale used with item #1 were a very bad day (1) and a very good day (7). For the other two items, the anchors were very unlikely (1) and very likely (7).

177

DESERVINGNESS (SPECIAL PURCHASE FOR SELF) How much a person believes that, as a result of some accomplishment or experience, he/she is justified in buying something for self as a reward is measured by five, sevenpoint items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Studies 2-4 of the five reported in the article by Cavanaugh (2014). She drew inspiration for items from measures of deservingness by Appelbaum (2001), Callan, Ellard, and Nicol (2006), and Wood et al. (2009).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale reported by Cavanaugh (2014) for Studies 2, 3 and 4 were .97, .96, .97, respectively.

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Cavanaugh (2014).

COMMENTS: Cavanaugh (2014) used the scale with respect to ads that participants were exposed to. However, with slight edits, the scale appears to be amenable for use in a variety of contexts.

REFERENCES: Appelbaum, Lauren D. (2001), “The Influence of Perceived Deservingness on Policy Decisions Regarding Aid to the Poor,” Political Psychology, 22 (3), 419–442. Callan, Mitchell J., John H. Ellard, and Jennifer E. Nicol (2006), “The Belief in a Just World and Immanent Justice Reasoning in Adults,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (12), 1646–1658. Cavanaugh, Lisa A. (2014), "Because I (Don't) Deserve It: How Relationship Reminders and Deservingness Influence Consumer Indulgence," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 218-232. Wood, Joanne V., Sara A. Heimpel, Laurie A. Manwell, and Elizabeth J. Whittington (2009), “This Mood Is Familiar and I Don’t Deserve to Feel Better Anyway: Mechanisms Underlying Self-Esteem Differences in Motivation to Repair Sad Moods,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (2), 363–380.

178

ITEMS:1 1. After __________, how deserving did you feel of treating yourself? After __________, to what extent did you feel you deserve to . . . 2. 3. 4. 5.

reward yourself treat yourself to nice things indulge yourself a little buy something special for yourself

-------------1. The extreme anchors used with all five items were not at all deserving (1) and extremely deserving (7). A brief phrase describing what the participant has just achieved or experienced should be placed in the blanks. In the studies by Cavanaugh (2014), the phrase was “viewing those ads.”

179

DESIRABILITY OF CONTROL With five, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale is intended to measure a person’s motivation to be in control of people and decisions.

ORIGIN: Huang, Dong, and Mukhopadhyay (2014) used the scale in Study 3 of the six discussed in their article. Data for the study were gathered from 83 undergraduate students at the University of Toronto. The scale items were drawn from the 20-item, five factor, Desirability of Control (DC) scale constructed by Burger and Cooper (1979).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .70 (Huang, Dong, and Mukhopadhyay 2014, p. 703).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Huang, Dong, and Mukhopadhyay (2014).

COMMENTS: The unidimensionality of the scale is of great concern given that its five items loaded on several different factors in the studies by Burger and Cooper (1979, p. 384). See also Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014, p. 1112) who used a scale composed of five unspecified items from the Burger and Cooper (1979) instrument. For use of the full, 20 item version of the scale in consumer research, see Hsee, Yang, and Ruan (2015). They used the scale in Studies 5 and 6 but did not report its reliability.

REFERENCES: Burger, Jerry M. and Harris M. Cooper (1979), “The Desirability of Control,” Motivation and Emotion, 3 (4), 381–393. Hsee, Christopher K., Yang Yang, and Bowen Ruan (2015), "The Mere-Reaction Effect: Even Nonpositive and Noninformative Reactions Can Reinforce Actions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 420-434. Huang, Xun (Irene) (2015), personal correspondence. Huang, Xun (Irene), Ping Dong, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay (2014), "Proud to Belong or Proudly Different? Lay Theories Determine Contrasting Effects of Incidental Pride on Uniqueness Seeking," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 697-712.

180

Wan, Echo Wen, Jing Xu, and Ying Ding (2014), "To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 11091122.

ITEMS:1 Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I would prefer to be a leader than a follower. I enjoy being able to influence the actions of others. I enjoy having control over my own destiny. I try to avoid situations where someone else tells me what to do. 5. There are many situations in which I would prefer only one choice rather than having to make a decision. (r)

-------------1. The items and scale stem were provided by Huang (2015).

181

DESIRE FOR STATUS A person’s motivation to achieve and/or accumulate external indicators of success such as wealth, power, and status is measured with three statements.

ORIGIN: In several studies, Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009) developed the desire for status scale as part of a new instrument for measuring Machiavellianism. In brief, they confirmed that desire for status is one of four first order factors of a higher order factor (Machiavellianism). Alphas for their measure of status were .72 (Study 1) and .84 (Study 2). As used in research of consumer behavior, the scale was employed by Ratner and Hamilton (2015) in Study 2. Data were gathered from two online panels: 100 participants from the U.S. and 101 from India completed the study on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk; 70 Chinese participants completed the study on a Chinese site similar to mTurk. In all cases, materials were presented in English.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale when used by Ratner and Hamilton (2015, p. 272) was .88.

VALIDITY: Ratner and Hamilton (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Dahling, Jason J., Brian G. Whitaker, and Paul E. Levy (2009), “The Development and Validation of a New Machiavellianism Scale,” Journal of Management, 35 (2), 219–257. Ratner, Rebecca K. and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2015), "Inhibited from Bowling Alone," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 266-283.

ITEMS:1 1. Status is a good sign of success in life. 2. Accumulating wealth is an important goal for me. 3. I want to be rich and powerful someday.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not described by Ratner and Hamilton (2015). It appears to have been a seven-point, Likert-type scale, e.g., strongly disagree/strongly agree. Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009, p. 234) used a fivepoint Likert-type response scale.

182

DESIRE TO WIN THE AUCTION Three, eleven point Likert-type items are used to measure the importance a person placed on winning a particular auction he/she was involved in with other bidders.

ORIGIN: In Study 2 by Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015), the scale was used in a lab experiment with 216 participants (undergraduate students at a German university). The authors created the scale by drawing inspiration from work by Cheema, Chakravarti, and Sinha (2012) as well as Malhotra (2010). Initial phrasing of the items was examined by colleagues and the feedback led to some changes. Following that, the revised items were pretested with 72 students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .936 (Adam, Krämer, and Müller 2015, supplementary appendix).

VALIDITY: The results of an EFA showed that the items composing this scale loaded strongly on the same factor and had low loadings on the other scales used in the study. While this provides evidence of the scale’s unidimensionality, Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015, supplementary appendix) interpreted it as evidence of discriminant validity. They also viewed the high alpha for the scale as being evidence of convergent validity. These are not strong tests of validity and the conclusions should be viewed as preliminary.

COMMENTS: Another scale was developed along with this one by Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015) and was intended to measure an opposite construct. The authors called it fear of losing. The items were almost exactly the same as those shown below except that the phrase “not lose” replaced “win.” The scale’s alpha was .932.

REFERENCES: Adam, Marc T.P., Jan Krämer, and Marius B. Müller (2015), "Auction Fever! How Time Pressure and Social Competition Affect Bidders’ Arousal and Bids in Retail Auctions," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 468-485. Cheema, Amar, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Atanu R. Sinha (2012), “Bidding Behavior in Descending and Ascending Auctions,” Marketing Science, 31 (5), 779–800.

183

Malhotra, Deepak (2010), “The Desire to Win: The Effects of Competitive Arousal on Motivation and Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111 (2), 139–146.

ITEMS:1 1. I really wanted to win the auction. 2. It was important to me to win the auction. 3. It was important to me to win against the other bidders.

-------------1. The scale appears to have been administered to participants in German. These are the translations provided in the supplementary material of the article (Adam, Krämer, and Müller (2015, supplementary appendix). Responses were made on an eleven-point Likert-type scale. Although not explicitly stated in the article, the extreme verbal anchors were likely to have been the German equivalents of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (11).

184

DEVOTION TO ANOTHER The degree to which a certain man is viewed as being in love with a certain woman is measured using three, seven-point items. (The items appear to be easily adaptable for use with other interpersonal relationships as discussed further below.)

ORIGIN: Wang and Griskevicius (2014) used the scale in Study 5 with 177 female participants recruited from MTurk. The origin of the scale was not stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .94 (Wang and Griskevicius 2014, p. 844).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by the Wang and Griskevicius (2014).

COMMENTS: As used by Wang and Griskevicius (2014), the scale measured a particular man’s apparent devotion to a particular woman. It appears that the basic phrasing of the items is quite flexible for adaptation and use with a variety of other interpersonal relationships such as a teenage girl’s devotion to her boyfriend, a mother’s devotion to her daughter, a man’s devotion to his brother, etc. However, given that the scale was only used with adult women, its psychometric quality should be examined again if the items are modified a lot.

REFERENCES: Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), "Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 834-854.

ITEMS:1 How much do you think: 1. the man loves the woman? 2. the man cares for the woman? 3. the man and woman love each? 185

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

186

DIETARY CONTROL BEHAVIORS Nine items are used to measure how much a person engages in eating-related behaviors meant to control one’s weight.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 1 by Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015). Data were gathered from 150 participants who were members of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk online panel. The source of the measure was Stice (1998) who referred to it as the Dietary Intent scale. In one of his studies, the alpha was .94 and the temporal stability (one month test-rested correlation) was .92.

RELIABILITY: In Study 1 by Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015), the scale’s alpha was .915 (Liu 2016).

VALIDITY: Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Liu, Peggy J. (2016), personal correspondence. Liu, Peggy J., Cait Lamberton, and Kelly L. Haws (2015), "Should Firms Use Small Financial Benefits to Express Appreciation to Consumers? Understanding and Avoiding Trivialization Effects," Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 74-90. Stice, Eric (1998), “Relations of Restraint and Negative Affect to Bulimic Pathology: A Longitudinal Test of Three Competing Models,” International Journal of Eating Disorders, 23 (3), 243–260.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

I I I I I I I I I

take small helpings in an effort to control my weight. hold back at meals in an attempt to prevent weight gain. limit the amount of food I eat in an effort to control my weight. sometimes avoid eating in an attempt to control my weight. skip meals in an effort to control my weight. sometimes eat only one or two meals a day to try to limit my weight. eat diet foods in an effort to control my weight. count calories to try to prevent weight gain. eat low-calorie foods in an effort to avoid weight gain. 187

-------------1. The response scale used by Liu, Lamberton, and Haws (2015) with these items was not described. The one used by Stice (1998) was anchored by Never (1), Seldom (2), Sometimes (3), Often (4), and Always (5).

188

DISCONFIRMATION OF THE EXPERIENCE How a customer believes an actual experience compares to what he/she expected it to be is measured with five, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 by Allen et al. (2015) and analyses were based on data collected from 264 members of an online panel. The authors appear to have created the measure by drawing on terminology from a measure of the construct used by Oliver and Bearden (1989).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .97 (Allen 2016).

VALIDITY: Although exact statistics were not provided by Allen et al. (2015), the authors stated generally that support for convergent and discriminant validities were found for all of their scales and AVEs were greater than .50.

REFERENCES: Allen, Alexis M. (2016), personal correspondence. Allen, Alexis M., Michael K. Brady, Stacey G. Robinson, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "One Firm’s Loss is Another’s Gain: Capitalizing on Other Firms’ Service Failures," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (5), 648-662. Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden (1985), "Disconfirmation Processes and Consumer Evaluations in Product Usage," Journal of Business Research, 13 (3), 235–246.

ITEMS:1 Overall, my experience with the _____ was: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

much worse than expected / much better than expected much poorer than I thought / much better than I thought an unpleasant surprise / a pleasant surprise fell short of expectations / exceeded expectations more problematic than expected / less problematic than expected

-------------1. A generic term for the focal experience should be placed in the blank of the scale stem. For example, Allen et al. (2015, p. 660) used the term “hotel.” Responses to the items were made on a seven-point scale.

189

DOMINANCE-SEEKING The degree to which a person expresses a trait-like need for power and the tendency to be controlling in social relationships is measured with six, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The instrument was used by Kim and Kramer (2015) in the first pilot study before Study 1 (n = 103) as well as in Study 4 (n = 201). The scale itself is from the static form of the Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder (Simms et al. 2011a). Alphas reported for that form of the scale were .83 (community sample of 1,269) and .84 (patient sample of 628). (Consult Simms et al. 2011b and Simms et al. 2011c for more details about the scale and the rest of the instrument.)

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .95 and .94 in the pilot test and Study 4, respectively, by Kim and Kramer (2015, pp. 287, 293).

VALIDITY: Kim and Kramer (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian) and Thomas Kramer (2015), "Do Materialists Prefer the 'Brand-as- Servant'? The Interactive Effect of Anthropomorphized Brand Roles and Materialism on Consumer Responses," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 284-299. Simms, Leonard J., Lewis R. Goldberg, John E. Roberts, David Watson, John Welte, and Jane H. Rotterman (2011a), “Computerized Adaptive Assessment of Personality Disorder: Introducing the CAT-PD project,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 93 (4), 380–89. Simms, Leonard J., Lewis R. Goldberg, John E. Roberts, David Watson, John Welte, and Jane H. Rotterman (2011b), ipip.ori.org/newCAT-PD-SFv1.1ComparisonTable.htm. Simms, Leonard J., Lewis R. Goldberg, John E. Roberts, David Watson, John Welte, and Jane H. Rotterman (2011c), ipip.ori.org/newCAT-PD-SFv1.1Keys.htm.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Please indicate how you would like to perceive yourself in terms of your social relationships with other people. I would like to ______. 1. boss people around. 2. like having authority over others. 190

3. 4. 5. 6.

insist that others do things my way. make demands on others. have a strong need for power. be known as a controlling person.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used by Kim and Kramer (2015) with these items were very untrue (1) and very true (7).

191

DOMINATING THE BRAND The degree to which a consumer feels in control of a brand is measured with three, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was viewed by Kim and Kramer (2015, p. 292) as a measure of state dominance. They used the scale in Study 4 with a sample of 201 “urban consumers” from a Qualtrics panel. As for the scale’s source, it was described as an adaptation of a scale by Havlena and Holbrook (1986). While there are some synonymous words in each scale, they do not explicitly share any items. It is more precise to say that Kim and Kramer (2015) created their scale based on inspiration from a measure used by Havlena and Holbrook (1986).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .96 in the study by Kim and Kramer (2015).

VALIDITY: Kim and Kramer (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Havlena, William J. and Morris B. Holbrook (1986), “The Varieties of Consumption Experience: Comparing Two Typologies of Emotion in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (December), 394-404. Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian) (2016), personal correspondence. Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian) and Thomas Kramer (2015), "Do Materialists Prefer the 'Brand-as- Servant'? The Interactive Effect of Anthropomorphized Brand Roles and Materialism on Consumer Responses," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 284-299.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you feel . . . 1. in control of _____. 2. commanding _____. 3. in charge of _____.

-------------1. The scale stem and exact phrasing of the items were provided by Kim (2016). The extreme anchors used with these items were absolutely not (1) and absolutely (7). The blanks should be filled with the brand name of the focal product.

192

DONATE TO IMPROVE EQUALITY (SOCIAL NORMS) Six, seven-point items are used to measure the degree to which a person believes that those in his/her important reference groups (friends, family, co-workers) would approve if he/she donated to charities to help improve social equality.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Winterich and Zhang (2014) in Study 3. The authors created the scale using some phrases found in a measure of social norms for smoking by Hanson (1997).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 in Study 3 by Winterich and Zhang (2014).

VALIDITY: Winterich and Zhang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: Potential users should note that the scale items refer to the level of approval from six different parties. Because the perceived approval level could easily vary among those parties, there is some question if this is a reflective scale or a formative one. (See Diamantopoulos et al. 2012.) If the conclusion is that it is reflective then the unidimensionality of the scale should be confirmed.

REFERENCES: Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Marko Sarstedt, Christoph Fuchs, Petra Wilczynski, and Sebastian Kaiser (2012), "Guidelines for Choosing Between Multi-item and Single-item Scales for Construct Measurement: A Predictive Validity Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (3), 434-449. Hanson, Mary Jane S. (1997), “The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Cigarette Smoking in African-American, Puerto Rican, and Non-Hispanic White Teenage Females,” Nursing Research, 46 (3), 155–162. Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274-293.

193

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

If If If If If If

I I I I I I

donate donate donate donate donate donate

to to to to to to

charities charities charities charities charities charities

to to to to to to

improve improve improve improve improve improve

equality, equality, equality, equality, equality, equality,

my my my my my my

friends would: mother would: father would: best friend would: significant other would: coworkers:

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale that Winterich and Zhang (2014) used with these items were extremely disapprove (1) and extremely approve (7).

194

DONATION EFFICACY Five items with a 100 point response scale measure the strength of a person’s belief that his/her donation to a particular charity will help recipients, with an emphasis on improving their social status.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Winterich and Zhang (2014) in Study 3. The authors created the scale following suggestions made by Bandura (2006) for measuring efficacy.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .83 in Study 3 by Winterich and Zhang (2014).

VALIDITY: Winterich and Zhang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: Following Bandura’s (2006) guide for scoring efficacy scales, Winterich and Zhang (2014) had participants indicate the strength of their beliefs on a 100-point scale with 10 unit intervals from 1 to 100. While there may be some benefit for doing this with a singleitem scale, the benefit of doing it for multi-item scales which use the more typical five- or seven-point response format is doubtful.

REFERENCES: Bandura, Albert (2006), “Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales,” in Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Vol. 5, ed. Frank Pajares and Timothy C. Urdan, Greenwich, CT: Information Age, 307–337. Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274-293.

ITEMS: Donating to __________ can:1 1. improve equality in society. 2. improve the social status of the charity recipients. 3. help the charity recipients move up in society. 195

4. offer the charity recipients hope for a better future. 5. help the charity recipients have a better life.

-------------1. The name of the charity should be placed in the blank.

196

DONATION HAPPINESS With two- and three-item versions, the scale measures a person’s belief that donating money to charities has a positive effect on one’s happiness.

ORIGIN: A two item version of the scale was used in Studies 1 and 2 by Chang (2014) while a three item version was used in Study 3. The author referred to both versions as affect forecasting. She also said the first item (below) was “adopted” from Liu and Aaker (2008). Examination of all the items in both articles indicates the first two items if not all three (below) are variations of two items used by Liu and Aaker (2008, p. 550) in their Study 3.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistencies (correlations) reported by Chang (2014) for the two-item scale in Studies 1 and 2 were .52 and .51, respectively. The alpha for the three-item version used in Study 3 was .90.

VALIDITY: Chang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Chang, Chingching (2014), "Guilt Regulation: The Relative Effects of Altruistic Versus Egoistic Appeals for Charity Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 211-227. Liu, Wendy, and Jennifer Aaker (2008), “The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (October), 543–557.

ITEMS:1 1. To what degree do you believe happiness is tied to donating to charity? 2. To what degree do you believe that donating to charity leads to happiness? 3. To what degree do you believe donating can make people happy?

-------------1. The two item version included the first two items while the three-item version included all three items. Beyond indicating that a seven-point scale was used with these items, the response format used by Chang (2014) was not described. The anchors may have been the same as she used with another scale: Not at all / Great degree.

197

DYSFUNCTIONAL SPENDING DURING TRAVEL Seven, seven-point items are used to measure how much a consumer engaged in spending behaviors during a trip such as impulse buying and poor decision-making due to insufficient planning and not sticking to a budget.

ORIGIN: Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015) used the scale in Study 4 and analysis was based on data from 75 business students attending the University of Colorado (Boulder). The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by the authors for the study.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .80 (Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch 2015, p. 1215).

VALIDITY: Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity per se. Of relevance, however, is the purification process they conducted. Using CFA, an initial version of the scale with nine items was rejected as fitting a one-factor model. Once two items were removed, the seven item version (shown below) was found to be unidimensional.

REFERENCES: Fernbach, Philip M., Christina Kan, and John G. Lynch Jr. (2015), "Squeezed: Coping with Constraint through Efficiency and Prioritization," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1204-1227.

ITEMS:1 During your _____ trip, when thinking about your trip spending, to what extent have you done the following:2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

thrown your hands up and figured you’ll deal with it after the trip is over? pushed financial concerns out of your mind? tried not to think about how much you were spending? decided to forego budgeting during this trip? found yourself making erratic shopping decisions and not shopping as carefully? made purchases impulsively? Compared to what you originally anticipated, did you spend . . .3 198

-------------1. The extreme response anchors for items #1-#6 were not at all (1) and very much (7). The anchors for #7 were spent much less than expected (1), spent the same as expected (4), and spent much more than expected (7). 2. A name for the focal trip could be placed in the blank. The phrase used by Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015) was “spring break.” 3. This item was paraphrased in the article and is recreated here as it might have been seen by participants.

199

E-MAIL MESSAGE INFORMATIVENESS The scale has four, seven-point items that measure the degree to which a person believes that an e-mail message he/she received from a company is relevant and a convenient source of information.

ORIGIN: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) used the scale in a study with 204 participants. The scale is an adaptation of a measure created by Ducoffe (1996) to measure the informativeness of advertising in a specified medium.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .97 (Cho, Huh, and Faber 2014, p. 114).

VALIDITY: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) did not discuss the validity of the scale.

COMMENTS: The instructions given to participants told them to recall what they thought when they first saw the e-mail. The scale stem (shown below) is stated in terms of what the participant recalls expecting. Alternatively, the stem could be rephrased and the word “would” dropped, e.g., “I thought the e-mail: supplied relevant information.”

REFERENCES: Cho, Soyoen, Jisu Huh, and Ronald J. Faber (2014), "The Influence of Sender Trust and Advertiser Trust on Multistage Effects of Viral Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 100-114. Ducoffe H. Robert (1996), “Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (September/October), 21-35.

ITEMS:1 I thought the e-mail would: 1. supply relevant _____ information. 2. provide timely information. 3. be a good source of up-to-date _____ information. 200

4. be a convenient source of _____ information.

-------------1. The verbal anchors of the response scale were not described by Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014). This appears to be a Likerttype scale and the extreme verbal anchors were likely strongly disagree and strongly agree. The blanks should be filled with a relevant descriptor of the type of information in the message. Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) used the term “tax.”

201

E-MAIL MESSAGE IRRITATIVENESS This scale uses four, seven-point items to measure the degree to which a person believes that an e-mail message he/she has received from a company is annoying and confusing.

ORIGIN: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) used the scale in a study with 204 participants. The scale is an adaptation of a measure created by Ducoffe (1996) to measure how much a person believes advertising in a specified medium is irritating.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .83 (Cho, Huh, and Faber 2014, p. 114).

VALIDITY: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) did not discuss the validity of the scale.

COMMENTS: The instructions given to participants told them to recall what they thought when they first saw the e-mail. The scale stem (shown below) is stated in terms of what the participant recalls expecting. If it would be more appropriate to the context in which it is used, the stem could be rephrased and the word “would” dropped, e.g., “I thought the email: was annoying.”

REFERENCES: Cho, Soyoen, Jisu Huh, and Ronald J. Faber (2014), "The Influence of Sender Trust and Advertiser Trust on Multistage Effects of Viral Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 100-114. Ducoffe H. Robert (1996), “Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (September/October), 21-35.

ITEMS:1 I thought the e-mail would: 1. 2. 3. 4.

insult my intelligence. be annoying. be irritating. be confusing. 202

-------------1. The verbal anchors of the response scale were not described by Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014). This appears to be a Likerttype scale and the extreme verbal anchors were likely strongly disagree and strongly agree.

203

E-MAIL MESSAGE RISKINESS Three, seven-point items measure a person’s belief that an e-mail message he/she has received is risky in some way. (The type of risk is not specified in the scale.)

ORIGIN: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) used the scale in a study with 204 participants. The authors built the scale using some phrases from a measure by Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Saarinen (1999) that they called “risk perception.”

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .89 (Cho, Huh, and Faber 2014, p. 114).

VALIDITY: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) did not discuss the validity of the scale.

COMMENTS: The instructions given to participants told them to recall what they thought when they first saw the e-mail. The scale stem (shown below) is stated in terms of what the participant recalls expecting. If it would be more appropriate to the context in which it is used, the stem and items could be slightly rephrased and the word “would” dropped, e.g., “I thought the e-mail: was a significant risk.”

REFERENCES: Cho, Soyoen, Jisu Huh, and Ronald J. Faber (2014), "The Influence of Sender Trust and Advertiser Trust on Multistage Effects of Viral Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 100-114. Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., Noam Tractinsky, and Lauri Saarinen (1999), “Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: A Cross-Cultural Validation,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5 (2), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue2/jarvenpaa.html.

ITEMS:1 I thought the e-mail would: 1. be a significant risk. 2. lead to a very negative situation. 3. have high potential for loss. 204

-------------1. The verbal anchors of the response scale were not described by Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014). This appears to be a Likerttype scale and the extreme verbal anchors were likely strongly disagree and strongly agree.

205

E-MAIL SENDER TRUSTWORTHINESS A person’s level of trust in the benevolence, integrity, and competence of someone who has sent him/her a product-related message via e-mail is measured with nine, sevenpoint items.

ORIGIN: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) used the scale in a study with 204 participants. The scale is an adaptation of a measure created by McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar (2002). The latter showed that trust is a multi-dimensional construct composed of four, second-order factors. One of the factors is what they referred to as “trusting beliefs” and was composed of three first-order trust factors: benevolence, integrity, and competence. Nine of the eleven items composing those first order factors were the ones adapted by Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) for use in their study.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the version of the scale created by Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) was .98.

VALIDITY: Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) did not discuss the validity of the scale.

REFERENCES: Cho, Soyoen, Jisu Huh, and Ronald J. Faber (2014), "The Influence of Sender Trust and Advertiser Trust on Multistage Effects of Viral Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 100-114. McKnight, D. Harrison, Vivek Choudhury, and Charles Kacmar (2002), “Developing and Validating Trust Measures for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typology,” Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 334–359.

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

I believe that the sender would act in my best interest. If I needed help, the sender would do his/her best to help me. The sender is interested in my well-being, not just his/her own. The sender is truthful in his/her dealing with me. I would characterize the sender as honest. The sender would keep his/her commitments. The sender is sincere and genuine. The sender is competent and effective in providing product/service-related information in general. 206

9. In general, the sender is very knowledgeable about product/service-related information in general.

-------------1. The verbal anchors of the response scale were not described by Cho, Huh, and Faber (2014) or McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar (2002). This appears to be a Likert-type scale and the extreme verbal anchors were likely strongly disagree and strongly agree. Based on information in the article by McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar (2002), items #1-3 represent the benevolence factor, #4-#7 represent the integrity factor, and #8 and #9 represent competence.

207

EMPATHY How much compassion a person feels for others is measured with seven-point unipolar items. With the proper instructions, this version seems to be adaptable for use in a wide variety of situations. Versions with five, six, and seven items are described.

ORIGIN: The six-item version of the scale was used in two of the four studies reported by Lee, Winterich, and Ross (2014). The authors cited Batson (1987) who has used various subsets of the items over several decades in his research. In a third study, Lee, Winterich, and Ross (2014) used a seventh item they apparently created specifically for the study. A five-item version of the scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) in Studies 1, 2, and 3. The scale was used in these studies with respect to photos of children who were described as suffering in some way. The authors cited several studies by Batson as the source of the scale, e.g., Batson et al. (2005). Schrift and Amar (2015) used the six-item version of the scale in Study 3 and cited Batson et al. (1997).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the six-item version of the scale were .95 and .94 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively, by Lee, Winterich, and Ross (2014). The seven-item version was used in Study 3 and its alpha was .93. The alphas were .99 (Study 1), .92 (Study 2), and .90 (Study 3) for the version of the scale used by Fisher and Ma (2014). Schrift and Amar (2015) reported the alpha for the six-item version to be .94.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by either Lee, Winterich, and Ross (2014), Fisher and Ma (2014), or Schrift and Amar (2015.

Comments: See also a scale called compassion by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) that was composed of items the same or similar to #1, #3, and #6 listed below.

208

REFERENCES: Batson, C. Daniel (1987), “Prosocial Motivation: Is It Ever Truly Altruistic?” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, ed. L. Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 65–122. Batson, C. Daniel, David A. Lishner, Jennifer Cook, and Stacey Sawyer (2005), “Similarity and Nurturance: Two Possible Sources of Empathy for Strangers,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27 (1), 15–25. Batson, C. Daniel, Karen Sager, Eric Garst, Misook Kang, Kostia Rubchinsky, and Karen Dawson (1997), “Is Empathy-Induced Helping Due to Self-Other Merging?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (3), 495–509. Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673. Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450. Lee, Saerom, Karen Page Winterich, and William T. Ross Jr. (2014), "I’m Moral, but I Won’t Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 678-696. Schrift, Rom Y. and Moty Amar (2015), "Pain and Preferences: Observed Decisional Conflict and the Convergence of Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 515-534.

ITEMS:1 When you think about the patients, to what degree do you feel the following emotions? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Sympathetic Warm Compassionate Softhearted Tender Moved To what extent do you empathize with these AIDS patients?

-------------1. The scale stem shown was used by Lee, Winterich, and Ross (2014) in Study 2 and something like it was probably used in the other two studies they conducted using the scale. The phrasing of the stem can be changed as needed for a study. The first six items were used in Studies 2 and 3; all seven items were used in Study 4. The response anchors used with the items were not at all (1) and very much (7). The five items used by Fisher and Ma (2014) were #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6. The response anchors used with the items were not at all (1) and extremely (7). Schrift and Amar (2015) used that same response format with items #1 to #6.

209

EMPATHY (MENTALIZING LIKELIHOOD) A person’s tendency or ability to consider the point of view of other people is measured with seven items.

ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Davis (1980) as part of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). The full instrument measures four dimensions of dispositional empathy, one of them being perspective-taking. The instrument was originally developed and tested with college students (1980, 1983) and since then has been used in multiple studies around the world. With specific regard to the perspective-taking subscale, evidence was provided by Davis (1980) of its internal consistency (alphas above .70) as well as its temporal stability (test-retest correlations greater than .60 for 60-75 days.) Beyond that, evidence of some aspects of validity were provided in the 1983 article though they could be considered quite limited by current standards. Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015) used the scale in at least two of the four studies reported in their article. They preferred to refer to the scale as “mentalizinglikelihood . . . to avoid confusion with visuospatial perspective taking” (p. 462).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .77 in Study 1 by Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015, p. 462). Although the scale appears to have been used in Study 2 as well, its reliability was not reported.

VALIDITY: Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: See also Schrift and Amar (2015) who used a longer, preliminary version by Davis (1980) of the scale below.

REFERENCES: Davis, Mark H. (1980), “A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy,” JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

210

Davis, Mark H. (1983), “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 113126. Faraji-Rad, Ali, Bendik M. Samuelsen, and Luk Warlop (2015), "On the Persuasiveness of Similar Others: The Role of Mentalizing and the Feeling of Certainty," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 458-471. Schrift, Rom Y. and Moty Amar (2015), "Pain and Preferences: Observed Decisional Conflict and the Convergence of Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 515-534.

ITEMS:1 1. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view. (r) 2. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 3. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. 4. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's arguments. (r) 5. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. 6. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while. 7. Before criticizing some body, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.

-------------1. Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015) did not specify the response format they used with the scale. The format used by Davis (1980) was a five-point scale with the extreme anchors being Does not describe me well (0) and Describes me well (4).

211

EMPLOYEE RAPPORT The scale measures a customer’s evaluation of the rapport-building behaviors of a business’s frontline staff. Versions with three and four items are provided.

ORIGIN: Giebelhausen et al. (2014) created the three item version of the scale from items used in what they called Study 1 which was based on data from the 2011 and 2012 J.D. Power North American Hotel GSI studies. Data were collected in the J. D. Power studies from thousands of hotel guests across the industry. Although not perfectly clear, it appears that analyses using the scale were based on data from over 86,000 respondents. As clarified by Giebelhausen (2015), a four item version of the scale was used in Study 2. Analysis was based on data collected from 156 people recruited from MTurk and who completed all required measures.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the three item version of the scale were .957 and .967 based on the 2011 and 2012 data, respectively (Giebelhausen et al. 2014, p. 117). In the Study 2, the alpha was .987 for the four item version of the scale.

VALIDITY: Giebelhausen et al. (2014, p. 117) said the scale’s discriminant validity with respect to another construct (service evaluation) was “implied.” The little evidence they provided for that statement was unclear and incomplete.

COMMENTS: Phrasing of the scale stem was based on the hotel context. With slight changes, the items appear to be amenable for use in other contexts, particularly when studying customers of businesses in the hospitality industry such as restaurants, cruise lines, and theme parks.

REFERENCES: Giebelhausen, Michael (2015), personal correspondence. Giebelhausen, Michael, Stacey G. Robinson, Nancy J. Sirianni, and Michael K. Brady (2014), "Touch Versus Tech: When Technology Functions as a Barrier or a Benefit to Service Encounters," Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 113-124.

212

ITEMS:1 Thinking about your __________ experience, how would you rate the . . .2 1. 2. 3. 4.

courtesy of the staff responsiveness of the staff knowledge of the staff warmth of the staff

-------------1. Items #1 to #3 composed the scale used in Study 1 while all four items were used in Study 2. A ten-point response format was used with the items and the extreme verbal anchors were “unacceptable” and “outstanding” (Giebelhausen et al. 2014, p. 117). 2. A relevant contextual word or phrase should be placed in the blank to focus participants’ responses. Giebelhausen et al. (2014, p. 116) used the phrase “check-in” in Study 1 and “check-out” in Study 2 (Giebelhausen 2015), both with reference to hotels.

213

EMPOWERMENT (GENERAL) The scale measures the degree to which a person believes that he/she has the motivation and the ability to control and achieve desired outcomes. The scale is general in the sense that it can be used in a wide variety of contexts.

ORIGIN: Cutright and Samper (2014) used the scale in Studies 1 and 2. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the seven-item version were .95 and .90 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Cutright and Samper 2014, pp. 733, 734).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Cutright and Samper (2014). However, the authors did say that all the items loaded on the same factor.

REFERENCES: Cutright, Keisha M. and Adriana Samper (2014), "Doing It the Hard Way: How Low Control Drives Preferences for High-Effort Products and Services," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 730-745.

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

strong confident empowered self-sufficient determined driven in control

-------------1. The response format used with these items had the following extreme anchors: would clearly not describe my feelings (1) and would clearly describe my feelings (5).

214

ENGAGEMENT (FELT) Three, seven-point items are used to measure how much a person is motivated and feels “right” about his/her reactions to some stimulus.

ORIGIN: Jin, Hu, and He (2014) as well as Yao and Chen (2014) cited Lee, Keller, and Sternthal (2010) as the source of the scale. The latter drew upon several sources for their conceptualization and operationalization of the construct (e.g., Camacho et al. 2003; Idson et al. 2004; Malaviya and Sternthal 2009.) They viewed engagement as motivation and a sense of feeling “right” that intensified reactions. Ultimately, the scale that Lee, Keller, and Sternthal (2010) created had an alpha of .84 and the items loaded on a single factor.

RELIABILITY: The scale had alphas of .89 and .87 in the studies by Jin, Hu, and He (2014) and Yao and Chen (2014), respectively.

VALIDITY: Neither Jin, Hu, and He (2014) nor Yao and Chen (2014).

REFERENCES: Camacho, Christopher J., E. Tory Higgins, and Lindsay Luger (2003), “Moral Value Transfer from Regulatory Fit: What Feels Right Is Right and What Feels Wrong Is Wrong,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (March), 498–510. Idson, Lorraine Chen, Nira Liberman, and E. Tory Higgins (2004), “Imagining How You’d Feel: The Role of Motivational Experiences from Regulatory Fit,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (July), 926–937. Jin, Liyin, Bingyan Hu, and Yanqun He (2014), "The Recent versus the Out-Dated: An Experimental Examination of the Time-Variant Effects of Online Consumer Reviews," Journal of Retailing, 90 (4), 552–566. Lee, Angela Y., Punam Anand Keller, and Brian Sternthal (2010), "Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness," Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735-756. Malaviya, Prashant and Brian Sternthal (2009), “Parity Product Features Can Enhance or Dilute Brand Evaluation: The Influence of Goal Orientation and Presentation Format,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (June), 112–121. Yao, Qing and Rong Chen (2014), "Gift Cards and Gifted Cash: The Impact of Fit between Gift Type and Message Construal," Journal of Retailing, 90 (4), 481-492. 215

ITEMS:1 1. motivated 2. felt right 3. felt wrong (r)

-------------1. Each of the researchers who used the scale indicated they asked participants how they felt about a task they performed as part of the study such as reading product reviews or looking at an ad. The extreme verbal anchors used by Jin, Hu, and He (2014) and Yao and Chen (2014) with these items were not at all (1) and a lot (7).

216

ENGAGEMENT (GENERAL) The degree to which a person reports being involved in and stimulated by a particular stimulus is measured with four, nine-point uni-polar items.

ORIGIN: Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014) used the scale with respect to logos in several studies described in their article. They created the scale by drawing from previous measures (Lefebvre et al. 2010; O’Brien and Toms 2009).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014) were .86 and .93 for Studies 2a and 2b, respectively. (The scale was also used in Study 3 and 5 but no information about the scale’s reliability was provided.)

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014). However, some evidence can be drawn from the fact that the authors used an implicit measure of engagement as well as the scale (the explicit measure). The implicit measure came from usage of eye-tracking technology. While the correlation between the implicit and explicit measures was not stated, it was implied. To the extent the two measures were strongly correlated, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

COMMENTS: As noted above, Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014) used the scale exclusively with logos. While the scale seems to be general enough for use with a wide-variety of stimuli, proper pretesting is urged to confirm its adequacy.

REFERENCES: Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2014), "This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 184-197. Lefebvre, Craig R., Yuri Tada, Sandra W. Hilfiker, and Cynthia Baur (2010), “The Assessment of User Engagement with eHealth Content: The eHealth Engagement Scale,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15 (4), 666–681. O’Brien, Heather L. and Elaine G. Toms (2009), “The Development and Evaluation of a Survey to Measure User Engagement,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (1), 50–69.

217

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

involving engaging boring (r) stimulating

-------------1. The response format used by Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2014) with these items was not at all (1) and extremely (9). The scale stem and instructions used with this scale were not explicitly stated but are likely to have asked participants to use the items to describe the stimulus (logo) they looked at.

218

ENGAGEMENT IN THE CHOICE PROCESS Four, seven-point items are used to measure how much a person believes a particular choice process required some effort yet was fun.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee, Berger, and Menon (2014) used the scale in Study 5. Data were collected from participants in the U.S. (n = 308) who responded to Amazon Mechanical Turk for “green consumers.” The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: As used in Study 5, the scale’s alpha was .88 (Bhattacharjee, Berger, and Menon 2014, p. 303).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Bhattacharjee, Berger, and Menon (2014). However, they did say that the items “loaded together” (p. 303). No information about the implied factor analysis was provided. Depending upon the rigor the analysis, it provides some evidence of the scale’s unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonah Berger, and Geeta Menon (2014), ""When Identity Marketing Backfires: Consumer Agency in Identity Expression," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 294-309.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

This This This This

choice choice choice choice

process process process process

was engaging. was fun. left me in a positive mood. was effortful.

-------------1. The items were supplied by Bhattacharjee (2015). The extreme anchors used with the items were Not at all (1) and Very much so (7).

219

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PRODUCT A person’s attitude about the effect of a product on the environment and the propriety of buying the product is measured with four, seven-point items. This product attribute is sometimes referred to as “greenness” or “environmental friendliness” meaning that it is either good for the environment or, at least, has less of a negative impact than conventional alternatives.

ORIGIN: Gershoff and Frels (2015) used the scale in all four studies described in the article and usually referred to the measure as greenness. The items were adapted in each study for the focal product. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated but it appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .89 for a mattress (Study 1), .939 for a waffle/panini maker (Study 2), .87 for a laptop (Study 3), and .95 for a plastic mixing monitor (Study 4).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Gershoff and Frels (2015).

COMMENTS: The focal product in Study 4 (a plastic mixing monitor) was fictitious but described to participants as something used in the plastic molding industry.

REFERENCES: Gershoff, Andrew D. and Judy K. Frels (2015), "What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products," Journal of Marketing, 79 (1), 97-110.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

This _____ deserves to be labeled "environmentally friendly.” Purchasing this _____ is a good environmental choice. A person who cares about the environment would be likely to buy this _____. How environmentally friendly or green is this _____?

220

-------------1. The name of the product should be placed in the blanks, e.g., mattress, waffle maker, laptop. The extreme verbal anchors used with item 4 were not at all and extremely (Gershoff and Frels 2015, p. 101). The anchors for the other three items were not explicitly stated but were described as measuring “level of agreement” (p. 101) which suggests the anchors were something like strongly disagree and strongly agree.

221

ENVIRONMENTALISM (PRODUCT CHOICES) This scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a consumer prefers to purchase products that are believed to have less negative impact on the environment.

ORIGIN: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) used the scale in Study 1 and called it proenvironmental lifestyle. The sample for that study was 302 adult members of an online panel living in the United States. The authors slightly adapted items from a scale by Roser-Renouf and Nisbet (2008) that they referred to as lifestyle and consumption.

RELIABILITY: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) reported the alpha for the scale to be .90.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) tested their measurement model, concluded that it adequately fit the data, and found support for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. In particular, the AVE for the scale shown below was .77.

REFERENCES: Kareklas, Ioannis, Jeffrey R. Carlson, and Darrel D. Muehling (2014), "'I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours': Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 18-32. Roser-Renouf, Connie, and Matthew C. Nisbet (2008), “The Measure of Key Behavioral Science Constructs in Climate Change Research,” International Journal of Sustainability Communication, 3, 37–95.

ITEMS: 1. I prefer to buy products made from recycled paper/plastic. 2. I prefer to buy environmentally friendly products. 3. I prefer to buy products that use less packaging.

222

ENVIRONMENTALISM (PURCHASING BEHAVIOR) The degree to which a consumer deliberately chooses brands that are viewed as being less harmful to the environment is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) used the scale in two studies. In both studies, the scale was used to measure one of the three hypothesized dimensions of a higher-order factor they called “green consumerism.” The results of both studies confirmed the hypothesized model of “green consumerism.” Two of the scale’s items were taken from the Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior (ECCB) instrument by Roberts (1991, 1996). The other two items were borrowed from Shrum, McCarty, and Lowrey (1995).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .90 and .84 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014).

VALIDITY: The analyses conducted by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) provided evidence in support of the purchasing behavior construct being distinct from the other two dimensions of “green consumerism.”

REFERENCES: Matthes, Jörg and Anke Wonneberger (2014), "The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the Relationship Between Green Consumerism and Skepticism Toward Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 115-127. 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. (1996), “Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising,” Journal of Business Research, 36 (3), 217–231. Shrum, L. J., John A. McCarty, and Tina M. Lowrey (1995), “Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 71–82.

223

ITEMS: 1. I make a special effort to buy products in biodegradable packages. 2. I would switch from my usual brands and buy environmentally safe cleaning products, even if I had to give up some cleaning effectiveness. 3. I have switched products for ecological reasons. 4. When I have a choice between two equal products, I purchase the one less harmful to the environment.

224

ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION (EXPLORATION & COMMITMENT) The extent to which a person is interested in and feels attached to a particular subculture is measured with six, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Ferguson and Burkhalter (2015) gathered data with the scale in a survey of respondents living in the U.S. who were members of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service (n = 304 usable responses). The scale was an adaptation of the revised Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM-R) developed by Phinney and Ong (2007). As the name implies, that scale was a revision of an earlier instrument (Phinney 1992). Work with the first MEIM by various researchers led to some doubt that it was unidimensional. Phinney and Ong (2007) modified the instrument and retested it. The final version had six items representing two subfactors: exploration and commitment. After using CFA to compare various models for their fit to the data, the authors stated “whether one should adopt the correlated two factor model of ethnic identity or its hierarchical counterpart depends on one’s research objectives” (Phinney and Ong 2007, p. 278).

RELIABILITY: As adapted by Ferguson and Burkhalter (2015), the scale’s alpha was reported to be .947.

VALIDITY: The validity of the adapted scale was not discussed by Ferguson and Burkhalter (2015).

REFERENCES: Ferguson, Nakeisha S. and Janée N. Burkhalter (2015), "Yo, DJ, That's My Brand: An Examination of Consumer Response to Brand Placements in Hip-Hop Music," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 47-57. Phinney, Jean S. (1992), “The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with Adolescents and Young Adults from Diverse Groups,” Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. Phinney, Jean S. and Anthony D. Ong (2007), “Conceptualization and Measurement of Ethnic Identity: Current Status and Future Directions,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54 (3), 271–281.

ITEMS:1 1. I have spent time trying to find out more about __________, such as its history, traditions, and customs. 225

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I I I I I

have a strong sense of belonging to __________. understand pretty well what __________ means to me. have often done things that will help me understand __________ better. have often talked to other people in order to learn more about __________. feel a strong attachment toward __________.

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with a name for the focal ethnic group. Ferguson and Burkhalter (2015) used the phrase “HipHop Culture.” If users want to use the subfactors as separate scales, note that items #1, #4, and #5 represent the exploration subfactor while #2, #3, and #6 measure commitment (Phinney and Ong 2007, p. 277).

226

EXHIBITIONISM OF THE PERSON The degree to which a person believes a certain individual shows off in order to impress people is measured in this scale with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Berman et al. (2015) used the scale in most of the seven studies reported in their article and referred to it as “self promotion.” The authors created the scale by drawing some phrases from a measure of narcissism by Ames, Rose, and Anderson (2006) which was a shortened version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory by Raskin and Terry (1988).

RELIABILITY: Specific alphas for the scale were reported by Berman et al. (2015) for five of the studies and were very consistent, ranging from .93 (Study 5) to .95 (Studies 2, 3, 4).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not tested explicitly. However, to the extent that the scale was used as a manipulation check in all seven studies and the manipulations were successful in each case, evidence is provided of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Ames, Daniel R., Paul Rose, and Cameron P. Anderson (2006), “The NPI-16 as a Short Measure of Narcissism,” Journal of Research in Personality, 40 (4), 440–450. Berman, Jonathan Z., Emma E. Levine, Alixandra Barasch, and Deborah A. Small (2015), "The Braggart's Dilemma: On the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 90-104. Raskin, Robert and Howard Terry (1988), “A Principal-Components Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and Further Evidence of its Construct Validity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (May), 890–902.

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

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____

likes to show off if he gets the chance. likes to impress others. likes to be complimented. likes to be the center of attention. thinks that he is a special person.

-------------1. The name of the person being described should be stated in the blanks. The response anchors used by Berman et al. (2015, p. 93) with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

227

EXPERTISE WITH HUMOR Ten, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure how knowledgeable a person reports being with regard to jokes. Although the scale measures self-reported awareness and recall of jokes, it does not explicitly measure if a person believes him/herself to be funny in telling the jokes.

ORIGIN: The scale was adapted by Ghoshal et al. (2014) from a measure created by Kleiser and Mantel (1994). The former used the scale in an online experiment with 400 participants from MTurk, 143 students from a major U.S. university, and 212 English-speaking students and staff from an international university.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .865 (Ghoshal et al. 2014; Yorkston 2015).

VALIDITY: No information was provided by Ghoshal et al. (2014) regarding the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Ghoshal, Tanuka, Eric Yorkston, Joseph C. Nunes, and Peter Boatwright (2014), "Multiple Reference Points in Sequential Hedonic Evaluation: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (5), 563-577. Kleiser, Susan B. and Susan P. Mantel (1994), “Consumer Expertise: A Scale Development,” in Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 5, Andrew Mitchell and Ravi Achrol, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 20–25. Yorkston, Eric (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS: 1. I can recall a lot of jokes from memory. 2. Compared to other people, I know a lot of jokes. 3. I tell many jokes. 4. I automatically know which jokes would be enjoyed by others. 5. I can immediately pick out the better jokes from a collection of jokes. 6. I enjoy hearing new jokes. 7. I stay updated with new jokes related to current events that are being circulated. 8. I consider myself knowledgeable about jokes. 9. My knowledge of jokes helps me understand if a joke is good. 10. My friends consider me an expert when it comes to jokes. 228

FAIRNESS (BUSINESS’S TREATMENT OF THE CUSTOMER) The scale uses three semantic differentials to measure how much a customer believes he/she was treated fairly by a business and as deserved.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 2 by Allen et al. (2015) and analyses were based on data collected from 264 members of an online panel. The authors referred to the scale as equity perceptions and appear to have created the measure by drawing on some terminology in the fairness scale by Oliver and Swan (1989).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .88 (Allen 2016).

VALIDITY: Although exact statistics were not provided by Allen et al. (2015), the authors stated generally that support for convergent and discriminant validities were found for all of their scales and AVEs were greater than .50.

REFERENCES: Allen, Alexis M. (2016), personal correspondence. Allen, Alexis M., Michael K. Brady, Stacey G. Robinson, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "One Firm’s Loss is Another’s Gain: Capitalizing on Other Firms’ Service Failures," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (5), 648-662. 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.

ITEMS:1 The treatment given to me by the _____ was: 1. Unfair to me / Fair to me 2. Less than I deserved / More than I deserved 3. Unequitable to me / Equitable to me

-------------1. A generic term for the focal business should be placed in the blank. For example, Allen et al. (2015, p. 660) used the term “hotel.” Although not stated explicitly, the response scale appears to have had seven points.

229

FATE MALLEABILITY Three, seven-point Likert-type items measure a person’s belief that his/her fate is not fixed but, instead, can be changed.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kim, Kulow, and Kramer (2014) in Study 1 with 188 adults recruited from a shopping center in the New York metropolitan area. They referred to it as belief in malleable fate. The scale was created by the authors using the items from the implicit theory of intelligence measure (Dweck et al. 1995) by replacing references to intelligence with fate.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .84 (Kim, Kulow, and Kramer 2014, p. 1141).

VALIDITY: Kim, Kulow, and Kramer (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Dweck, Carol S., Chi-yue Chiu, and Ying-yi Hong (1995), “Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A World from Two Perspectives,” Psychological Inquiry, 6 (4), 267–285. Kim, Hyeongmin (Christian), Katina Kulow, and Thomas Kramer (2014), "The Interactive Effect of Beliefs in Malleable Fate and Fateful Predictions on Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1139-1148.

ITEMS:1 1. You have a certain fate and you really can’t do much to change it. (r) 2. Your fate is something about you that you can’t change very much. (r) 3. You can take control, but you can’t really change your fate. (r)

-------------1. Given the name used for the scale by Kim, Kulow, and Kramer (2014) and other information in their article, the authors reverse-scored participants’ scores so that high scores would measure fate malleability.

230

FEAR OF NEGATIVE EVALUATION The tendency to worry about what other people think of oneself is measured with 12, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yoon (2015) in three studies. Each study had to do with a situation in which the person might feel shame. For example, being tested for a Human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted disease, was the focus in Study 1. The source of the scale is Carleton et al. (2006) who revised a scale by Leary (1983). In numerous tests, Carleton and colleagues found the scale to be internally consistent, with alphas being well above .90. However, further testing of the scale’s factor structure and validity led the authors to suggest that researchers use an eight-item version (Carleton, Collimore, and Asmundson 2007, p. 139).

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Yoon (2015) in all three studies described in the article, the exact reliability of the scale was only reported for Study 1 (alpha = .96).

VALIDITY: Yoon (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Carleton, R. Nicholas, Kelsey C. Collimore, and Gordon J.G. Asmundson (2007), "Social Anxiety and Fear of Negative Evaluation: Construct Validity of the BFNE-II," Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21 (1), 131–141. Carleton, R. Nicholas, Donald R. McCreary, Peter J. Norton, and Gordon J.G. Asmundson (2006), "Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale-Revised,” Depression and Anxiety, 23 (5), 297–303. Leary, Mark R. (1983), “A Brief Version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9 (3), 371–375. Yoon, Hye Jin (2015), "Humor Effects in Shame-Inducing Health Issue Advertising: The Moderating Effects of Fear of Negative Evaluation," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 126139.

231

ITEMS:1 1. I worry about what other people will think of me even when I know it doesn’t make any difference. 2. It bothers me when people form an unfavorable impression of me. 3. I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my shortcomings. 4. I worry about what kind of impression I make on people. 5. I am afraid that others will not approve of me. 6. I am concerned about other people’s opinions of me. 7. When I am talking to someone, I worry about what they may be thinking about me. 8. I am usually worried about what kind of impression I make. 9. If I know someone is judging me, it tends to bother me. 10. Sometimes I think I am too concerned with what other people think of me. 11. I often worry that I will say or do wrong things. 12. I worry about what other people will think of me even when I know it doesn’t make any difference.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used on the response scale with these questions were Not at all characteristic of me and Extremely characteristic of me. The eight-item version of the scale does not use #1, #2, #4, and #10.

232

FEARFULNESS Four, seven-point semantic differentials are used in this scale to measure the level of fear that has been evoked by some stimulus.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Andrews et al. (2014) in Studies 1 and 2 with respect to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. The scale seems to have been built by drawing items from several studies. The authors only cited Passyn and Sujan (2006) but just a couple of words were taken from that scale.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .95 in both studies by Andrews et al. (2014).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Andrews et al. (2014).

REFERENCES: Andrews, J. Craig, Richard G. Netemeyer, Jeremy Kees, and Scot Burton (2014), "How Graphic Visual Health Warnings Affect Young Smokers' Thoughts of Quitting," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 165-183. Passyn, Kirsten and Mita Sujan (2006), “Self-Accountability Emotions and Fear Appeals: Motivating Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 583–89.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

not not not not

fearful at all / very fearful anxious at all / very anxious nervous at all / very nervous afraid at all / very afraid

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items in the studies by Andrews et al. (2014) was “Please indicate how the package made you feel by answering the questions below.”

233

FIGURE-GROUND CONTRAST IN THE AD This three item, seven point scale measures the extent to which a person had difficulty distinguishing product relevant information from background graphics in a particular advertisement. As written, the scale is most suited for a print ad.

ORIGIN: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) used the scale in Study 4. Data were gathered from 96 undergraduate students. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by the authors as a manipulation check. The figure-ground effect was first discussed scientifically by Gestalt psychologists such as Ruben (1921) and Koffka (1935). The application to advertising is that what is viewed as figure and what is processed as ground affect the meaning given to an ad. For example, sometimes in the effort to bring attention to an ad, stimuli are used that draw so much attention that the primary message about the product is lost or misunderstood. Thus, Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) needed a scale that could confirm what was being manipulated in the experiment.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .87 (Kim and Lakshmanan 2015, p. 103).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not explicitly addressed by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015). However, since the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was found to be successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111. Koffka, Kurt (1935), Principles of Gestalt Psychology, Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace. Rubin, Edgar (1921), Visuell Wahrgenommene Figuren: Studien in Psychologischer Analyse, Kobenhaven: Gyldendalske boghandel.

ITEMS:1 1. How difficult was it to identify the relevant information from the graphics in the ad background? 2. How hard was it to tell apart the product information from the graphics in the ad background? 234

3. How distracting were the graphics in the ad background while you viewed the ad?

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scales used with these items were not stated by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015). It seems possible that the anchors were not difficult at all (1) and very difficult (7) for items #1 and #2. For item #3, the anchors could have been not distracting at all (1) and very distracting (7).

235

FINANCIAL CONTENTMENT The belief that one has enough money for one’s needs and some to spare is measured with eight, seven-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale does not measure if respondents are materialistic or if they are “rich” relative to others but merely that they view themselves as having sufficient funds for their needs.

ORIGIN: Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015) used the scale in Study 3 of the five discussed in their article. The 52 participants were recruited from a U.S. university. The scale was borrowed from Kasser and Sheldon (2009). Those researchers created the scale as one part of the MATAS instrument (Material and Time Affluence Scale) and reported its use in three studies. The alphas for the financial part of the instrument was very high (.90.92). Some evidence was provided for the scale’s predictive validity.

RELIABILITY: As used by Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015, p. 400), the scale’s alpha was .88.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015).

REFERENCES: Etkin, Jordan, Ioannis Evangelidis, and Jennifer Aaker (2015), "Pressed for Time? Goal Conflict Shapes How Time Is Perceived, Spent, and Valued," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 394-406. Kasser, Tim and Kennon M. Sheldon (2009), “Time Affluence as a Path Toward Personal Happiness and Ethical Business Practice: Empirical Evidence from Four Studies,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (Supplement 2), 243–255.

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

I have had enough money to buy the things that are important to me. There has not been enough money to go around. (r) I have been able to buy what I want. I have felt like I’m pretty poor. (r) My bank account has been too low. (r) I have had enough money to buy what I need to buy. I have been broke. (r) I have had plenty of spare money. 236

FIRM'S MOTIVATION TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT A person’s attitude about a particular company’s reasons for producing “environmentally friendly” products is measured with five, seven-point items. The emphasis in two of the items is on the “environmental friendliness” of some parts of the company’s products, with that phrase meaning that the unspecified components are either good for the environment or, at least, have less of a negative impact than conventional parts.

ORIGIN: Gershoff and Frels (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 and 4. It appears they created the scale by drawing ideas from several measures by Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .916 and .846 in Studies 2 and 4, respectively, by Gershoff and Frels (2015).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Gershoff and Frels (2015).

REFERENCES: Ellen, Pam Scholder, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A. Mohr (2006), “Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 147–157. Gershoff, Andrew D. and Judy K. Frels (2015), "What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products," Journal of Marketing, 79 (1), 97-110.

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

How motivated is _____ to create environmentally friendly products? The company (_____) feels morally obligated to help the environment. The company believes that their stakeholders expect them to help the environment. _____ is buying these environmentally friendly parts to get publicity. _____ hopes to get more customers by including environmentally friendly parts in their products.

-------------1. The name of the company should be placed in the blanks. The verbal anchors for responding to the items were not explicitly stated. For item #1, the anchors could have been something like not motivated at all and highly motivated. The anchors used with items #2 to #4 apparently expressed some form of agreement such as the popular strongly disagree and strongly agree.

237

FOCUS ON AFFECT DURING AD EVALUATION The extent to which a person relied on his/her emotions and intuition when evaluating an advertisement is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Sundar, Kardes, and Wright (2015) used the scale as a manipulation check in Study 3 (n = 168), a pretest (n = 86) before Study 4, and in Study 4 (n = 298) itself. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale .81 (Study 3), .94 (Study 4 pretest), and .89 (Study 4).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Sundar, Kardes, and Wright (2015). However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check and in each case the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Sundar, Aparna, Frank R. Kardes, and Scott A. Wright (2015), "The Influence of Repetitive Health Messages and Sensitivity to Fluency on the Truth Effect in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 375-387.

ITEMS:1 When evaluating the ad, I focused on my . . . 1. feelings. 2. emotions. 3. intuition.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Sundar, Kardes, and Wright (2015, p. 381) with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

238

FRAGILITY (GENDER COMPARISON) One’s attitude about which of the two genders is needier and requires more care is measured with three, nine-point items. The questions are phrased in terms of “boys” and “girls.”

ORIGIN: Durante et al. (2015) used the scale in Experiment 2 with 162 adults and Experiment 5 with 143 adults, with participants being recruited in both cases from MTurk. The source of the scale was not stated and it is assumed to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .76 and .84 for Experiments 2 and 5, respectively (Durante et al. 2015, pp. 441, 447).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Durante et al. (2015).

COMMENTS: The scale stem referred to “today’s conditions” (below) and was used by Durante et al. (2015) to examine if girls were viewed as more fragile in a recession compared to an economic upswing. Dropping this stem or replacing it with one that references another condition could be done to adapt the scale for use in a wider variety of studies.

REFERENCES: Durante, Kristina M., Vladas Griskevicius, Joseph P. Redden, and Andrew Edward White (2015), "Spending on Daughters versus Sons in Economic Recessions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 435-457.

ITEMS:1 Under today’s conditions . . . 1. Are boys or girls more fragile? 2. Are boys or girls more financially needy? 3. Do boys or girls require more care?

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale used with these items were Definitely boys (1) and Definitely girls (9).

239

FREQUENCY OF THE EXPERIENCE How much a person has had a particular experience is measured with four, five-point items.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) used the scale in Studies 3A (n = 249). Participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The items used to measure the frequency of an experience were among 39 drawn from a number of relevant sources that were thought to be useful in differentiating between ordinary and extraordinary experiences. The results of an EFA showed there were 10 clear factors, one of them composed of the four items shown below.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Bhattacharjee and Mogilner 2014, p. 10).

VALIDITY: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit and Cassie Mogilner (2014), "Happiness from Ordinary and Extraordinary Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 1-17.

ITEMS:1 To what extent would you describe the experience as follows? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Common Occurs frequently Rare (r) Almost never occurs (r)

-------------1. The anchors used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) with these items were not at all (1), a little (2), moderately (3), quite a bit (4), and very much (5). The exact phrasing of the items, the scale stem, and the response format were clarified by Bhattacharjee (2015).

240

GIFT CERTIFICATE EVALUATION (AFFECTIVE) The level of excitement and satisfaction a person believes he/she would feel if receiving a particular gift certificate is measured with four, ten-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Williams, Stein, and Galguera (2014) in Study 1a with 180 adults from the Amazon Mechanical Turk pool of participants. In the study, participants were asked to imagine being given a particular gift certificate unexpectedly. The source of the scale was not stated but it seems likely it was created by the authors for the study.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .88 (Williams, Stein, and Galguera 2014, p. 1127).

VALIDITY: Williams, Stein, and Galguera (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Williams, Lawrence E., Randy Stein, and Laura Galguera (2014), "The Distinct Affective Consequences of Psychological Distance and Construal Level," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1123-1138.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

How How How How

excited would you be to use the gift certificate? satisfied would you be with the gift certificate? strong was your emotional reaction to the idea of receiving the gift certificate? personally meaningful would the gift certificate be to you?

-------------1. The items were paraphrased in the article and have been created here as they might have been phrased for participants. The anchors for the response scale used with the items were not at all (1) and very much (10).

241

GIFT INAPPROPRIATENESS A person’s unease and apprehension about giving a particular product to a friend is measured in this scale using three, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Allard and White (2015, p. 412 and web appendix) in a follow-up study to Study 4. Data were gathered from 159 people recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The authors did not state the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .95 (Allard and White 2015, p. 412).

VALIDITY: Allard and White (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Allard, Thomas and Katherine White (2015), "Cross-Domain Effects of Guilt on Desire for Self-Improvement Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 401-419.

ITEMS:1 1. It would feel awkward to offer my friend this type of product. 2. I would feel uncomfortable giving this product to my friend. 3. I would feel embarrassed to give this product to my friend.

-------------1. The extreme anchors on the response scale that Allard and White (2015, p. 412) used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

242

GOAL COMMITMENT The five, seven-point items in the scale measure how dedicated a person is to achieving a specified goal and how much he/she will work to reach it.

ORIGIN: Devezer et al. (2014) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3. The items were taken from an index created by Tubbs (1993) which was a composite of three aspects of commitment: direct, effort-based, and valence.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas ranged from .81 to .92 in the studies in which it was used by Devezer et al. (2014).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Devezer et al. (2014).

COMMENTS: Tubbs (1993) viewed the commitment index as a composite of three dimensions and Devezer et al. (2014) acknowledged that view. Given that, there is some question as to whether or not the set of items borrowed by Devezer et al. (2014) compose a unidimensional scale. Potential users should be wary of using the scale in theory testing until its unidimensionality is confirmed.

REFERENCES: Devezer, Berna, David E. Sprott, Eric R. Spangenberg, and Sandor Czellar (2014), "Consumer Well-Being: Effects of Subgoal Failures and Goal Importance," Journal of Marketing, 78 (2), 118-134. Tubbs, Mark E. (1993), “Commitment as a Moderator of the Goal-Performance Relation: A Case for Clearer Construct Definition,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 86–97.

ITEMS:1 1. How committed are you to attaining your _____? not committed / very committed 2. To what extent do you feel committed to your _____? not at all / very much 3. How likely is it that you will work your hardest for your _____? not very likely / very likely 4. How hard will you try to reach your _____? not very hard / very hard 243

5. How satisfied would you be if you reached your _____? not very satisfied / very satisfied

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used on the seven-point response scales are shown following each of the items above. The name of the goal should be stated in the blanks.

244

GRATITUDE EXPRESSED BY OTHERS The scale has three, nine-point Likert-type items that measure a person’s belief that others are thankful for him/her. The reason for the gratitude is unstated.

ORIGIN: McFerran and Argo (2014) used the scale in Study 4 of the five discussed in their article. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale reported by McFerran and Argo (2014, p. 877) was .87.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by McFerran and Argo (2014). It is helpful to note, however, that a factor analysis was used in Study 4 on four scales, including the measure of gratitude. The items were described as loading on the appropriate factors.

REFERENCES: McFerran, Brent and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Entourage Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 871-884.

ITEMS: Others feel . . . 1. grateful to me 2. indebted to me 3. appreciative of me

245

GROUP COMPARISON CONCERNS The scale has four, seven-point items that measure a person’s unease and displeasure that a group he/she belongs to is inferior to other such groups and is not performing as well. The criteria on which the groups are being compared are not explicitly identified in the items and can be specified in the questionnaire.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014; White 2015). They appear to have drawn some phrases and inspiration from the self-esteem measure by Heatherton and Polivy (1991). The scale was used by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .791 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 439).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Heatherton, Todd F. and Janet Polivy (1991), “Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring State Self-Esteem,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (June), 895-910. White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

feel that my _____ is inferior to other _____s at this moment. am unhappy with how my _____ compares to other _____s. feel frustrated or rattled about my _____’s performance. am displeased by my _____’s current performance?

-------------1. According to White (2015), the verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (7). The blanks should be filled with a term describing the groups being compared. White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the term “province,” referring to the provinces in Canada. Other legal/political entities could probably be used as well, e.g., town, state, country. It also seems possible that the scale would work adequately for other groups such as schools, companies, and sports teams in which members may be concerned about relative group performance.

246

GROUP COMPETITIVENESS DESIRE The scale measures a person’s eagerness for his/her group to compete against other such groups and win. The way the groups would compete and how superiority would be judged are not explicitly identified in the items and can be specified in the questionnaire. Six, seven-point items compose the scale.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014; White 2015). It was used in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .934 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 439).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

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

I I I I I I

want my _____ to compete against other _____s. want to show that my _____ can win. feel a sense of competition between my _____ and other _____s. want to show that my _____ is the best. want to demonstrate that my _____ can come out on top. want to show that my _____ can outperform other _____s.

-------------1. According to White (2015), the verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (7). The blanks should be filled with an appropriate generic term for the competing groups. White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the term “province,” referring to the provinces in Canada. Other legal/political entities could probably be used as well, e.g., town, state, country. It also seems quite possible that the scale would work well for groups such as schools and sports teams in which members are eager for their group to perform better than other such entities.

247

GROUP IMAGE CONCERNS With seven, seven-point items, the scale measures a person’s self-consciousness regarding the way a reference group of his/hers looks to others, particularly with respect to the area where the group members live.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014; White 2015). It was used in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .899 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 439).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

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

I I I I I I I

am concerned with the publicly displayed aspects of the _____ I live in. am self-conscious about the way my _____ looks to others. am concerned about the way my _____ looks to others. wish to avoid having my _____ looking foolish. want to present a positive view of my _____ to others. want my _____ to be viewed positively by others. want my _____ to look good to others.

-------------1. According to White (2015), the verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (7). The blanks should be filled with an appropriate generic term for the focal group. White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the term “province,” referring to the provinces in Canada. Other territorial and dwelling entities could probably be used as well, e.g., neighborhood, dorm, city.

248

GUILT Four, five-point unipolar items are used in this scale to measure one’s feelings of shame and remorse.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in the three studies described by Chang (2014). Some of the items have been used in several previous scales over time but this particular set is from the work of Ghingold and Bozinoff (1982). They provided evidence in support of the scale’s validity at a level that was considered acceptable at the time. A more rigorous analysis would be expected now.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported by Chang (2014) for the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3 were .73, .82, and .92, respectively.

VALIDITY: Chang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Chang, Chingching (2014), "Guilt Regulation: The Relative Effects of Altruistic Versus Egoistic Appeals for Charity Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 211-227. Ghingold, Morry, and Lorne Bozinoff (1982), “Construct Validation and Empirical Testing of Guilt Arousing Marketing Communications,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 9th ed., Andrew A. Mitchell, ed., Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 210– 214.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

ashamed guilty repentant remorseful

-------------1. The response format used by Chang (2014) with these items was anchored by Great degree (5) and Not at all (1).

249

GUILT The extent to which a person reports feeling sorry and blameworthy for something is measured with three, seven-point semantic-differentials.

ORIGIN: Han, Duhachek, and Agrawal (2014) used the scale in three of the four studies they conducted (Studies 1, 2, and 4). They did not identify the source of the measure.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .82, .87, and .88 in Studies 1, 2, and 4, respectively (Han, Duhachek, and Agrawal 2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Han, Duhachek, and Agrawal (2014).

REFERENCES: Han, DaHee, Adam Duhachek, and Nidhi Agrawal (2014), "Emotions Shape Decisions through Construal Level: The Case of Guilt and Shame," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1047-1064.

ITEMS:1 1. not guilt-ridden / guilt-ridden 2. not culpable / culpable 3. not remorseful / remorseful

-------------1. The object or event towards which participants are to respond should be clearly identified in the instructions or context of the study.

250

GUILT The degree to which a person feels responsible and sorry for a particular incident is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Heidenreich et al. (2015) used the scale in Study 4 with 265 participants recruited from a German consumer panel. It is not clear if the scale was stated in German or English. As for the scale’s source, the authors indicated they were "following" Lau-Gesk and Meyers‐ Levy (2009). Except for one item, however, there is little resemblance between the two sets of items. The items used by Heidenreich et al. (2015) are common to many measures of guilt with the greatest resemblance being with DES II by Izard (1977).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability calculated for the scale was .941 (Heidenreich et al. 2015, p. 293).

VALIDITY: Structural equations modeling was used by Heidenreich et al. (2015, p. 288) and reported to have exceeded all common thresholds. Beyond that, they did not explicitly discuss the validity of their scales. However, it is clear regarding the guilt scale that the items loaded very high on the same construct and the AVE was .798.

REFERENCES: Heidenreich, Sven, Kristina Wittkowski, Matthias Handrich, and Tomas Falk (2015), "The Dark Side of Customer Co-Creation: Exploring the Consequences of Failed Co-Created Services," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 279-296. Izard, Carroll E. (1977), Human Emotions, New York: Plenum Press. Lau-Gesk, Loraine and Joan Meyers‐Levy (2009), "Emotional Persuasion: When the Valence versus the Resource Demands of Emotions Influence Consumers’ Attitudes," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 585-599.

ITEMS:1 With regard to the __________,2 1. I feel guilty. 2. I feel repentant. 3. I feel blameworthy. 251

4. I feel responsible.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Heidenreich et al. (2015, p. 288) were totally disagree (1) and totally agree (7) (or the German equivalents). 2. A short phrase identifying the focal event should be placed in the blank. The phrase used by Heidenreich et al. (2015, p. 292) was “incidence of the service failure.”

252

GUILT (NOT BUYING CAUSE-RELATED DEAL) The scale measures the degree to which a consumer anticipates feeling wrong if he/she does not purchase a product that is linked in some way to helping a particular charity. Three, eleven-point Likert-type items compose the scale.

ORIGIN: Andrews et al. (2014) used the scale in what they called Lab Experiment 3. Data were collected for the study from 426 students at a large Chinese university. All scale items used in the study were apparently translated from English into Chinese and then back into English to determine the accuracy of the translation. As for the scale’s source, the authors implied that it was Xu and Schwartz (2009). However, there is no multi-item measure of guilt in that article. Instead, the scale used by Andrews et al. (2014) is clearly an adaptation of a scale by Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu (2012).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .93 (Andrews et al. 2014, p. 140).

VALIDITY: Andrews et al. (2014) did not provide any information regarding the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Andrews, Michelle, Xueming Luo, Zheng Fang, and Jaakko Aspara (2014), "Cause Marketing Effectiveness and the Moderating Role of Price Discounts," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 120-142. 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 Schwarz (2009), “Do We Really Need a Reason to Indulge?” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), 25–36.

ITEMS: 1. I would feel guilty if I did not purchase this cause-related deal. 2. It would be a mistake to not purchase this cause-related deal. 3. I will regret it if I do not purchase this cause-related deal.

253

GUILT APPRAISAL (DONATION FAILURE) Rather than focusing on guilt-related feelings, this scale uses four items to measure a person's cognitive appraisal of his/her failure to donate responsibly.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Chang (2014) in Study 3 (n = 120 undergraduate students). Except for one item, the author developed the scale. Item #4 was borrowed from Basil, Ridgway, and Basil (2006).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Chang 2014, p. 219).

VALIDITY: Chang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Basil, Debra Z., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Michael D. Basil (2006), “Guilt Appeals: The Mediating Effect of Responsibility,” Psychology and Marketing, 23 (12), 1035–54. Chang, Chingching (2014), "Guilt Regulation: The Relative Effects of Altruistic Versus Egoistic Appeals for Charity Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 211-227.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

am responsible for those in need. should donate more than I did. am capable to help but do not do as much as I should. feel guilty about not helping.

-------------1. The response format used by Chang (2014) was not described. It appears that a seven-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree / strongly agree) was used with the items.

254

HAPPINESS (STATE) Three, nine-point items measure a person’s positive affective state at a particular point in time that is characterized by feelings of joy and elation.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in a pilot test prior to Study 2 with 65 college students. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated but was likely to have been Dunn and Schweitzer (2005). The latter used the same three items and the scale’s internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .87.

RELIABILITY: As used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015, p. 663), the scale’s alpha was .90.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673. Dunn, Jennifer R. and Maurice E. Schweitzer (2005), “Feeling and Believing: The Influence of Emotion on Trust,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (5), 736–748.

ITEMS:1 1. happy 2. joy 3. elation

-------------1. The instructions used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) with this scale were not explicitly stated in the article. It appears that participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they experienced particular feelings while engaging in the task they just finished. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with the three items were none (0) and more than ever (8).

255

HAPPINESS WITH THE EXPERIENCE Three, nine-point items measure the degree to which a person believes a particular experience was more than just enjoyable for the moment; it is viewed as having a larger impact on his/her life in terms of meaningfulness and fulfillment.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) used the scale in Studies 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B. The scale was developed by the authors based on measures and concepts found in work by Van Boven and Gilovich (2003).

RELIABILITY: In the studies in which Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) reported using the scale, the alphas ranged from .82 to .89.

VALIDITY: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit and Cassie Mogilner (2014), "Happiness from Ordinary and Extraordinary Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 1-17. Van Boven, Leaf, and Thomas Gilovich (2003), “To Do or To Have: That Is the Question,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (6), 1193–1202.

ITEMS:1 1. How much does this experience contribute to your happiness in life? 2. How meaningful was this experience? 3. How personally fulfilling was this experience?

-------------1. The anchors used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) with these items were not at all (1) and very much (9). The exact phrasing of the items was clarified by Bhattacharjee (2015).

256

HEALTH IMPORTANCE The importance a person places on being healthy, with an emphasis on physical health, is measured using three, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: May and Irmak (2014) used the scale in the first of the four studies described in their article. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 (May and Irmak 2014, p. 628).

VALIDITY: May and Irmak (2014) did not comment on the scale’s validity. However, some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity comes from the fact that, in the condition where healthiness was primed, participants scored significantly higher on health importance than those in the control condition.

REFERENCES: May, Frank and Caglar Irmak (2014), "Licensing Indulgence in the Present by Distorting Memories of Past Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 624-641.

ITEMS:1 1. Overall, how important do you think it is to be healthy? 2. How important do you think it is to be in good shape physically? 3. How important do you think it is to watch what you eat?

-------------1. The extreme anchors used by May and Irmak (2014) with the response scale were not at all important (1) and very important (7).

257

HEALTHY EATING CONCERN (GENDER STEREOTYPE) Six, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s belief that being concerned about eating healthy is not masculine and is more typical of women than men.

ORIGIN: Shah et al. (2014) created the scale for use in Experiment 2. Participants (n = 1,987) were recruited using Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk online survey sampling site (50% female).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .81 (Shah et al. 2014, p. 778).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Shah et al. (2014).

REFERENCES: Shah, Avni M., James R. Bettman, Peter A. Ubel, Punam Anand Keller, and Julie A. Edell (2014), "Surcharges Plus Unhealthy Labels Reduce Demand for Unhealthy Menu Items," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 773-789.

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

Worrying about healthy eating is more appropriate for women than men. Real men do not worry about what type of food they eat. Real women do not worry about what type of food they eat. (r) Being conscious of what you eat is wimpy. Being conscious of what you eat is considered feminine. Being conscious of what you eat is not manly.

258

HELPFULNESS Three semantic differentials are used to measure how cooperative and kind a person is. As used by Fisher and Ma (2014), the judgement is made regarding someone else rather than oneself.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) in a pretest as well as in four main studies. The scale was used in these studies with respect to photos of children who were described as suffering in some way. The authors cited Griffin and Langlois (2006) as the source. This scale was used by the latter to measure what they called “altruism,” one of three dimensions of the social competence of others.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .87 to .93 in the studies by Fisher and Ma (2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Fisher and Ma (2014).

REFERENCES: Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450. Griffin, Angela M., and Judith H. Langlois (2006), “Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or Is Ugly Bad?” Social Cognition, 24 (2), 187–206.

ITEMS:1 1. unhelpful / helpful 2. uncooperative / cooperative 3. cruel / kind

-------------1. The scale stem used by Fisher and Ma (2014) with these items was not described. A seven-point response format was used in Studies 1 to 4 while a five-point version was used in the pretest conducted before the main studies.

259

HOMOPHILY Nine, seven-point items are used to measure how close one feels to a particular person and how likely the person would fit in one’s “in-group.”

ORIGIN: Duclos (2015) created the scale for use in Study 4 and described it as “perceptions of ingroupness/out-groupness vis-a`-vis their partner” (p. 102). Participants were 426 people drawn from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk online panel in North America.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 in Study 4 by Duclos (2014, p. 102).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not explicitly addressed by Duclos (2014). However, to the extent that the scale was used as a manipulation check and the check was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Duclos, Rod (2015), personal correspondence. Duclos, Rod and Alixandra Barasch (2014), "Prosocial Behavior in Intergroup Relations: How Donor Self-Construal and Recipient Group-Membership Shape Generosity," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 93-108.

ITEMS:1 1. Overall, how close do you feel to this person? 2. Overall, how easily would this person fit/blend within your inner circle (e.g., friends/family)? 3. Overall, how likely would you be to appreciate this person? 4. Overall, how likely would you be to call this person “one of your own”? 5. Overall, how much are you like this person? 6. Overall, how much in common do you have with this person? 7. Overall, how similar to you is this person? 8. Overall, how well would you get along with this person? 9. Overall, how likely is it that this person would be part of your “in-group”?

-------------1. The items were provided by Duclos (2015). The anchors were not at all (1) and very (7).

260

HOMOPHILY The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure to what degree one person considers another person to be similar to him/herself, particularly in terms of behavior.

ORIGIN: Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015) used the scale in the four studies reported in their article. The scale was employed as a manipulation check of the similarity perceived between oneself and a person providing advice. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 in Study 1 by Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015, p. 462). Although the scale was used in the other studies as well, its reliabilities were not reported.

VALIDITY: Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. It is worth noting that the scale showed the similarity manipulation was successful in Study 1. Given that, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Faraji-Rad, Ali, Bendik M. Samuelsen, and Luk Warlop (2015), "On the Persuasiveness of Similar Others: The Role of Mentalizing and the Feeling of Certainty," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 458-471.

ITEMS:1 1. The _____ is like me. 2. The _____ behaves like me. 3. The _____ is similar to me.

-------------1. An appropriate term or describing the focal person should be placed in the blanks. Faraji-Rad, Samuelsen, and Warlop (2015) used the term “reviewer” in Study 1 referring to the person who was described as providing a review of a service. The response format used with these items was a seven-point scale with the extreme verbal anchors being Strongly disagree and Strongly agree.

261

HOPE (DISPOSITIONAL) Seven, seven-point Likert-type items measure a person’s general and enduring tendency to experience feelings that are expressed in terms of optimism about the future.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in Study 1 of the four reported in their article. The sample was composed of 82 college students ranging in age from 18 to 41 years. The authors borrowed the scale from Shiota (2004).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .81 (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015, p. 661).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673. Shiota, Michelle N. (2004), A Discrete Emotion Approach to Dispositional Positive Affect, doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

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

In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. I am a very optimistic person. I’ve found that things usually turn out for the best in the long run. When I think about the future, I have a strong feeling of hope. I often feel hopeful. I tend to plan in terms of best-case scenarios. I am not a quitter.

262

HUMANNESS The extent to which a person views a non-human object as being like a person, with an emphasis on its assumed mental abilities, is measured with six, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) for use in a pretest prior to Experiment 2. Participants (n = 79) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The authors created the scale by drawing ideas from a lengthy instrument used by Gray, Gray, and Wegner’s (2007). The scale was used to determine if anthropomorphized messengers were viewed differently than a human messenger.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 (Touré-Tillery and McGill 2015, p. 100).

VALIDITY: Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Gray, Heather M., Kurt Gray, and Daniel M. Wegner (2007), “Dimensions of Mind Perception,” Science, 315 (5812), 619. Touré-Tillery, Maferima and Ann L. McGill (2015), "Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers," Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 94-110.

ITEMS:1 1. Please indicate the extent to which the _____ was more like an object or more like a person. more like an object / more like a person2 Think of the _____ as if it were alive and animated and indicate the extent to which this _____ would be capable of:3 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

thinking. understanding how others are feeling. telling right from wrong and trying to do the right thing. making plans and working toward goals. exercising self-restraint over desires, emotions, or impulses.

263

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with a name for what delivered the message to participants. Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) used the term “messenger.” 2. This was a seven-point scale with higher numbers representing more humanness. 3. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

264

IDENTIFICATION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION To measure a person’s support for an organization that has an environmentally-related purpose, the scale uses four, five-point Likert-type items. The emphasis of the items is on the importance the membership has for the person.

ORIGIN: Marinova and Singh (2014) referred to the scale as identity salience. They appear to have created the scale with some inspiration from a measure by Arnett, German, and Hunt (2003) who, in turn, had adapted a measure by Callero (1985). Analyses by Marinova and Singh (2014) were apparently based on data from 1,298 usable responses from members of a zoological society of a major metropolitan city in the United States.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability reported for the scale by Marinova and Singh (2014) was .85.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Marinova and Singh (2014) concluded that their measurement model, which included the identification scale and several others, fit the data well. Further, tests provided evidence in support of the identification scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The scale’s AVE was .59.

REFERENCES: Arnett, Dennis B., Steve D. German, and Shelby D. Hunt (2003), “The Identity Salience Model of Relationship Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 89-105. Callero, Peter L. (1985), “Role-Identity Salience,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 (3), 203–215. Marinova, Detelina and Jagdip Singh (2014), "Consumer Decision to Upgrade or Downgrade a Service Membership," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (6), 596-618.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Below are some general statements about how you feel as a member of the __________. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree. Being a member of the __________: 265

1. 2. 3. 4.

makes me feel that I am doing my part to support a good cause. is a rewarding experience. makes me feel that I am environmentally responsible. is an important part of who I am.

-------------1. The name of the organization should be placed in the blanks. Responses were measured with five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

266

IMAGERY VIVIDNESS (VISUAL) Five, nine-point semantic differentials are used to measure how visually well-defined and vivid a stimulus appears to be.

ORIGIN: Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2015) used the scale in Study 4 with 143 participants who seem to have come from the Amazon Mechanical Turk panel. To create the scale, the authors took 5 of 6 terms from a measure by Bone and Ellen (1992) and converted them into semantic differentials.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was reported by Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2015, p. 1441) to be .96.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cian, Krishna, and Elder (2015).

REFERENCES: Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2015), "A Sign of Things to Come: Behavioral Change through Dynamic Iconography," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1426-1446.

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

Not Not Not Not Not

at at at at at

all all all all all

vivid / Extremely vivid intense / Extremely intense lifelike / Extremely lifelike sharp / Extremely sharp defined / Extremely defined

267

IMPLICIT PERSON THEORY The extent to which a person believes in one’s ability to change the self is measured with four, six-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Allard and White (2015) used the scale in Study 5 with data from 390 people recruited through Amazon MTurk. The construct being measured has to do with the "theories" that we all have about the nature of humans. These notions are referred to as "implicit" because people may not be able to explain them, in other words, they are unable to make them “explicit.” There are those who believe that people's traits are dynamic and can change across time or situations (incremental theorists) while there are others who believe that people's traits are fixed (entity theorists). The scale used by Allard and White (2015) to measure the construct is an adaption of the "Kind of Person" Implicit Theory—“Others” form for Adults (Dweck 2000, pp. 179, 180). The latter suggested the adaptations that were used by the former. Specifically, only the reverse-scored items were used by Allard and White (2015, Allard 2016) and the sentences were phrased in terms of “you.”

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 (Allard and White 2015, p. 412).

VALIDITY: Allard and White (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Allard, Thomas (2016), personal correspondence. Allard, Thomas and Katherine White (2015), "Cross-Domain Effects of Guilt on Desire for Self-Improvement Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 401-419. Dweck, Carol S. (2000), Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development, Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

ITEMS:1 1. The kind of person you are is something very basic about yourself, and it can't be changed very much. 2. You can do things differently, but the important parts of who you are can’t really be changed. 268

3. As much as I hate to admit it, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. You can’t really change your deepest attributes. 4. You are a certain kind of person, and there is not much that can be done to really change that.

-------------1. The items and clarifications were provided by Allard (2016). Following Dweck (2000, p. 180), the extreme anchors on the response scale used by Allard and White (2015, p. 412) with these items were strongly agree (1) and strongly disagree (6). Given that, a higher score indicates that a person believes in one’s ability to change the self.

269

IMPORTANCE OF HAVING MONEY The scale uses six, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s general belief that having money is necessary in order to have a happy life and this “need” is not just true of the respondent; all people need money.

ORIGIN: Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014) used the scale in Experiment 4 with 100 adults recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .74 (Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs 2014, p. 719).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014).

REFERENCES: Lasaleta, Jannine D., Constantine Sedikides, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2014), "Nostalgia Weakens the Desire for Money," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 713-729.

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

There is more to life than money. (r) People who chase money often chase away happiness. (r) The best things in life are free. (r) Frankly speaking, having money is something that I value. To get the most of life, people need money. Frankly speaking, having money isn’t all that important to me. (r)

270

IMPULSE BUYING (PRODUCT SPECIFIC) Five, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure one’s tendency to make decisions and to buy impulsively with regard to a specific good or service.

ORIGIN: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used the scale in Study 1 of the ones described in the article. Data were collected from 352 participants recruited in shopping malls in Singapore. The scale was created by the authors by drawing some terms and concepts from a more general trait measure developed by Rook and Fisher (1995).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s composite reliability in Study 1 by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) was .86.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not explicitly addressed by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014). However, they did say their measurement model had a good fit. With reference to this scale, the AVE was .66.

COMMENTS: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used this scale with a service but the phrasing seems to be flexible for use with most goods as well.

REFERENCES: Rook, Dennis W. and Robert J. Fisher (1995), “Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 305–313. Sharma, Piyush, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Roger Marshall (2014), "Exploring Impulse Buying in Services: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (2), 154-170.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

seldom plan in advance when buying __________. like to make spontaneous decisions when buying this __________. often feel tempted when buying __________. never think too much when buying __________. 271

5. I often experience a loss of self-control when buying __________.

-------------1. The general name of the product category should fill the blanks. Alternatively, the blanks may be used to refer to a product in the instructions or context such as Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) did when they filled the blanks with the phrase “this service.”

272

IMPULSE BUYING TENDENCY A consumer’s general tendency to make purchases without planning and control is measured with six items.

ORIGIN: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used the scale in Study 2 of the ones described in the article. Data were collected for the lab experiment from 240 part-time postgraduate students attending a major Hong Kong university. The scale was created by the authors by drawing some terms and concepts from other work of theirs (Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall 2011) as well as past measures by others (e.g., Rook and Fisher 1995).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s composite reliability was .82 in Study 2 by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014).

VALIDITY: Based on the results of a CFA and related analyses, Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) stated that the scales had good psychometric quality, with there being evidence supporting convergent and discriminant validities. With specific reference to this scale, the AVE was .59.

REFERENCES: Rook, Dennis W. and Robert J. Fisher (1995), “Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 305–313. Sharma, Piyush, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Roger Marshall (2011), “Deliberate SelfIndulgence versus Involuntary Loss of Self-Control: Towards a Robust Cross-Cultural Consumer Impulsiveness scale,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3–4), 229–245. Sharma, Piyush, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Roger Marshall (2014), "Exploring Impulse Buying in Services: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (2), 154-170.

ITEMS:1 To what extent do you agree that the following statements describe you? 1. I often spend more than what I can afford. 2. I like to indulge myself by buying things for pleasure. 273

3. I lose self-control quite frequently. 4. I often act without thinking about the consequences. 5. I seldom plan anything in advance. 6. I often make decisions spontaneously.

-------------1. Although not stated explicitly, it appears that the scale was a seven-point Likert-type. Its anchors were probably the same as many others used by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) in their studies which had the following anchors: strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

274

INCONGRUITY (GENERAL) With six, nine-point bi-polar adjectives, the scale measures the degree to which an object appears to be unusual and unexpected. Given the multiple facets of the construct represented in the items and depending on the way the items are scored, the scale could be considered a measure of similarity, typicality, or novelty. The scale is general in the sense that it could be used with a variety of objects and in a variety of contexts.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Mohanty and Ratneshwar (2015) as a manipulation check in the three studies they reported. Specifically, they wanted to make sure that two test ads used in each study differed significantly in their levels of comprehension. The authors appear to have created the scale by borrowing items and concepts from several extant measures. Indeed, the items can be found in a variety of scales measuring related constructs such as similarity, typicality, and novelty.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .73, .93, and .91 for Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Mohanty and Ratneshwar 2015).

VALIDITY: Mohanty and Ratneshwar (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, since the scale was used as a manipulation check in the three studies and in each case the manipulation was found to be successful, evidence was provided in support of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Mohanty, Praggyan (Pam) and S. Ratneshwar (2015), "Did You Get It? Factors Influencing Subjective Comprehension of Visual Metaphors in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 44 (3), 232-242.

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

expected / unexpected similar / dissimilar relevant / irrelevant conventional / unconventional predictable / novel usual / unusual 275

-------------1. The instructions for respondents used with these items were not provided in the article by Mohanty and Ratneshwar (2015). In some way they asked respondents to use the items to describe the ad they had just seen.

276

INFECTION SEVERITY Three, seven-point Likert-type items measure the degree to which a person believes a particular infection is serious.

ORIGIN: De Meulenaer, De Pelsmacker, and Dens (2015) used the scale in a study with data collected in Ireland (n = 208) and from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (n = 207). The English version of the questionnaire was translated then back-translated into Dutch to confirm equivalence. The authors cited Hastall and Knobloch-Westerwick (2013) as well as Witte (1994) as sources of the scale. While information related to the construct is in those articles, neither source has a measure similar to the one shown below. Instead, the scale is similar to one by Talukdar and Lindsey (2013) which dealt with the severity of unhealthy eating.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was reported to be .92 (De Meulenaer, De Pelsmacker, and Dens 2015, p. 119).

VALIDITY: Although specifics with reference to this scale were not provided by De Meulenaer, De Pelsmacker, and Dens (2015), they did state generally that testing of their measurement model provided evidence in support of their scales’ convergent and discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: De Meulenaer, Sarah (2016), personal correspondence. De Meulenaer, Sarah, Patrick De Pelsmacker, and Nathalie Dens (2015), "Have No Fear: How Individuals Differing in Uncertainty Avoidance, Anxiety, and Chance Belief Process Health Risk Messages," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 114-125. Hastall, Matthias R. and Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick (2013), “Severity, Efficacy, and Evidence Type as Determinants of Health Message Exposure,” Health Communication, 28 (4), 378–388. 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 (1994), “Fear Control and Danger Control: A Test of the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM),” Communication Monographs, 61 (2), 113–134.

277

ITEMS:1 1. I believe that the consequences of an infection by __________ are severe. 2. I believe that an infection by __________ has serious negative consequences. 3. I believe that an infection by __________ is extremely harmful.

-------------1. The items were provided by De Meulenaer (2016). The space in each item should be filled with the name of the infection. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale used in the English version were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

278

INFORMATIVENESS (GENERAL) The scale uses three, seven-point uni-polar items to measure how helpful and useful some particular piece of information is considered to be. The scale is general in the sense that the items can be used to measure the informativeness of a wide variety of objects.

ORIGIN: Moore (2015) used the scale in Study 5. Analysis was based on data collected from 186 members of a national online panel provided by Qualtrics. The context of the scale’s usage was that participants read an online review containing information about a product they were interested in buying. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .85 (Moore 2015, p. 40).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Moore (2015).

REFERENCES: Moore, Sarah G. (2015), "Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 30-44.

ITEMS:1 1. helpful 2. useful 3. informative

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with these items were not stated in the article by Moore (2015). Perhaps they were the same as used with a somewhat similar scale in Study 1B: not at all / very much. Also, the instructions used with the scale were not provided. They were likely to have been something like this: Using the items below, please rate the helpfulness of the information you read.

279

INSECURITY (SOCIAL) The scale uses three, five-point items to measure how much someone has felt selfconscious and has looked to others, particularly friends, to know how to act.

ORIGIN: Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3 discussed in the article. The authors developed the scale because extant measures of social anxiety and public self-consciousness were considered unsuitable for retrospective measurement. Pretests were conducted to develop the scale but no details were provided. Given that the studies required adults to recall how they felt as children, the authors referred to the scale as childhood social insecurity.

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Richins and Chaplin (2015) in Studies 1-3, information about its internal consistency was only provided for Study 2 (n = 261 North American members of a consumer panel). The scale’s alphas in Study 2 were measured for participants' recollections of three points in time during their childhood. The alphas ranged from .71 to .85.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Richins and Chaplin (2015).

COMMENTS: Although Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale with adults recalling how they felt at three points when they were children, the scale seems like it could be used with anyone thinking about their current situation. In that case, the sentences should be phrased in the present tense rather than the past tense.

REFERENCES: Richins, Marsha L. and Lan Nguyen Chaplin (2015), "Material Parenting: How the Use of Goods in Parenting Fosters Materialism in the Next Generation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1333-1357.

ITEMS:1 1. I was self-conscious about the way I looked. 2. I was concerned about fitting in with others. 280

3. I looked to my friends to know how to act.

-------------1. The verbal anchors for the response scale were rarely, occasionally, about half the time, a lot of the time, most of the time.

281

INTELLIGENCE The scale uses three semantic differentials to measure how smart a person is subjectively judged to be. The emphasis is on learning and grades, thus, is most suited for use with students. As used by Fisher and Ma (2014), the judgement is made regarding someone else rather than oneself.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) in a pretest as well as in four main studies. The scale was used in these studies with respect to photos of children who were described as suffering in some way. The authors cited Griffin and Langlois (2006) as the source. Two of the three items in this scale came from a measure by Griffin and Langlois (2006). They used the scale to measure one of three dimensions of the social competence of others. (See footnote #2 below.)

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .91 to .94 in the studies by Fisher and Ma (2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Fisher and Ma (2014).

COMMENTS: As noted in the description (above), the items make most sense when used to describe a student. The psychometric quality of the scale would need to be checked closely if the measure is used with respect to non-students or if respondents are expected to judge their own intelligence.

REFERENCES: Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450. Griffin, Angela M. and Judith H. Langlois (2006), “Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or Is Ugly Bad?” Social Cognition, 24 (2), 187–206.

ITEMS:1 1. below average intelligence / above average intelligence2 282

2. a slow learner / a fast learner 3. gets bad grades / gets good grades

-------------1. The scale stem used by Fisher and Ma (2014) with these items was not described. A seven-point response format was used in Studies 1 to 4 while a five-point version was used in the pretest conducted before the main studies. 2. This item was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) instead of the one used by Griffin and Langlois (2006): stupid / dumb.

283

INTENTION TO ENGAGE IN THE EXERCISE A person’s intention to participate in a particular exercise at a certain level is measured with three, nine-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015) in all three studies reported in their article. Data were collected from members of mTurk who were residents of the U.S. and completed screener tests. Analyses appear to have been based on responses from 235 (Study 1), 192 (Study 2), and 232 (Study 3) participants. The source of the scale was not identified. The key phrases in each items are rather common to measures of intention.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .96 (Study 1), .95 (Study 2), and .96 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: The scale appears to be quite amenable for use with a variety of exercises. However, examination of the adapted scale’s psychometric quality is still recommended.

REFERENCES: Newton, Joshua D., Jimmy Wong, and Fiona J. Newton (2015), "The Social Status of Health Message Endorsers Influences the Health Intentions of the Powerless," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 151-160.

ITEMS:1 1. I intend to _____ __________. 2. I plan to _____ __________. 3. I expect to _____ __________.

-------------1. The name of the exercise should be specified in the first, shorter blank in each item while the second, longer blank should be filled with a frequency of exercising. The phrase used by Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015, p. 153) for the two blanks was “walk 30 minutes 5 times a week.” The extreme anchors used with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (9).

284

INTENTION TO PREVENT HEART DISEASE A person’s plan to engage in behaviors that might help prevent him-/herself from experiencing heart disease is measured with six, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015) in Study 1 with a final sample of 204 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The authors created the scale by drawing several items from a similar scale used by Chandran and Menon (2004).

RELIABILITY: Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015) reported the scale’s alpha to be .85.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015).

COMMENTS: It seems possible that the scale could be used or adapted for use with other health problems. Of course, testing the scale to confirm its psychometric quality should be conducted.

REFERENCES: Chandran, Sucharita, and Geeta Menon (2004), “When a Day Means More than a Year: Effects of Temporal Framing on Judgments of Health Risk,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 375–389. Pounders, Kathrynn R. (2016), personal correspondence. Pounders, Kathrynn R., Seungae Lee, and Mike Mackert (2015), "Matching Temporal Frame, Self-View, and Message Frame Valence: Improving Persuasiveness in Health Communications," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 388-402.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Please mark the response that best reflects your agreement with the following statements. 1. I will be mindful of what I eat. 2. I will eat healthier foods. 3. I will workout on a regular basis. 285

4. I will lead a more active lifestyle. 5. I will see a doctor to learn more about heart disease. 6. I will learn more about heart disease on the Internet.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the response scale were strongly disagree/strongly agree. The scale stem and the items were provided by Pounders (2016).

286

INTENTION TO PREVENT SKIN CANCER The scale employs five, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s plan to engage in certain behaviors in order to prevent skin cancer, with an emphasis on using suncreen.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015) in Study 2 with a sample of 170 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015) reported the scale’s alpha to be .73.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015).

REFERENCES: Pounders, Kathrynn R., Seungae Lee, and Mike Mackert (2015), "Matching Temporal Frame, Self-View, and Message Frame Valence: Improving Persuasiveness in Health Communications," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 388-402.

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

I I I I I

would regularly apply sunscreen. will wear sunscreen when I go outside. would encourage my family and friends to wear sunscreen. would see a doctor to have my skin checked. would learn more about skin cancer from my doctor.

-------------1. The scale stem/question was not described by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015). Apparently, participants were asked what they would do as a result of the public service announcement they viewed. The extreme verbal anchors used with the response scale were not explicitly stated but were probably strongly disagree/strongly agree.

287

INTENTION TO SUPPORT THE NONPROFIT A person’s expressed likelihood of supporting a nonprofit organization or cause in various ways is measured with three, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Pappu and Cornwell (2014) appear to have used the scale in three experiments. As for the source of the measure, the authors cited Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006). However, the latter did not report using the scale shown below. It may be more accurate to say that Pappu and Cornwell (2014) created the scale based on inspiration received from work by Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006).

RELIABILITY: The composite reliabilities reported by Pappu and Cornwell (2014) for the scale were .80, .81, and .74 for Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

VALIDITY: CFA was used after each experiment to examine the data and the authors found support for the scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .58 (Experiment 1), .59 (Experiment 2), and .50 (Experiment 3).

REFERENCES: Pappu, Ravi and T. Bettina Cornwell (2014), "Corporate Sponsorship as an Image Platform: Understanding the Roles of Relationship Fit and Sponsor–Sponsee Similarity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (5), 490-510. Simmons, Carolyn J. and Karen L. Becker-Olsen (2006), “Achieving Marketing Objectives Through Social Sponsorships,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 154-169.

ITEMS:1 1. I am likely to contribute financially to _____. 2. I am likely to work as a volunteer for _____. 3. I am likely to recommend _____ to others.

-------------1. The items were paraphrased in the article by Pappu and Cornwell (2014). The phrasing here is a guess about how the items were stated to participants. Besides indicating that all of their response scales had seven points, the verbal anchors were not described. As phrased above, Likert-type anchors would make sense, e.g., strongly disagree / strongly agree.

288

INTRUSION PRESSURE FROM EMPLOYEES Three statements are used to measure the extent to which a customer believes that employees of a business engaged in behaviors that disturbed one’s activities in the establishment, with an emphasis on employee distractions near closing time.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2 and 3 of the four discussed in their article. They drew inspiration for the items from a measure of ad intrusiveness by Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .89 and .82 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models had good fit. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to intrusion pressure, the AVEs were .73 (Study 2) and .60 (Study 3).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Li, Hairong, Steven M. Edwards, and Joo-Hyun Lee (2002), “Measuring the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 37-47. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. The employees distracted me during my _____ experience. 2. The employees’ closing time activities disturbed me while I was _____. 3. The employees’ actions made me feel less free while _____.

-------------1. The type of activity in which the participant was engaging should be stated in the blanks, e.g., shopping, dining, working out. Also, Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items.

289

INTRUSION PRESSURE FROM EMPLOYEES The scale uses three, five-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a customer believes that employees of a business engaged in behaviors that infringed on one’s space and activities in the establishment.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Study 4 of the four discussed in their article. They drew inspiration for the items from a measure of ad intrusiveness by Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .86 in Study 4 by Ashley and Noble (2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models had good fit. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to intrusion pressure, the AVE was .67 in Study 4.

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Li, Hairong, Steven M. Edwards, and Joo-Hyun Lee (2002), “Measuring the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 37-47. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. The employees’ actions infringed on my territory. 2. The employees’ actions crossed a boundary. 3. The employees’ actions made me feel forced out of the store when I had a right to be there.

-------------1. Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items with end points of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

290

INVOLVEMENT (GENERAL) Four, seven-point items measure a person’s interest in a specified object and how important it is to him/her. The scale is general in the sense that it can be easily adapted for use with a wide variety of objects to which a person may be involved, mostly likely of an enduring nature. Unlike many, if not most, general measures of involvement that are composed of semantic differentials, the items in this scale are Likert-type.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community). The authors appear to have created it by borrowing key phrases from some positive anchors in the popular involvement scale by Zaichkowsky (1985) and making them into statements.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .95.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and several others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .84.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items could be used with a wide variety of events and objects.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220. Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.

ITEMS:1 1. In general, I have a strong interest in _____. 291

2. _____ are very important to me. 3. _____matter a lot to me 4. _____mean a lot to me.

-------------1. A generic name for the focal category of objects should be placed in the blanks. The category that appears to have been used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) was “restaurants.” The seven-point response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

292

INVOLVEMENT IN THE EXERCISE Four, seven-point items measure a person’s knowledge of and experience with a particular physical exercise.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015) in all three studies reported in their article. Data were collected from members of mTurk who were residents of the U.S. and completed screener tests. Analyses appear to have been based on responses from 235 (Study 1), 192 (Study 2), and 232 (Study 3) participants. The source of the scale was not identified. The items are rather common to measures of knowledge, expertise, and related constructs.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .85 (Study 1), .83 (Study 2), and .85 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: The scale appears to be quite amenable for use with a variety of physical exercises. It might be adaptable for measuring other skills and abilities as well, cognitive as well as physical. However, the more changes that are made, the greater the need for reexamining the scale’s psychometric quality.

REFERENCES: Newton, Joshua D., Jimmy Wong, and Fiona J. Newton (2015), "The Social Status of Health Message Endorsers Influences the Health Intentions of the Powerless," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 151-160.

ITEMS:1 With regard to __________, please indicate your level of . . .2 1. knowledge 2. familiarity 3. experience 293

4. expertise

-------------1. The extreme anchors used with these items were very low (1) and very high (7). 2. The instructions used by Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015) with these items were not explicitly provided. The simple scale stem provided here is merely a possibility. The name of the exercise should be placed in the blank. Newton, Wong, and Newton (2015) appear to have used the phrase “walking as a form of exercise.”

294

INVOLVEMENT WITH SALES A consumer’s level of attitudinal, affective, and behavioral involvement with getting discounts and buying products on sale is measured with seven, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) by borrowing phrasing and concepts from scales by Lichtenstein and colleagues, particularly the ones they used to measure what they referred to as deal proneness and sale proneness (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton 1995; Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993). In an impressive set of studies, the scale by Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) was used along with several other consumer trait-related measures to examine temporal stability in the traits. Data were gather from 1,411 Dutch consumers over a period of 12 years. The language in which the questionnaires were phrased for respondents was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The authors provided evidence of each trait-related scale’s temporal stability based on an evaluation of configural invariance as well as the scalar invariance. With respect to the scale measuring involvement with sales, alphas over a 9 year period were rather consistent, ranging from .71 to .77 (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 293). Test-retest correlations were examined over the 9 year period as well. There were 8 lag1 test-retest correlations, 7 lag-2 correlations, 6 lag-3 correlations, and so on. The correlation between the scores on involvement with sales for the respondents decreased over time from .70 (comparing scores from the second year to the first) to .59 (comparing the last year to the second to last year). In total, these measures indicate the scale has adequate internal consistency and temporal stability for the long periods studied.

VALIDITY: Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) did not report examining the validity of their scales per se in these studies. Although it is likely that some validity checks were conducted, that discussion was not the purpose of this particular article.

REFERENCES: Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard D. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton (1995), “Assessing the Domain Specificity of Deal Proneness: A Field Study,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 314-326. 295

Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer (1993), “Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 234-245. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Alberto Maydeu-Olivares (2015), "Stability and Change in Consumer Traits: Evidence from a 12-Year Longitudinal Study, 2002–2013," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 287-308.

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

Buying products on sale gives me a good feeling. I’m more likely to purchase a particular brand when it is on sale. I love to buy products on sale, regardless of the amount of money I save. Compared to most people, I have a more positive attitude toward discounts. In addition to the money I save, buying products on sale gives me a pleasant feeling. With discounts, consumers can save a lot of money. Compared to most people, I am more likely to buy products that are on sale.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5) (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 292).

296

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INTERNET The scale uses four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s belief that he/she has greater experience with, interest in, and usage of the internet than most people.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 1 and called it internet affinity. The scale was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method. In creating the scale, Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) drew some phrases and concepts from a scale by Neelamegham and Jain (1999).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .85 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: While Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did provide evidence in support of its discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was acceptable (.62).

REFERENCES: Neelamegham, Ramya and Dipak Jain (1999), “Consumer Choice Process for Experience Goods: An Econometric Model and Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 373–386. Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I use the Internet more often than other people do. I am interested in the Internet. I am experienced in using the Internet. In general, the Internet is important for me.

297

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PRODUCT CATEGORY (CHOICE UNCERTAINTY) Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a consumer believes that making a selection from a particular product category is difficult because of the uncertainty about choice is "right."

ORIGIN: The scale was called probability of error by Habel and Klarmann (2015) and was used in a survey of 1,522 adult residents of the U.S. who were members of an online panel. Except for education, the sample was considered to be representative of the U.S. population in terms of several typical demographic variables. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of 29 product categories to evaluate various aspects of that category. The items composing the scale were based on the ones in the Risk Probability subscale of the Consumer Involvement Profile by Laurent and Kapferer (1985, Kapferer and Laurent 1993).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .93 (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 777). This was apparently calculated across 29 product categories.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Habel and Klarmann (2015). They did, however, state that the scale’s AVE was .77 (p. 777).

REFERENCES: Habel, Johannes and Martin Klarmann (2015), "Customer Reactions to Downsizing: When and How is Satisfaction Affected?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 768-789. Kapferer, Jean-Noël and Gilles Laurent (1993), “Further Evidence on the Consumer Involvement Profile: Five Antecedents of Involvement,” Psychology & Marketing, 10 (4), 347-355. Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noël Kapferer (1985), “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (February), 41-53.

298

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I always feel rather unsure about what _____ to pick. When you choose _____, you can never be quite sure it was the right choice or not. Choosing _____ is rather difficult. When you choose _____, you can never be quite certain about your choice.

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with the name of the focal product category, e.g., mobile phones, car, TV. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were fully disagree and fully agree (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 779).

299

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PRODUCT CATEGORY (PLEASURE) Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree of enjoyment a person experiences when buying a product from a particular category. While the phrasing of the items might allow it to be used with regard to brand involvement, the scale was meant for use when the pleasure tends to occur regardless of the brand being purchased.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Habel and Klarmann (2015) in a survey of 1,522 adult residents of the U.S. who were members of an online panel. Except for education, the sample was considered to be representative of the U.S. population in terms of several typical demographic variables. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of 29 product categories to evaluate various aspects of that category. The items were based on the ones in the Pleasure subscale of the Consumer Involvement Profile by Laurent and Kapferer (1985, Kapferer and Laurent 1993).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .94 (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 777). This was apparently calculated across 29 product categories.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Habel and Klarmann (2015). They did, however, state that the scale’s AVE was .84 (p. 777).

REFERENCES: Habel, Johannes and Martin Klarmann (2015), "Customer Reactions to Downsizing: When and How is Satisfaction Affected?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 768-789. Kapferer, Jean-Noël and Gilles Laurent (1993), “Further Evidence on the Consumer Involvement Profile: Five Antecedents of Involvement,” Psychology & Marketing, 10 (4), 347-355. Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noël Kapferer (1985), “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (February), 41-53.

ITEMS:1 1. I really enjoy buying _____. 2. Whenever I buy _____, it’s like giving myself a present. 300

3. To me, it is quite a pleasure to buy _____.

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with the name of the focal product category, e.g., mobile phones, shoes, TVs. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were fully disagree and fully agree (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 779).

301

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PRODUCT CATEGORY (SIGN) With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes that the products one chooses express something about him/her.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Habel and Klarmann (2015) in a survey of 1,522 adult residents of the U.S. who were members of an online panel. Except for education, the sample was considered to be representative of the U.S. population in terms of several typical demographic variables. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of 29 product categories to evaluate various aspects of that category. The items were based on the ones in the Sign subscale of the Consumer Involvement Profile by Laurent and Kapferer (1985, Kapferer and Laurent 1993).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .96 (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 777). This was apparently calculated across 29 product categories.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Habel and Klarmann (2015). They did, however, state that the scale’s AVE was .89 (p. 777).

REFERENCES: Habel, Johannes and Martin Klarmann (2015), "Customer Reactions to Downsizing: When and How is Satisfaction Affected?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 768-789. Kapferer, Jean-Noël and Gilles Laurent (1993), “Further Evidence on the Consumer Involvement Profile: Five Antecedents of Involvement,” Psychology & Marketing, 10 (4), 347-355. Laurent, Gilles and Jean-Noël Kapferer (1985), “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (February), 41-53.

ITEMS:1 1. You can tell a lot about a person from the _____ he or she chooses. 2. The _____ a person chooses says something about who they are. 3. The _____ I choose reflects the sort of person I am. 302

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with the name of the focal product category, e.g., mobile phones. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were fully disagree and fully agree (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 779).

303

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SPORT Four, four-point items are used to measure the extent to which a person watches, attends, and enjoys a particular sport.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in a longitudinal study reported by Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014). The cross-national study focused on sponsorship effectiveness for Heineken International, one of the main sponsors of a European soccer competition. A representative sample for each of five European countries was drawn from the online panels of a professional market research agency. The samples consisted of 400 to 650 respondents per country with the total data set consisting of 25,288 participants. The scale was developed in collaboration with Heineken International and the research agency (Walraven 2015). Inspiration for the scale came from measures by Shank and Beasly (1998) as well as Speed and Thompson (2000).

RELIABILITY: Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014, p. 147) reported the scale’s alpha to be .913.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014).

REFERENCES: Shank, Matthew D. and Fred M. Beasley (1998), “Fan or Fanatic: Refining a Measure of Sports Involvement,” Journal of Sport Behavior, 21 (4), 435–444. Speed, Richard and Peter Thompson (2000), “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238. Walraven, Merel (2015), personal correspondence. Walraven, Merel, Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, and Ruud H. Koning (2014), "Dynamic Effects of Sponsoring: How Sponsorship Awareness Develops Over Time," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 142-154.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Four statements are presented in each of the questions below. For every question please indicate which one of the statements applies to you. 1. How frequently do you watch _____? 304

   

I I I I

watch _____ on TV as much as possible. watch _____on TV on a fairly regular basis. watch _____on TV now and then. don’t watch _____on TV, or hardly ever.

2. Indicate how much you enjoy attending _____ matches/games.    

I I I I

really enjoy going to _____ matches/games. enjoy going to _____ matches/games. don’t particularly enjoy going to _____ matches/games. don’t go to _____ matches/games at all.

3. Please indicate your enjoyment of _____ versus other sports.    

I’m absolutely mad about _____. _____ is one of my favorite sports. For me, _____ is no more important than any other sport. I’m not interested in _____.

4. How much do you follow _____ news?    

I I I I

follow _____ news very closely. keep reasonably abreast of _____ news. don’t follow _____ news with any particular attention. have very little interest in _____ news.

-------------1. The questions and alternative responses were provided by Walraven (2015). The information was modified here somewhat to make it more amenable for use with a variety of sports. The name of the sport should be placed in the blanks. Scoring can be done by having one of the extreme responses receive the highest points and the other extreme receiving the least. For example, the answer to each question which reflects the most involvement could be assigned 4 points with the answer reflecting the next most involvement could be assigned 3 points, and so on.

305

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SPORTS-RELATED EVENT A person’s interest in and frequency of watching a particular sports-related event is measured with three, four-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in a longitudinal study reported by Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014). The cross-national study focused on sponsorship effectiveness for Heineken International, one of the main sponsors of a European soccer competition (the Union of European Football Associations Champions League). A representative sample for each of five European countries was drawn from the online panels of a professional market research agency. The samples consisted of 400 to 650 respondents per country with the total data set consisting of 25,288 participants. The scale was developed in collaboration with Heineken International and the research agency (Walraven 2015). Inspiration for the scale came from a measure of the construct used by Speed and Thompson (2000).

RELIABILITY: Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014, p. 147) reported the scale’s alpha to be .938.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014).

COMMENTS: Although Walraven, Bijmolt, and Koning (2014) used the scale with respect to matches played by the Union of European Football Associations Champions League, the items appear to be easily adaptable for use with a variety of other sports, teams, and events.

REFERENCES: Speed, Richard and Peter Thompson (2000), “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238. Walraven, Merel (2015), personal correspondence. Walraven, Merel, Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, and Ruud H. Koning (2014), "Dynamic Effects of Sponsoring: How Sponsorship Awareness Develops Over Time," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 142-154.

306

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Four statements are presented in each of the questions below. For every question please indicate which one of the statements applies to you. 1. To what extent you are interested in __________? •

very interested

•

fairly interested

•

not particularly interested

•

not at all interested

2. Which statement applies to you the most?    

I I I I

follow the __________ very closely. usually follow the __________. don’t follow the __________ with any particular attention. have very little interest in the __________.

3. How often do you watch __________ matches/games/events on television?    

very often often occasionally never

-------------1. The questions and alternative responses were provided by Walraven (2015). The information was modified here somewhat to make it more amenable for use with a variety of sports. The name of the sporting event(s) should be placed in the blanks. Scoring can be done by having one of the extreme responses receive the highest points and the other extreme receiving the least. For example, the answer to each question which reflects the most involvement could be assigned 4 points with the answer reflecting the next most involvement could be assigned 3 points, and so on.

307

JUSTICE OF THE WEBSITE (DISTRIBUTIVE) The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure one’s belief that it is fair for visitors to give something to a website in return for access to free content.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) adapted a scale by Wirtz and Lwin (2009) and used it in Study 1. It is worthy of note that the scale was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the backtranslation method.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .92 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: While Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did provide evidence in support of its discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was good (.79).

REFERENCES: Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75. Wirtz, Jochen and May O. Lwin (2009), “Regulatory Focus Theory, Trust, and Privacy Concern,” Journal of Service Research, 12 (2), 1–18.

ITEMS: 1. It is fair to reward the website for providing its content to me. 2. It is okay that the website asks for a favor in exchange for free content. 3. Providing the website a benefit in return for its content is fair.

308

JUSTICE OF THE WEBSITE (PROCEDURAL) The extent to which a person believes that the visitor-related procedures used by a website are fair, particularly with respect to handling information, is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 1. It was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method. In creating the scale, Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) drew some phrases and concepts from a scale by Wirtz and Lwin (2009).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .89 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: While Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did provide evidence in support of its discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was acceptable (.58).

REFERENCES: Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75. Wirtz, Jochen and May O. Lwin (2009), “Regulatory Focus Theory, Trust, and Privacy Concern,” Journal of Service Research, 12 (2), 1–18.

ITEMS: 1. The way the website provides information explaining its information-handling procedures is fair. 2. The website is honest to its visitors. 3. The way I can influence how the website handles my information is fair. 4. With regard to its advertising and privacy practices the website employs fair procedures.

309

KNOWLEDGE (DOMAIN SPECIFIC) Using seven statements, this scale measures the degree to which a person believes that he/she is familiar with and has experience using goods and/or services in a particular domain. Versions of the scale are described for tech products, fast-food restaurants, personal banking, movie theaters, and social media websites.

ORIGIN: Luo and Toubia (2015) created five variations of the scale based on thoughts expressed by Mitchell and Dacin (1996) and the single-item measures they used. In Study 1, Luo and Toubia (2015) phrased the items with respect to technology products. In Study 2, the scale was adapted for fast-food restaurants, personal banking, movie theaters, and social media websites.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the versions of the scale were .835 (technology products), .834 (fast-food restaurants), .862 (personal banking), .845 movie theaters), and .870 (social media websites).

VALIDITY: Luo and Toubia (2015) did not explicitly test the validity of the scale used in Study 1 but some findings bearing on it were provided. First, the items were found to load together in an EFA with oblique rotation. Second, those who scored higher on the scale described significantly more situations in which they used tech products. More was done in Study 2 where CFA was employed and provided support for the knowledge scale's discriminant validity with respect to several other scales measuring different but related constructs (lead user, emergent nature, and innovativeness.)

COMMENTS: The slight adaptations made by Luo and Toubia (2015) in the phrasing of the items for five different goods and services provide ideas about how to customize the scale for a wide variety of applications. While the five adaptations described here have shown good internal consistency, users who make changes for other contexts are urged to test the psychometric quality of their scales rather than just assuming they are adequate.

REFERENCES: Luo, Lan and Olivier Toubia (2015), "Improving Online Idea Generation Platforms and Customizing the Task Structure on the Basis of Consumers' Domain-Specific Knowledge," Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 100-114. 310

Mitchell, A. and Peter A. Dacin (1996), “The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (3), 219–239.

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

Compared to the average person, I do not know much about __________. (r) I am very familiar with __________. I am not skilled at utilizing __________.2 (r) I am very interested in __________.3 I own a lot of __________.4 My friends own a lot of __________.5 I read articles related to __________ all the time.

-------------1. The response scale used with these items was not described by Luo and Toubia (2015). The very common Likert-type format (strongly disagree/strongly agree) with either five or seven points would appear to be appropriate. The name of the domain should be placed in the blanks, e.g., technology products. 2. For fast-food restaurants and movie theaters the word skilled was replaced with knowledgeable. 3. For movie theaters, the phrase going to the movies was placed in the blank. 4. This is the phrasing for technology products. The following phrasings were used for the other contexts: I go to fast-food restaurants a lot, I use a lot of personal banking products and services, I go to movie theaters a lot, and I participate in a lot of social media websites. 5. This is the phrasing for technology products. The following phrasings were used for the other contexts: My friends go to fast-food restaurants a lot, My friends use various personal banking products and services, My friends go to movie theaters a lot, and My friends use social media websites a lot.

311

KNOWLEDGE (SUBJECTIVE) The degree of familiarity with something such as an object or topic is measured with three, seven-point bi-polar adjectives. The items themselves are extremely flexible for use in a variety of contexts and it is up to the instructions provided with them to specify whose knowledge about what is being assessed.

ORIGIN: Yoo (2014) used the scale in Pretest 2 with 253 college students. The scale was used with respect to three cruise lines. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale ranged from .81 to .86 with respect to the three cruise lines (Yoo 2014, p. 92).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Yoo (2014).

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used with regard to cruise lines, the items are amenable for use in many, varied contexts such as judging one’s knowledge level of a brand or another person’s knowledge of an event.

REFERENCES: Yoo, Chan Yun (2014), "Branding Potentials of Keyword Search Ads: The Effects of Ad Rankings on Brand Recognition and Evaluations," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 85-99.

ITEMS: 1. Not familiar / Familiar 2. Don’t know / Know a lot 3. Unaware / Aware

312

LAY RATIONALISM This six item, six-point Likert-type scale measures an individual difference characteristic that varies between people by how much weight is placed on “reason” versus “feelings” when making decisions. Three of the statements refer to financial or product choice situations while the other three items are more general.

ORIGIN: Hsee et al. (2015) developed the scale in a commendable set of steps, analyses, and studies. Briefly, the authors generated 36 items and then reduced the number to 13 in a couple of filtering steps. In the first quantitative study, analyses led to the elimination of seven more items. The remaining six items, with two of them slightly rephrased and reverse-coded, were used in all of the other reported studies (samples 2 through 14). Data were gathered from respondents in the U.S. in all of the quantitative studies using online services. Ultimately, as discussed below, strong evidence was provided in support of the scale’s reliability and validity.

RELIABILITY: In the 15 administrations of the scale, Cronbach alphas ranged from .80 to .87 (Hsee et al. 2015, p. 137). One purpose of sample 2 was to test the temporal stability of the scale. The one-week test-retest correlation was .79 (n = 149). All of this together showed the scale was not only internally consistent but that it was adequately stable over a short period of time.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was examined in several ways by Hsee et al. (2015). Beyond showing the unidimensionality of the scale items, evidence was provided in support of the scale’s face, construct, and predictive validities. To determine if the scale measured something distinct from other scales, correlations between the Lay Rationalism scale and 14 other scales were examined. For about eight of the other scales, there appeared to be little or no relationship. For the other six, the correlations were strong and/or significant enough to indicate similar constructs were being measured. It is worthy of note that socially desirable responding was one of the 14 constructs that was examined. The correlation was low and insignificant which implies that people do not respond to the Lay Rationalism scale in a way they believe is socially desirable.

COMMENTS: If, indeed, this scale is intended to measure an enduring trait-like characteristic of people, then it would be worthwhile to examine the scale’s temporal stability over a much longer period of time than just one week. Further, a more rigorous examination of the scale’s discriminant validity should be made using CFA. 313

REFERENCES: Hsee, Christopher K., Yang Yang, Xingshan Zheng, and Hanwei Wang (2015), "Lay Rationalism: Individual Differences in Using Reason Versus Feelings to Guide Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 134-146.

ITEMS:1 1. When making decisions, I like to analyze financial costs and benefits and resist the influence of my feelings. 2. When choosing between two options, one of which makes me feel better and the other better serves the goal I want to achieve, I choose the one that makes me feel better. (r) 3. When making decisions, I think about what I want to achieve rather than how I feel. 4. When choosing between two options, one of which is financially superior and the other “feels” better to me, I choose the one that is financially better. 5. When choosing between products, I rely on my gut feelings rather than on product specifications (numbers and objective descriptions). (r) 6. When making decisions, I focus on objective facts rather than subjective feelings.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (6) (Hsee et al. 2015, p. 137).

314

LITTERING INTENTION Using seven, seven-point items, the scale measures a person’s inclination to engage in littering behaviors.

ORIGIN: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the scale in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students. The scale was created by the authors (White 2015) and is strongly based on phrasings from other intention measures used by the lead author in previous research (White and Peloza 2009; White and Simpson 2013).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .779 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 441).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine and John Peloza (2009), "Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support," Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 109-124. White, Katherine and Bonnie Simpson (2013), "When Do (and Don't) Normative Appeals Influence Sustainable Consumer Behaviors?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 78-95. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

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

How likely are you to litter? Highly Unlikely / Highly Likely How inclined are you to litter? Not Very Inclined / Highly Inclined How willing are you to litter? Not Very Willing / Very Willing To what degree do you intend to litter? Not at all / Very much so To what degree do you have positive intentions toward littering? Not at all / Very much so 6. How likely will you be to toss an apple on the ground? Not at all / Very much so 315

7. How likely will you be to chase a small piece of paper as it blows away on the ground? Not at all / Very much so

-------------1. Clarification of the scale’s items and response format was provided by White (2015).

316

LOVE (DISPOSITIONAL) With six, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s general and enduring tendency to experience feelings of closeness and trust with other people.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in Study 1 of the four reported in their article. The sample was composed of 82 college students ranging in age from 18 to 41 years. The scale was created by Shiota (2004; Shiota, Keltner, and John 2006). It is one scale in the larger instrument called Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales. The authors reported its alpha to be .80.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .80 (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015, p. 661).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673. Shiota, Michelle N. (2004), A Discrete Emotion Approach to Dispositional Positive Affect, doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Shiota, Michelle N., Dacher Keltner, and Oliver P. John (2006), “Positive Emotion Dispositions Differentially Associated with Big Five Personality and Attachment Style,” Journal of Positive Psychology, 1 (2), 61–71.

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

Other people are generally trustworthy. I develop strong feelings of closeness to people easily. I find it easy to trust others. I can depend on people when I need help. People are usually considerate of my needs and feelings. I love many people. 317

LOVE (STATE) The scale measures a person’s positive affective state at a particular point in time characterized by feelings of affection and closeness. A two-item version as well as a version with three-items were used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used a two item version of the scale in a pilot test prior to Study 2 (n = 65) and a three item version in a pilot test prior to Study 4 (n = 147). Data were collected from college students in both cases. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated. The authors say that they used items reported in the literature.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .93 and .86 for pilot tests prior to Studies 2 and 4, respectively (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015, pp. 662, 666).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015). However, because the scale was used as a sort of manipulation check in both of the pilot studies and the manipulations were successful (pp. 662, 666), it provides some limited evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673.

ITEMS:1 1. love 2. affection 3. closeness

-------------1. The instructions used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) with this scale were not explicitly stated in the article. Generally, they asked participants to indicate the extent to which they experienced particular feelings while watching a commercial. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with the three item version of the scale were did not experience at all (1) and experienced very intensely (7). In the two item version of the scale, item #3 was not used and the extreme anchors were none (0) and more than ever (8).

318

LOYALTY INTENTIONS The likelihood of engaging in certain loyalty-related activities are measured with this seven-point scale. Versions with three, four, and six items are discussed. While the scale might be adapted for use with a variety of businesses, it is most suited for hotels and restaurants.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Bolton and Mattila (2015) in Studies 1 (n = 130), 2 (n = 135) and 3 (n = 277), with data being gathered in each case from people in a paid commercial panel. The source of the scale was not stated. Also, the items were modified somewhat depending upon the business being studied. In Studies 1 and 3, it was a hotel while in Study 2 it was a restaurant. Further, the number of items used was different in each study as specified below.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .75 (Study 1), .92 (Study 2), and .94 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: Bolton and Mattila (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Bolton, Lisa E. and Anna S. Mattila (2015), "How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Consumer Response to Service Failure in Buyer–Seller Relationships?" Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 140-153.

ITEMS:1 How likely are you to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

__________ again.2 recommend this _____ to others. consider this _____ your first choice. continue to __________ if prices increase somewhat.3 pay a higher price than competitors charge to __________.4 discourage others from patronizing this _____. (r)

319

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Bolton and Mattila (2015, p. 145) were very unlikely and very likely. The short space in items #2, #3, and #6 should be filled with an appropriate generic name of the business being studied. In Study 1, only items #1-#3, and #6 were used. All six items were used in Study 2 and only items #1-#3 were used in Study 3. 2. In Studies 1 and 3, the phrase used in the blank was “stay at this hotel” while “dine at this restaurant” was used in Study 2. If the scale is used with something other than a hotel or restaurant, a simple and appropriate phrase will have to be created for this item it, e.g., shop at this store again. 3. The phrase used in the space was the same as used in item #1. 4. The phrase used in the space was the same as used in item #1.

320

LOYALTY TO THE STORE Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used in this scale to measure a person’s tendency to concentrate his/her shopping for a certain broad category of products in one store rather than shopping around. The scale focuses more on the behavioral part of loyalty rather than the commitment component.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Jensen and Grunert (2014) in their study of price knowledge as it pertains to grocery shopping. Analysis was based on data gathered from 1,040 shoppers interviewed in one of two stores in a large city in Denmark. The language in which the scale and the rest of the survey instrument was phrased was not stated in the article. The source of the scale was not stated and may have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: Jensen and Grunert (2014, p. 345) reported the scale’s alpha to be .76.

VALIDITY: Although Jensen and Grunert (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity they did provide the results of an EFA run on the scale’s items along with the items used to measure three other constructs of interest in the study. The items loaded well on their respective factors which provided some evidence of each scale’s unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Jensen, Birger Boutrup and Klaus G. Grunert (2014), "Price Knowledge During Grocery Shopping: What We Learn and What We Forget," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 332-346.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I shop more frequently at _____ than at other __________ stores. It is often random where I __________ shop. (r) I know exactly where the different products are located in _____. I __________ shop at many different stores. (r)

-------------1. The long blanks in #1, #2, and #4 should be filled with the generic name for the type of store being studied, e.g., grocery, clothing, electronics. The short blanks in #1 and #3 should be filled with the unique name of the focal store or retail chain, e.g., Kroger, Macy’s, Best Buy.

321

MALICIOUS INTENT BY EMPLOYEES The scale has three statements that measure a customer’s belief that one or more employees of a retail establishment had ill-will toward him/her and wanted to harm him/her in some way.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 4 by Ashley and Noble (2014). The authors slightly adapted a scale that had been used by CrossLey (2009) to measure the construct (malicious intent) in an organizational context.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .84 in Study 4 (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement model used in Study 4 and the conclusion was that it fit the data well. For all reflective scales in the model, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to malicious intent, the AVE was .64.

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Crossley, Craig D. (2009), “Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Social Undermining: A Closer Look at Perceived Offender Motives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (1), 14–24. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. To what extent did the employee(s) have it out for you personally? 2. To what extent did the employee(s) dislike you? 3. To what extent was the employee(s) trying to attack you personally?

-------------1. According to Noble (2015), the following response anchors were used with the items: to a very little extent (1) and to a very large extent (5).

322

MARKET DYNAMISM How much change a person believes there to be in the market for a particular product category in terms of the products available, the promotion conducted, and consumer preferences is measured using four, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) was not stated. In the studies by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015), the scale was used in an experiment (Study 5b). Data were collected from 96 undergraduates in the U.S. who were assigned to one of two conditions. Participants read an article about the dynamism of the U.S. printer market and then filled out the scale (below) as a manipulation check.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .92 (Kim and Lakshmanan 2015, p. 105).

VALIDITY: Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, since the measure was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was shown to be successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Kim, Junghan (2016), personal correspondence. Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Product models change . . . Consumer’s preferences for features change . . . Selling strategies change . . . Promotion/advertising strategies change . . .

-------------1. The phrasing of the items was clarified by Kim (2016). The extreme anchors of the response scale were very slowly (1) and very quickly (7). The product category is not mentioned in the items themselves and should be clearly identified in the instructions or by some other means.

323

MATERIALISM (PARENT) The scale uses three, five-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s beliefs about the level of materialism of one of his/her parents. (The scale is completed twice if assessment of both parents’ materialism is of interest.)

ORIGIN: Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale in Study 2 of the three discussed in their article. Although not stated explicitly, the scale appears to have been developed by the authors. Each of the three items composing the scale are intended to represent one of the three facets of materialism (e.g., Richins 2004).

RELIABILITY: The scale was completed by participants for both their mothers and their fathers (if they had contact with them). The alphas were .80 and .87 for beliefs about the materialism of their mothers and their fathers, respectively.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Richins and Chaplin (2015).

REFERENCES: Richins, Marsha L. (2004), "The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 209-219. Richins, Marsha L. and Lan Nguyen Chaplin (2015), "Material Parenting: How the Use of Goods in Parenting Fosters Materialism in the Next Generation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1333-1357.

ITEMS:1 When I was growing up . . . 1. My _____ liked to buy things that other people noticed or admired. 2. Buying things seemed to bring my _____ a lot of pleasure. 3. Having money and a lot of things were important to my _____.

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with a generic term for the focal parent, e.g., mother, father.

324

MIND WANDERING DURING A TASK During a particular task, how much a person’s mind was wandering and thinking about other things is measured with three, five-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in the pretest (n = 65) for Study 4 by Rahinel and Ahluwalia (2015) and was original to the authors (Rahinel 2016).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .79 (Rahinel and Ahluwalia 2015, p. 225).

VALIDITY: Although Rahinel and Ahluwalia (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity, they did indicate it was used as a manipulation check. Since the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Ryan Rahinel (2016), personal correspondence. Rahinel, Ryan and Rohini Ahluwalia (2015), "Attention Modes and Price Importance: How Experiencing and Mind-Wandering Influence the Prioritization of Changeable Stimuli," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 214-234.

ITEMS:1 1. During the _____ task you just completed, how much did you think about things in the past or future? 2. During the _____ task you just completed, how much did you think about things you could be doing otherwise? 3. During the _____ task you just completed, how much did you let your mind wander to other things?

-------------1. The items were provided by Rahinel (2016). If needed, the name for the task can be placed in the blanks. The anchors used on the response scale with these items were not at all (1) and a lot (5). Participants were instructed to indicate how much their minds wandered during the task (Rahinel and Ahluwalia 2015, p. 225).

325

MONEY SAVING BEHAVIORS A person’s likelihood of engaging in behaviors that could reduce his/her spending and save money is measured using eight, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015) used the scale in Study 4. Data were gathered from 257 undergraduate students. The items for the scale came from Bayuk, Janiszewski, and LeBoeuf (2010) who reported them being used in several studies. It does not appear in those studies, however, that the items were combined into a scale.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .73 when used by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015, p. 508).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015).

REFERENCES: Bayuk, Julia Belyavsky, Chris Janiszewski, and Robyn A. LeBoeuf (2010), “Letting Good Opportunities Pass Us By: Examining the Role of Mind-Set during Goal Pursuit,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (December), 570–583. Salerno, Anthony (2016), personal correspondence. Salerno, Anthony, Juliano Laran, and Chris Janiszewski (2015), "Pride and Regulatory Behavior: The Influence of Appraisal Information and Self-Regulatory Goals," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 499-514.

ITEMS:1 What is the likelihood of using the following budgeting method: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

When shopping, purchase more groceries that are on sale that week. Cook at home more. Limit dining in restaurants. Donate old clothing to get a tax break. Stockpile when nonperishable groceries are on sale. Combine errands in one trip to save money on gas. Decrease how much you purchase on impulse. Significantly decrease how much new clothing you purchase. 326

-------------1. The items and scale stem were provided by Salerno (2016). The extreme anchors for the response scale were not at all likely to use this method (1) and very likely to use this method (7).

327

MOOD (GLOBAL) How a person reports feeling (affectively) is measured with six, nine-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Lisjak et al. (2015) used the scale in Experiments 1 and 2 of the four reported in the article. No source was identified. The authors used the scale with participants after they completed a task to determine if two kinds of threats had significantly different effects on mood.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 in both Experiment 1 and 2 (Lisjak et al. 2015, p. 1189, 1192).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Lisjak et al. (2015) but, see below.

COMMENTS: It is curious that eight of the verbal anchors listed below were used in Experiment 3A to create uni-polar scales (Lisjak et al. 2015, p. 1194). Specifically, uncomfortable, bothered, tense, and uneasy composed one scale while comfortable, calm, relaxed, and laid-back composed another. Both had alphas of .94. Support for this approach was based on the factor analysis which showed there were two factors. This raises the question of whether it is better to use two uni-polar scales or one bi-polar scale?

REFERENCES: Lisjak, Monika, Andrea Bonezzi, Soo Kim, and Derek D. Rucker (2015), "Perils of Compensatory Consumption: Within-Domain Compensation Undermines Subsequent Self-Regulation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1186-1203.

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

bad mood / good mood sad / happy uncomfortable / comfortable bothered / calm uneasy / laid back tense / relaxed 328

MORALITY How innocent and wholesome a person is judged to be is measured with four uni-polar items and a seven-point Likert-type response format.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) in Study 2 with 138 adults recruited from the University of Alberta’s online panel. As used by the authors, the scale measured the perceived goodness of a young girl based on photos (with attractiveness manipulated) as well as descriptions of how she had suffered in some way. The authors did not indicate the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 (Fisher and Ma 2014, p. 442).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Fisher and Ma (2014).

REFERENCES: Fisher, Robert J. (2015), personal correspondence. Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

pure innocent wholesome good

-------------1. According to Fisher (2015), the scale stem that he and his co-author used with these items was “The child in the photo is . . . .” A seven-point response format was used and the extreme anchors were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

329

MORALITY Twelve, seven-point, uni-polar items are used to describe how much a person’s moral character is characterized by traits such as altruism, sincerity, and purity.

ORIGIN: Berman et al. (2015) used the scale in several of the seven studies reported in their article. Another study of theirs was the implied source of the scale (Barasch et al. 2014).

RELIABILITY: Specific alphas for the scale were reported by Berman et al. (2015) for four of the studies and ranged from .86 (Study 4) to .92 (Study 1a).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Berman et al. (2015).

REFERENCES: Barasch, Alixandra, Emma Levine, Jonathan Z. Berman, and Deborah A. Small (2014), “Selfish or Selfless? On the Signal Value of Emotion in Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107 (3), 393–413. Berman, Jonathan Z., Emma E. Levine, Alixandra Barasch, and Deborah A. Small (2015), "The Braggart's Dilemma: On the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 90-104.

ITEMS:1 1. moral 2. nice 3. altruistic 4. good 5. sincere 6. pure 7. immoral (r) 8. mean (r) 9. selfish (r) 10. bad (r) 11. insincere (r) 12. impure (r)

-------------1. The anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and extremely (7).

330

NEED FOR COGNITION With five, six-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person tends to process information such that it is conscious, intentional, analytic, and relatively affect free.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Epstein et al. (1996) to be a subscale of the RationalExperiential Inventory (REI). A long version of REI was used in Study 1, with 19 items for measuring need for cognition (NFC) being drawn from the 45 item scale by Cacioppo and Petty (1982). In Study 2 by Epstein et al. (1996), a much shorter version of the REI was used. For the NFC subscale, 5 items from the long version were used, with four of them being rewritten for brevity and clarity. The alpha of the scale was .73 and its correlation with the long version in Study 1 was .90 (p. 398). A factor analysis between the 5 items in the NFC subscale and the other subscale (faith in tuition) showed clearly that the items intended to measure the two constructs not only loaded strongly and together on their respective factors but had low loadings on the other subscale. This and other evidence provided by the authors provided support for the reliability and validity of the 5 item measure of NFC. Hsee et al. (2015) used the scale in “sample 9” as part of the process of examining the validity of another scale (lay rationalism) developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: With sample 9 of the studies conducted by Hsee et al. (2015, p. 139), the alpha for the NFC scale was .82.

VALIDITY: The validity of the NFC scale was not directly examined by Hsee et al. (2015). However, as noted above, it was used with several other scales to examine the validity of another scale being developed by the authors: lay rationalism. The correlation between need for cognition and lay rationalism was low (.18) but significant which suggests that the scales measured distinct but related constructs.

REFERENCES: Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), "The Need for Cognition," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1), 116-131.

331

Epstein, Seymour, Rosemary Pacini, Veronika Denes-Raj, and Harriet Heier (1996), “Individual Differences in Intuitive and Analytical Information Processing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390–405. Hsee, Christopher K., Yang Yang, Xingshan Zheng, and Hanwei Wang (2015), "Lay Rationalism: Individual Differences in Using Reason Versus Feelings to Guide Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 134-146.

ITEMS:1 1. I don't like to have to do a lot of thinking. (r) 2. I try to avoid situations that require thinking in depth about something. (r) 3. I prefer to do something that challenges my thinking abilities rather than something that requires little thought. 4. I prefer complex to simple problems. 5. Thinking hard and for a long time about something gives me little satisfaction. (r)

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (6) (Hsee et al. 2015, p. 137).

332

NEED FOR HELP (PERSON) How urgent and crucial a person’s need appears to be is assessed in this scale by four phrases and a seven-point Likert-type response format.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) in Studies 2, 3, and 4. As used by the authors, the scale measured the perceived neediness of a child based on photos as well as descriptions of how they had suffered in some way. The authors did not indicate the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale reported by Fisher and Ma (2014) were .95 (Study 2) and .97 (Studies 3 and 4).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Fisher and Ma (2014).

REFERENCES: Fisher, Robert J. (2015), personal correspondence. Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

needs help immediately requires assistance now has a severe need has a pressing need to be sponsored

-------------1. According to Fisher (2015), the scale stem that he and his co-author used with these items was “To what extent do you think that the child . . . .” A seven-point response format was used and the extreme anchors were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

333

NEED FOR UNIQUENESS (GENERAL) A person’s desire to be distinct from others and to do things that make one’s self different is measured with three, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in three experiments conducted by Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014). The studies were conducted in China with undergraduate students but the article did not state the language in which the scale and the rest of the survey instrument was phrased. The source of the scale is unclear. The authors implied that they took the scale from work by Lynn and Harris (1997). Although the latter examined the need for uniqueness, the scale used was one by Snyder and Fromkin (1977, 1980) and the items (shown below) are not part of that scale.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94, .87, and .95 in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 by Wan, Xu, and Ding 2014), respectively.

VALIDITY: Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Lynn, Michael, and Judy Harris (1997), “The Desire for Unique Consumer Products: A New Individual Differences Scale,” Psychology and Marketing, 14 (September), 601–616. Snyder, C. R. and Howard L. Fromkin (1977), "Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86 (5), 518-527. Snyder, C. R. (1980), Uniqueness, New York: Plenum Press. Wan, Echo Wen, Jing Xu, and Ying Ding (2014), "To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 11091122.

ITEMS: 1. Being distinctive is important to me. not at all / extremely 2. I intentionally do things to make myself different from those around me. never / always 3. I have a need for uniqueness. weak / very strong 334

NEGOTIATION POWER (CUSTOMER WITH SALESPERSON) A customer’s opinion of the influence he/she had to negotiate the purchase price with a salesperson in a particular situation is measured with three, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 4 of the four discussed in their article. Analysis was based on data from 138 participants recruited on a college campus. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .76 in Study 4 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, web appendix, p. 6).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) but they did provide the scale’s AVE: .53.

REFERENCES: Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

ITEMS: 1. The salesperson had all of the negotiation power / I had all of the negotiation power 2. I did not have much power to negotiate about the price / I had much power to negotiate about the price 3. The salesperson had a stronger starting position for a price negotiation / I had a stronger starting position for a price negotiation

335

NEUTRAL (STATE) The three item, seven-point scale measures the extent to which a person is in a state of indifference and lacks any particular emotion at that point in time.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in a pilot test prior to Study 4 (n = 147 college students). The source of the scale was not explicitly stated. The authors say that they used items reported in the literature.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015, p. 666).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015). However, because the scale was used as a sort of manipulation check and the manipulation was successful (p. 666), it provides some limited evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673.

ITEMS:1 1. neutral 2. unemotional 3. indifferent

-------------1. The instructions used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) with this scale were not explicitly stated in the article. Generally, they asked participants to indicate the extent to which they experienced particular feelings while watching an advertisement. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were did not experience at all (1) and experienced very intensely (7).

336

NORM REASONABILITY Four, seven-point Likert-type items measure to what degree a person believes that a social standard of a particular group of people makes sense and is of benefit to them. The norm is not stated in the items themselves and must be provided to participants some way.

ORIGIN: Warren and Campbell (2014) created the scale and used it in Study 2 (n = 196). They called the scale legitimacy and used it with reference to a fictional city-state called Ballai.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 (Warren 2015).

VALIDITY: The scale was created quickly for purposes of the study and was not validated (Warren 2015).

REFERENCES: Warren, Caleb (2015), personal correspondence. Warren, Caleb and Margaret C. Campbell (2014), "What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived Coolness," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 543563.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The norm seems reasonable. There is a good reason for people to follow this norm. The norm seems beneficial for the __________.2 In general, the norm seems legitimate.

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with the response scale appear to have been the typical strongly disagree / strongly agree (Warren 2015). 2. The name of the social group of interest should be placed in the blank. The phrase “Ballai society” was used by Warren and Campbell (2014).

337

NOVELTY OF THE ADVERTISED PRODUCT Three, seven-point semantic differentials are used to measure whether the product featured in an ad is considered fresh and new or old and routine.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale used by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) was not stated. However, two of the items are in common with a five-item measure of dress design novelty by Cox and Cox (2002). In the studies by Kim and Lakshmanan (2015), the scale was used with respect to the following products: smartphone (Studies 1, 2, and 5a), a tablet (Study 3), a digital camera (Study 4), and a printer (Study 5b).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale ranged from .73 (Study 4, n= 75) to .88 (Study 3, n = 117).

VALIDITY: Because of concern about the scale’s discriminant validity with respect to the measure of a somewhat similar construct (product atypicality), Kim and Lakshmanan (2015) conducted a couple of tests. Using CFA and pooling data across multiple studies (n = 883), the results of the tests supported a claim of discriminant validity.

REFERENCES: Cox, Dena S. and Anthony D. Cox (2002), “Beyond First Impressions: The Effects of Repeated Exposure on Consumer Liking of Visually Complex and Simple Product Designs,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (2), 119-130. Kim, Junghan and Arun Lakshmanan (2015), "How Kinetic Property Shapes Novelty Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 94-111.

ITEMS: In my opinion, the product in the ad is . . . 1. old / new 2. familiar / novel 3. routine / fresh

338

ORGANIC FOOD’S NATURAL CONTENT The belief that organic foods do not contain unnatural ingredients and chemicals is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale seems to have been used by Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) just in Study 1. The sample for that study was 302 adult members of an online panel living in the United States. The authors drew key phrases for the items from a scale called natural content by Lockie et al. (2004, p. 138).

RELIABILITY: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) reported the alpha for the scale to be .92.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) tested their measurement model, concluded that it adequately fit the data, and found support for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. In particular, the AVE for the natural content scale was .79.

REFERENCES: Kareklas, Ioannis, Jeffrey R. Carlson, and Darrel D. Muehling (2014), "'I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours': Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 18-32. Lockie, Stewart, Kristen Lyons, Geoffrey Lawrence, and Janet Grice (2004), “Choosing Organics: A Path Analysis of Factors Underlying the Selection of Organic Food among Australian Consumers,” Appetite, 43 (2), 135–146.

ITEMS: 1. I believe that organic food does not contain any additives. 2. I believe that organic food does not contain any artificial ingredients. 3. I believe that organic food does not contain any chemical and hormone residues.

339

ORGANIC FOOD’S NUTRITIONAL VALUE With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s belief that organic food is more nutritious than conventional food.

ORIGIN: The scale seems to have been used by Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) just in Study 1. The sample for that study was 302 adult members of an online panel living in the United States. The authors drew key phrases for the items from a scale called health by Lockie et al. (2004, p. 138).

RELIABILITY: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) reported the alpha for the scale to be .93.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) tested their measurement model, concluded that it adequately fit the data, and found support for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. In particular, the AVE for the nutritional value scale was .81.

REFERENCES: Kareklas, Ioannis, Jeffrey R. Carlson, and Darrel D. Muehling (2014), "'I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours': Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 18-32. Lockie, Stewart, Kristen Lyons, Geoffrey Lawrence, and Janet Grice (2004), “Choosing Organics: A Path Analysis of Factors Underlying the Selection of Organic Food among Australian Consumers,” Appetite, 43 (2), 135–146.

ITEMS: 1. I believe that organic food contains more vitamins and minerals than conventional food. 2. I believe that organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. 3. I believe that organic food is higher in protein than conventional food.

340

OTHER PERSON’S CONFIDENCE A person’s opinion of the self-confidence and assertiveness of another person is measure in this scale using three, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Wang and Griskevicius (2014) used the scale in Study 5 with 177 female participants recruited from MTurk. The origin of the scale was not stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .82 (Wang and Griskevicius 2014, p. 844).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by the Wang and Griskevicius (2014).

REFERENCES: Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), "Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 834-854.

ITEMS:1 1. How confident do you think __________ is?

2. How assertive do you think this __________ is? 3. How dominant do you think this __________is?

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not at all (1) and very much (7). Wang and Griskevicius (2014) filled the blanks with the phrase “this woman,” referring to a person in the scenario read by participants. A variety of other terms could be placed in the blanks, e.g., the salesperson, your best friend, the person in the ad.

341

OTHER PERSON’S GOODWILL The degree to which a person considers another person to be friendly and caring about him/herself (the person completing the scale) is measured with five, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) in Experiment 2 with analysis based on 240 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Three of the items were taken from a measure of goodwill by McCroskey and Teven (1999). The scale was one of several measures used by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) to determine if anthropomorphized messengers were viewed differently than a human messenger.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .75 (Touré-Tillery and McGill 2015, p. 101).

VALIDITY: Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: McCroskey, James C. and Jason J. Teven (1999), “Goodwill: A Reexamination of the Construct and Its Measurement,” Communication Monographs, 66 (1), 90–103. Touré-Tillery, Maferima and Ann L. McGill (2015), "Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers," Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 94-110.

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

cold / warm does not care about me / cares about me unfriendly / friendly self-centered / not self-centered does not have my interest[s] at heart / has my interest[s] at heart

-------------1. The instructions used with these items were not stated by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015). The authors appear to have asked participants to use these items and those from some other scales to evaluate the credibility of “the messenger” in the print ad they were exposed to.

342

OTHER PERSON’S SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY With eight, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures various socially-related characteristics of a person, with an emphasis on how pro- or anti-social the individual is viewed as being.

ORIGIN: Jin and Phua (2014) used the scale in experiment 2 as a manipulation check. They gathered data from 157 female students at a major university in the Southeastern United States. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .97 (Jin and Phua 2014, p. 191).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Jin and Phua (2014). However, as noted above, the scale was used as a manipulation check. To the extent that the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Jin, Seung-A Annie and Joe Phua (2014), "Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 181-195.

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

Bad / Good Antisocial / Prosocial Disrespectable / Respectable Socially unacceptable / Socially desirable Unethical / Ethical Immoral / Moral Disgraceful / Graceful Dishonorable / Honorable

343

OTHERS-FOCUSED EXPERIENCE The scale uses four, five-point items to measure how much a person experienced something with other people rather than alone.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) used the scale in Studies 3A (n = 249). Participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The items used to measure how much an experience was shared with others were among 39 drawn from a number of relevant sources that were thought to be useful in differentiating between ordinary and extraordinary experiences. The results of an EFA showed there were 10 clear factors, one of them composed of the four items shown below.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .76 (Bhattacharjee and Mogilner 2014, p. 10).

VALIDITY: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit and Cassie Mogilner (2014), "Happiness from Ordinary and Extraordinary Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 1-17.

ITEMS:1 To what extent would you describe the experience as follows? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Focused on connecting with other people Experienced with others I know well Solitary (r) Experienced alone (r)

-------------1. The anchors used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) with these items were not at all (1), a little (2), moderately (3), quite a bit (4), and very much (5). The exact phrasing of the items, the scale stem, and the response format were clarified by Bhattacharjee (2015).

344

PARENTAL STYLE (REJECTION) The scale uses three, five-point items to measure how much a child believes a parent was disappointed with him/her and too busy to spend time together.

ORIGIN: Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3 discussed in the article. The authors appear to have developed the scale by drawing on concepts found in the work of Darling and Toyokawa (1997), Greenberger and Chen (1996), as well as Rohner (2004).

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Richins and Chaplin (2015) in Studies 1-3, information about its internal consistency was only provided for Study 2 (n = 261 North American members of a consumer panel). The scale’s alphas in Study 2 were measured for participants with respect to their memories of experiences with their mothers and fathers (separately) for three points in time during their childhood. The alphas ranged from .76 to .81.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed per se by Richins and Chaplin (2015). However, in their discussion of Study 1 results, they discussed what they referred to as “measure reliability.” That amounted to a comparison of the scores on the rejection scale between adult children and their parents. To the extent that the scores were statistically significant (weighted kappa), that could be interpreted as some evidence of the scale’s convergent validity.

COMMENTS: Although Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale with respect to a mother or father, it seems possible that the scale could be used with someone else such as a grandmother, foster parent, aunt, etc. Of course, retesting and confirmation of the scale’s psychometric quality should be conducted before the modified scale is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Darling, Nancy, and Teru Toyokawa (1997), “Construction and Validation of the Parenting Style Inventory (PSI-II): Revised Edition,” unpublished manuscript, Psychology Department, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074. 345

Greenberger, Ellen, and Chuansheng Chen (1996), “Perceived Family Relationships and Depressed Mood in Early and Late Adolescence: A Comparison of European and Asian Americans,” Developmental Psychology, 32 (4), 707–716. Richins, Marsha L. and Lan Nguyen Chaplin (2015), "Material Parenting: How the Use of Goods in Parenting Fosters Materialism in the Next Generation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1333-1357. Rohner, Ronald P. (2004), “The Parental ‘Acceptance-Rejection Syndrome’: Universal Correlates of Perceived Rejection,” American Psychologist, 59 (November), 830–840.

ITEMS:1 1. My _____ seemed to be disappointed in me. 2. My _____ was too busy to spend time with me. 3. I tried to avoid my _____.

-------------1. Richins and Chaplin (2015) filled the blanks with either “mother” or “father.” The verbal anchors for the response scale were almost never, rarely, sometimes, often, very often.

346

PARENTAL STYLE (WARMTH) The degree to which a child believes his/her relationship with a parent to be (or have been) encouraging and comforting is measured with four, five-point items.

ORIGIN: Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 3 discussed in the article. The authors appear to have developed the scale by drawing on items and concepts found in Darling and Toyokawa (1997), Greenberger and Chen (1996), as well as Rohner (2004).

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Richins and Chaplin (2015) in Studies 1-3, information about its internal consistency was only provided for Study 2 (n = 261 North American members of a consumer panel). The scale’s alphas in Study 2 were measured for participants with respect to their memories of experiences with their mothers and fathers (separately) for three points in time during their childhood. The alphas ranged from .93 to .95.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed per se by Richins and Chaplin (2015). However, in their discussion of Study 1 results, they discussed what they referred to as “measure reliability.” That amounted to a comparison of the scores on the warmth scale between adult children and their parents. To the extent that the scores were statistically significant (weighted kappa), that could be interpreted as some evidence of the scale’s convergent validity.

COMMENTS: Although Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale with respect to a mother or father, it seems possible that the scale could be used with someone else such as a grandmother, foster parent, aunt, etc. Of course, retesting and confirmation of the scale’s psychometric quality should be conducted before the modified scale is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Darling, Nancy, and Teru Toyokawa (1997), “Construction and Validation of the Parenting Style Inventory (PSI-II): Revised Edition,” unpublished manuscript, Psychology Department, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074. 347

Greenberger, Ellen, and Chuansheng Chen (1996), “Perceived Family Relationships and Depressed Mood in Early and Late Adolescence: A Comparison of European and Asian Americans,” Developmental Psychology, 32 (4), 707–716. Richins, Marsha L. and Lan Nguyen Chaplin (2015), "Material Parenting: How the Use of Goods in Parenting Fosters Materialism in the Next Generation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1333-1357. Rohner, Ronald P. (2004), “The Parental ‘Acceptance-Rejection Syndrome’: Universal Correlates of Perceived Rejection,” American Psychologist, 59 (November), 830–840.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

My _____ was a source of encouragement to me. When I needed it, my _____ was a source of comfort to me. When I did well, my _____ praised my accomplishments or behavior. My _____ and I did fun things together.

-------------1. Richins and Chaplin (2015) filled the blanks with either “mother” or “father.” The verbal anchors for the response scale were almost never, rarely, sometimes, often, very often.

348

PATRONAGE REDUCTION With three statements, the scale measures a customer’s regret for having patronized a certain retailer because of a bad experience there and the intention to reduce visits to the establishment if not stopping all together.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2, 3, and 4. They referred to the construct as abandonment. The authors created the scale for use in the studies and drew ideas from a similar scale by Gregoire and Fisher (2006).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .87, .78, and .90 in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models had good fit. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to patronage reduction, the AVEs were .69 (Study 2), .54 (Study 3), and .75 (Study 4).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Grégoire, Yany and Robert J. Fisher (2006), “The Effects of Relationship Quality on Customer Retaliation,” Marketing Letters, 17 (January), 31–46. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. Based on my experience, I will _____ less at this _____. 2. Based on my experience, I will not return to this _____. 3. If I could do it again, I would have _____ at a different _____.

-------------1. Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items. The type of activity that the participant was engaging in should be stated in the first blanks of #1 and #3, e.g., shop, eat, exercise. All of the other blanks should be filled with a name for the type of facility the participant was in, e.g., store, restaurant, fitness center.

349

PERSONALITY ADJUSTABILITY The belief that one can change his/her personal traits is measured with three, sevenpoint Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used as a manipulation check in Experiment 1 of the three conducted by Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014). The sample was composed of 118 undergraduate students attending Peking University. The article did not identify the language in which the scale and the rest of the survey instrument was phrased.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .82 (Wan, Xu, and Ding 2014, p. 1112).

VALIDITY: Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, since the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, that provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Wan, Echo Wen, Jing Xu, and Ying Ding (2014), "To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 11091122.

ITEMS: 1. I believe my personal traits can be changed. 2. I think I can change my personality through some efforts. 3. It is impossible for me to change my personality. (r)

350

PLACE ATTACHMENT The scale has four, seven-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a person has an affective connection to a particular location-based place.

ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) and used in Study 1 (n = 196 undergraduate students) as well as Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community). The authors engaged in a commendable series of steps to construct this scale and some companion measures by clearly specifying the domains, generating items with focus groups as well as experts, and by adapting items from related scales. With multiple samples, the scale was purified for the main study.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .79 in Study 1. (Although the scale was used in Study 2, information about its reliability was not stated.)

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and the others in Study 1. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for this scale in particular was .50.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with retail establishments, the items appear to be easily adaptable for use with other places that can be location-specific such universities, churches, museums, and parks.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS:1 1. I really miss this _____ when I am away too long. 2. This _____ reminds me of memories and experiences. 3. I am very attached to this _____. 351

4. I can’t imagine living without this _____.

-------------1. The anchors used on the response scale with these items were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). A generic name for the focal place should be placed in the blanks. The generic place names used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) were “bar” and “club.”

352

PLACE ATTACHMENT (PHYSICAL) The strength of a person’s emotional bond to a physical place is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale is intended to measure attachment to the physical aspect of the place rather than attachment to the people who come there.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community). A very similar measure was developed for use in Study 1 but the scale used in Study 2 (shown below) appears to have been created to place greater emphasis on the physicality of the place. Additionally, the authors developed a scale to measure attachment to the people who frequent the place. Thus, in Study 2, the authors were able to capture two forms of place attachment: physical and social.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .95.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and several others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .84.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items appear to be easily adaptable for use with other retail as well as non-retail places as long as they have some physical quality to which people could become attached.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS: 1. I can’t imagine living without this physical place. 353

2. I feel better if am not away from this physical location for long periods of time. 3. If this physical place were permanently gone from my life, I’d be upset. 4. Never being able to come here would be distressing to me.

354

PLACE ATTACHMENT (SOCIAL) Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the strength of a person’s emotional bond to the people associated with a specific place. To be clear, the scale is intended to measure attachment to the people who come to a place or, possibly, work there rather than attachment to the physical dimension of the place.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community).

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .98.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and several others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .92.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items appear to be easily adaptable for use with other retail as well as non-retail places as long as they have some social quality to which people could become attached.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I can’t imagine living without the people that come to this place. I feel better if am not away from the people in this place for long periods of time. If the people in this place were permanently gone from my life, I’d be upset. Never being able to interact with the people here would be distressing to me. 355

PLACE DEPENDENCE The degree to which a patron believes a certain place serves his/her goals better than the available alternatives is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 1 (n = 196) and 2 (n = 907). The authors engaged in a commendable series of steps to construct this scale and some companion measures by clearly specifying the domains, generating items with focus groups as well as experts, and by adapting items from related scales. With multiple samples, the scales were purified for the main studies.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliabilities for the scale to be .85 and .93 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: In both studies, Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) used CFA to test the psychometric quality of this scale and the others in their studies. The models had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. The AVEs for this scale were .53 (Study 1) and .73 (Study 2).

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with retail establishments, the items seem to be flexible enough for use with non-retail places, e.g., churches, museums, parks.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I get more satisfaction out of going here than I do from going to any other _____. I enjoy going out here more than I do any other _____. I would not substitute any other _____ for the type of experience I have here. For me, this is the best of all possible _____s to patronize. 356

5. Going here is more important to me than going any other place.2

-------------1. A generic name for the focal place should be placed in the blanks. The generic place names apparently used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) were bar, club, and restaurant. 2. In Study 2, Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) appear to have replaced the word “going” with “eating out.”

357

PLACE DISTINCTION With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes a particular place is unique in the sense that it has distinctive characteristics not found in other places it might be compared to.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community).

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .91.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and several others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .72.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items could be used with other retail or non-retail places.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

This This This This

place place place place

is unique. has distinctive features that are not offered anywhere else. offers something different than the norm. is the only one of its kind.

358

PLACE IDENTITY The scale has six, seven-point Likert-type items that measure a person’s identification with a place, such as a retail establishment.

ORIGIN: The scale was developed by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 1 (n = 196) and 2 (n = 907). The authors engaged in a commendable series of steps to construct this scale and some companion measures by clearly specifying the domains, generating items with focus groups as well as experts, and by adapting items from related scales. With multiple samples, the scales were purified for the main studies.

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliabilities for the scale to be .89 and .93 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: In both studies, Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) used CFA to test the psychometric quality of this scale and the others in their studies. The models had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. The AVEs for this scale in particular were .59 (Study 1) and .68 (Study 2).

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with retail establishments, the items seem to be flexible enough for use with other places, e.g., universities, churches, and museums.

REFERENCES: Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

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

I identify strongly with this _____. This _____ is representative of who I am. This _____ is a reflection of me. Visiting this _____ says a lot about who I am. I can relate to this _____. 359

6. I feel like I “fit in” at this _____.

-------------1. A generic name for the focal place should be placed in the blanks. The generic place names apparently used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) were bar, club, and restaurant.

360

PLACE NOSTALGIA The extent to which a person has a positive sentimental attachment to a particular place due to some event(s) that occurred there is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community). The authors drew inspiration for the scale from measures used by Ball and Tasaki (1992).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s attenuated reliability was .95 (Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees 2015).

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and several others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .82.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items could be used with a wide variety retail or non-retail places.

REFERENCES: Ball, A. Dwayne and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), “The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (2), 155–172. Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS: 1. This place makes me feel sentimental or nostalgic. 2. This place reminds me of past accomplishments or other important events in my life. 3. When I think about this place, I am reminded about good things that have happened in my life. 4. When I am at this place, I reminisce about good events from my past. 361

POPULARITY OF THE NEW PRODUCT The anticipated popularity of a new product and the interest among consumers in purchasing it is measured with three, seven-point questions.

ORIGIN: Ma, Yang, and Mourali (2014) used the scale in Study 4a with 140 adults recruited from an online panel in the U.S. (Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk). The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .75 (Ma, Yang, and Mourali 2014, 112).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale’s validity was provided by Ma, Yang, and Mourali (2014).

REFERENCES: Ma, Zhenfeng, Zhiyong Yang, and Mehdi Mourali (2014), "Consumer Adoption of New Products: Independent versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives," Journal of Marketing, 78 (2), 101-117.

ITEMS:1 1. How popular do you expect the new _____ to be after it is introduced? 2. How interested do you expect other consumers to be in buying the _____? 3. How many people do you think would be willing to buy the _____?

-------------1. Paraphrased versions of these questions were provided in the article by Ma, Yang, and Mourali (2014, p. 112). These items are educated guesses of the original questions given to participants. The blanks should be filled with the name of the product category, e.g., cars. The extreme anchors used with the items were a few (1) and a lot (7).

362

POWER (SOCIAL) The belief in one’s ability to influence another person or group is measured with eight statements. To be clear, the scale does not explicitly measure one’s use of power but rather the confidence that one has it and can use it.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale is Anderson and Galinsky (2006). They referred to it as Sense of Power. It has tended to have high internal consistency and there is evidence of its nomological validity (Anderson, John, and Keltner 2012). May and Monga (2014) used the scale in five of the studies reported in their article. The scale was used by Jin, He, and Zhang (2014) in Study 2 of the five discussed in their article. Data were collected from 155 undergraduate students from a university in China. The language in which the survey instrument was administered was not stated.

RELIABILITY: As used by Jin, He, and Zhang (2014) in Study 2, the alpha for the scale was .82. Among the five uses of the scale by May and Monga (2014), the alphas ranged from .82 to .85.

VALIDITY: Neither Jin, He, and Zhang (2014) nor May and Monga (2014) discussed the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: The phrasing used below is the generalized version of the scale. As shown in Anderson, John, and Keltner (2012, p. 344), slight changes can make the scale more specific to particular individuals or groups.

REFERENCES: Anderson, Cameron (2015), personal correspondence. Anderson, Cameron and Adam D. Galinsky (2006), “Power, Optimism, and Risk-Taking,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (4), 511–536. Anderson, Cameron, Oliver P. John, and Dacher Keltner (2012), “The Personal Sense of Power,” Journal of Personality, 80 (2), 313-344. Jin, Liyin, Yanqun He, and Ying Zhang (2014), "How Power States Influence Consumers’ Perceptions of Price Unfairness," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 818-833. 363

May, Frank and Ashwani Monga (2014), "When Time Has a Will of Its Own, the Powerless Don’t Have the Will to Wait: Anthropomorphism of Time Can Decrease Patience," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 924-942.

ITEMS:1 In my relationships with others . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I can get people to listen to what I say. My wishes do not carry much weight. (r) I can get others to do what I want. Even if I voice them, my views have little sway. (r) I think I have a great deal of power. My ideas and opinions are often ignored. (r) Even when I try, I am not able to get my way. (r) If I want to, I get to make the decisions.

-------------1. The scale is provided here with the permission of Cameron Anderson (2015). As used by Anderson, John, and Keltner (2012, p. 344), the scale was Likert-type, with seven points and anchored by disagree strongly and agree strongly. The same response format was utilized by May and Monga (2014). Jin, He, and Zhang (2014) did not describe the response format they used.

364

POWER DISTANCE The scale has three, seven-point items that measure the extent to which a person believes at a particular point in time that social equality is important.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Zhang, Winterich, and Mittal (2010) in Studies 1C and 3 as manipulation checks. Winterich and Zhang (2014) used the scale in their Study 2 as a manipulation check and in Study 5 as a measure of individual difference. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: In the studies by Zhang, Winterich, and Mittal (2010), the alphas were .91 (Study 1C) and .92 (Study 3). Winterich and Zhang (2014) reported the alphas to be .91 and .92 for Study 2 and Study 5, respectively.

VALIDITY: Neither Zhang, Winterich, and Mittal (2010) nor Winterich and Zhang (2014) addressed the scale’s validity. However, since the scale was used multiple times in their studies as a manipulation check and was found to be successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274-293. Zhang, Yinlong, Karen Page Winterich, and Vikas Mittal (2010), "Power Distance Belief and Impulsive Buying," Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 945-954.

ITEMS:1 1. For the time being, I mainly think that: 2. At this moment, I feel that: 3. On top of my mind right now are thoughts in agreement with saying that:

-------------1. The response scale used with these items had the following extreme anchors: social hierarchy is important (1) and social equality is important (7).

365

POWER FELT (STATE) The extent to which a person reports feeling powerful at a particular point in time is measured with three questions and a seven-point response format. To be clear, this is a measure of a person’s state rather than a personality trait or enduring characteristic.

ORIGIN: Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) used the scale in both a pretest (n = 61) as well as Study 3 (n = 405 people recruited from an online panel of self-identified instant coffee drinkers). The scale was created by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014) by borrowing two items from Fischer et al. (2011) and adding a third item inspired by a measure used by Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky (2011).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .91 and .87 in the pretest and Study 3, respectively (Sundar and Noseworthy 2014, pp. 144, 145).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Sundar and Noseworthy (2014). However, the scale was used in both the pretest and Study 3 as a manipulation check. To the extent that the manipulation was successful in both cases, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Fischer, Julia, Peter Fischer, Birte Englich, Nilufer Aydin, and Dieter Frey (2011), “Empower My Decisions: The Effect of Power Gestures on Confirmatory Information Processing,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1146–1154. Rucker, Derek D., David Dubois, and Adam D. Galinsky (2011), “Generous Paupers and Stingy Princes: Power Drives Consumer Spending on Self Versus Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1015–1029. Sundar, Aparna and Theodore J. Noseworthy (2014), "Place the Logo High or Low? Using Conceptual Metaphors of Power in Packaging Design," Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 138151.

ITEMS:1 1. Please indicate the extent to which you feel powerful. 2. Please indicate the extent to which you feel mighty. 3. Please indicate the extent to which you feel superior. 366

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors on the response scale that Sundar and Noseworthy (2014, p. 144) used with these items were not at all (1) and to a great extent (7).

367

POWER FROM DISTINCTIVE PRODUCTS The scale has four Likert-type items that measure a consumer’s belief that choosing unique products to own and use can provide him/her with power and influence over others.

ORIGIN: Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014) used the scale in Experiment 1 but did not indicate its source. It appears to have been original. At about the same time, Huang, Dong, and Mukhopadhyay (2014) used the scale in Study 3 of the six discussed in their article and cited Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014) as the source.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .84 and .83 in the studies by Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014, p. 1113) and Huang, Dong, and Mukhopadhyay (2014, p. 703), respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014) or Huang, Dong, and Mukhopadhyay (2014).

REFERENCES: Huang, Xun (Irene) (2015), personal correspondence. Huang, Xun (Irene), Ping Dong, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay (2014), "Proud to Belong or Proudly Different? Lay Theories Determine Contrasting Effects of Incidental Pride on Uniqueness Seeking," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 697-712. Wan, Echo Wen, Jing Xu, and Ying Ding (2014), "To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 11091122.

ITEMS:1 1. Choosing distinctive products can make me feel a sense of control. 2. Choosing distinctive products can make me feel powerful. 3. Choosing distinctive products can make me feel influential. 4. I don't believe that choosing distinctive products can enhance my influence over others. (r)

-------------1. The items were provided by Huang (2015). Although not perfectly clear, she and her co-authors appear to have used a seven-point response format while a nine-point scale was used by Wan, Xu, and Ding (2014, p. 1112).

368

POWERFULNESS The degree to which a person believes him/herself to be in control and able to get his/her way is measured with five, ten-point Likert-type items. The statements themselves are rather general and do not explicitly measure power as a trait or as a state. Instructions used with the statements can help focus participants’ attention on one versus the other type of powerfulness.

ORIGIN: Aggarwal and Zhao (2015a) used the scale in Studies 2 (n = 64), 3 (n = 107), and 5 (n = 59) reported in their article. In each case, participants were students at a North American university. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .887, .875, and .867 (Aggarwal and Zhao 2015b, pp. 4, 9, 26).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale’s validity was provided by Aggarwal and Zhao (2015a).

REFERENCES: Aggarwal, Pankaj and Min Zhao (2015a), "Seeing the Big Picture: The Effect of Height on the Level of Construal," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 120-133. Aggarwal, Pankaj and Min Zhao (2015b), "Seeing the Big Picture: The Effect of Height on the Level of Construal," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), web appendix.

ITEMS:1 Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I I I I I

am am am am get

dominant. in control. powerful. influential. my way.

-------------1. The extreme anchors used by (Aggarwal and Zhao 2015b, p. 32) with these items were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (10).

369

PREFERENCE FOR STORE BRANDS A consumer’s frequent purchase of store brands across many product categories and preference for them is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Zielke and Komor (2015) used the scale in mall-intercept surveys in Germany and Poland with the final samples having 157 and 166 respondents, respectively. Though few details were provided, it does appear that phrasing of the scale items were in the local languages with comparability being tested via the back-translation method. A replication study was also conducted with data gathered from business students from each of the two countries. Less information was provided about the scale’s psychometric quality in that study. As for the scale’s origin, the implication was that it was developed by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) as were several of the other scales used in the study. However, none of the scales developed and reported by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) are like the scale shown below. Given that, it seems likely that Zielke and Komor (2015) created the scale by drawing ideas from the many scales developed by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .95 and .93 for Germany and Poland, respectively (Zielke and Komor (2015, p. 178).

VALIDITY: A multi-group structural equation model was tested by Zielke and Komor (2015) and found to have an acceptable fit to the data. More specifically, the evidence showed that the measure of store brand preference had sufficient discriminant validity with the scales measuring the other latent constructs in the study. Further testing provided evidence for all of the scales’ configural, full metric, and partial scalar invariance. (Similar results were found in the replication study.)

REFERENCES: Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer (1993), “Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 234-245. Zielke, Stephan and Marcin Komor (2015), "Cross-National Differences in Price–Role Orientation and Their Impact on Retail Markets," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 159-180. 370

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

can choose low-priced store brands without any concerns. buy low-priced store brands in many product categories. frequently buy low-priced store brands. can recommend low-priced store brands.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not explicitly stated by Zielke and Komor (2015) but it appears to have been the German and Polish equivalents of totally disagree / totally agree.

371

PRICE BELIEVABILITY Eight, nine-point items are used to measure how much a consumer thinks that a price listed for a certain product is the actual price that will be charged by a particular retailer.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Studies 1 and 3 by Bodur, Klein, and Arora (2015). The scale was used by the authors with respect to information provided at a price comparison site. Data were gathered in Study 1 from 63 undergraduate students at a Canadian university while in Study 3 data came from 171 members of a national consumer panel. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .95 and .97 in Studies 1 and 3, respectively (Bodur, Klein, and Arora 2015, pp. 131, 134).

VALIDITY: The scale was included in the CFA conducted by Bodur, Klein, and Arora (2015) with data from Studies 1 and 3. Few details were provided but the authors reported in both cases that evidence was found in support of the scale’s discriminant validity with respect to another scale, what they referred to as “retailer quality.”

REFERENCES: Bodur, H. Onur, Noreen M. Klein, and Neeraj Arora (2015), "Online Price Search: Impact of Price Comparison Sites on Offline Price Evaluations," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 125139.

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

credible reliable trustworthy dependable attainable believable not at all the real price the retailer will charge / the real price the retailer will charge not at all the going price for the product / the going price for the product

-------------1. The verbal anchors used on the nine-point response scale with items #1 to #6 were not at all and very.

372

PRICE CONSCIOUSNESS Four, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure how much importance a consumer places on low prices when buying products. Three of the items are general with regard to product categories while one refers specifically to food.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) by borrowing three items (#1-#3) from a scale the lead author and colleagues used to measure the construct in previous research (Ailawadi, Pauwels, and Steenkamp 2008). One additional item was added by the authors to produce the four item measure. In an impressive set of studies, the scale was used along with several other consumer trait-related measures to examine temporal stability in the traits. Data were gather from 1,411 Dutch consumers over a period of 12 years. The language in which the questionnaires were phrased for respondents was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The authors provided evidence of each trait-related scale’s temporal stability based on an evaluation of configural invariance as well as the scalar invariance. With respect to the price consciousness scale, alphas over the 12 year period were rather consistent, ranging from .78 to .81 (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 293). Test-retest correlations were also examined over the 12 year period. There were 11 lag-1 test-retest correlations, 10 lag-2 correlations, 9 lag-3 correlations, and so on. The correlation between the scores on the price consciousness scale for the respondents decreased over time from .75 (comparing scores from the second year to the first) to .61 (comparing the last year to the second to last year). In total, these measures indicate the scale has adequate internal consistency and temporal stability for the long periods studied.

VALIDITY: Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) did not discuss the validity of their scales per se in these studies. Although it is likely that some validity checks were conducted, that discussion was not the purpose of this particular article.

COMMENTS: It seems odd to phrase three items generally and phrase one item (#4) specifically for a particular product category. This lowers the scale’s face validity and may lower its internal consistency. It would be best if all of the items were either general or all were specific. 373

REFERENCES: Ailawadi, Kusum L., Koen Pauwels, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2008), “Private Label Use and Store Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November), 19–30. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Alberto Maydeu-Olivares (2015), "Stability and Change in Consumer Traits: Evidence from a 12-Year Longitudinal Study, 2002–2013," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 287-308.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

For me, price is the decisive factor when buying a product. Price is important to me when I choose a product. I generally strive to buy products at the lowest price. When buying foods I do not really focus on the price.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5) (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 292).

374

PRICE FAIRNESS The reasonableness and acceptability of a price is measured with four, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto (2015) used the scale in Studies 2, 3, and 4. They borrowed a scale used previously by Bolton, Keh, and Alba (2010) and added an item.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported by Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto (2015) for the scale were .96 (Study 2) and .97 (Studies 3 and 4).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Kwak, Puzakova, and Rocereto (2015).

REFERENCES: Bolton, Lisa E., Hean Tat Keh, and Joseph W. Alba (2010), “How Do Price Fairness Perceptions Differ Across Culture?” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (June), 564–576. Kwak, Hyokjin, Marina Puzakova, and Joseph F. Rocereto (2015), "Better Not Smile at the Price: The Differential Role of Brand Anthropomorphization on Perceived Price Fairness," Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 56-76.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

unfair / fair unjust / just unreasonable / reasonable unacceptable / acceptable

-------------1. The version used by Bolton, Keh, and Alba (2010) was composed of items #1, #2, and #3.

375

PRICE LIKING How much a person likes a listed sale price is measured with three, seven-point items. The items do not specify why the consumer likes the price.

ORIGIN: Coulter and Grewal (2014) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5. They did not explicitly identify the source of the scale but instead said the items were “consistent with previous research” (p. 109). Given that, it appears that the authors created the scale by drawing some inspiration from previous research.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale in the four studies were high, ranging from .92 to .94.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Coulter and Grewal (2014).

REFERENCES: Coulter, Keith S. and Dhruv Grewal (2014), "Name-Letters and Birthday-Numbers: Implicit Egotism Effects in Pricing," Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 102-120.

ITEMS:1 1. How much did you like this price? 2. What were your feelings about the listed sale price? 3. Rate the degree that you liked this price.

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with items #1 and #2 were dislike extremely and like extremely. The anchors for item #3 were not at all and very much.

376

PRICE-QUALITY RELATIONSHIP The extent to which a consumer believes there is a strong, positive connection between the price of something and its quality is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: De Langhe et al. (2014) used the scales in Studies 1 (n = 139) and 3 (n = 184). In both studies, the experimental setting was such that participants responded to the scale in terms of “high-price” and low-price” restaurants rather than the price of a particular product. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale were .64 and .89 for Studies 1 and 3, respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by De Langhe et al. (2014).

COMMENTS: The large disparity between the reliabilities reported for the scale as used in the two studies is unusual. It is unclear why there was such a difference.

REFERENCES: De Langhe, Bart, Stijn M. J. van Osselaer, Stefano Puntoni, and Ann L. McGill (2014), "Fooled by Heteroscedastic Randomness: Local Consistency Breeds Extremity in PriceBased Quality Inferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 978-994.

ITEMS:1 1. Generally speaking, the higher the price of the _____, the higher the consumer rating. 2. Generally speaking, the lower the price of the _____, the lower the consumer rating. 3. The price of a _____ is a good indicator of its consumer rating.

-------------1. A generic name for the type of business, good, or service should be stated in the blanks. De Langhe et al. (2014), used the word “restaurant.”

377

PRIVACY CONCERNS (COMPANY’S MISUSE OF INFORMATION) With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person is bothered that a company is able to track him/her and may also misuse the information being collected.

ORIGIN: The scale is a slight adaptation of a measure created by Sheng, Nah, and Siau (2008). Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) used it in an experiment. The study was conducted at a German university with analysis based on data collected from 252 students. The focal object in the experiment was a banner ad which was personalized to various degrees for subjects.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .92 (Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015, p. 399). The authors also reported that the scale’s composite reliability was .764 for the group in which retailer trustworthiness was manipulated to be “more trusted” and the composite reliability was .777 for the group in which trustworthiness was manipulated to be “less.”

VALIDITY: Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) used CFA to examine their measures. Evidence was provided in support of each multi-item scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the privacy concerns construct, the scale’s AVEs were .735 in the “more trusted retailer” group and .751 in the “less trusted retailer” group.

REFERENCES: Bleier, Alexander and Maik Eisenbeiss (2015), "The Importance of Trust for Personalized Online Advertising," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 390-409. Sheng, Hong, Fiona F.-H. Nah, and Keng Siau (2008), “An Experimental Study on Ubiquitous Commerce Adoption: Impact of Personalization and Privacy Concerns,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9 (6), 344–376.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

It bothers me that the firm is able to track information about me. I am concerned that the firm has too much information about me. It bothers me that the firm is able to access information about me. I am concerned that my information could be used in ways I could not foresee. 378

-------------1. The company or other entity referred to in the statements should be identified in the scale stem, instructions, or context of the study. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7).

379

PRIVACY CONCERNS WITH INTERNET USAGE The scale uses four, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s concern about privacy when using the internet, with the emphasis on the misuse of information that has been submitted.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 1 and called it general concern for privacy. The scale was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method. The authors borrowed three of the items from a scale by Dinev and Hart (2006).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: While Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did provide evidence in support of its discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was good (.73).

REFERENCES: Dinev, Tamara and Paul Hart (2006), “An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for ECommerce Transactions,” Information Systems Research, 17 (1), 61–80. Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

In general, I am concerned about my privacy when using the Internet. I am concerned that information I submit on the Internet could be misused. I am concerned that a person can find private information about me on the Internet. I am concerned about submitting information on the Internet, because they could be used in a way that I cannot foresee.

380

PRIVACY OF RESPONSE A person’s belief that his/her statements regarding some issue will remain private rather than made public is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Green and Peloza (2014) used the scale in Studies 1 to 3. They created the scale based on concepts found in the work of White and Peloza (2009). In the work of the latter, beliefs about the public vs. private nature of responses were manipulated rather than being measured with a scale. In the work of Green and Peloza (2014), both were used.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .94, .97, and .97 for Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Peloza 2015).

VALIDITY: Although Green and Peloza (2014) did not examine the scale’s validity directly, some evidence comes from the fact that it was used to show that the manipulations of public/private responses in the three studies were successful. Given the success, support is provided for the scale’s predictive validity.

COMMENTS: Items #1 and #4 are phrased rather specifically due the experimental context in which they were used. To make them more amenable for use in other contexts, those items can be slightly rephrased. For example, item #4 could be “It is my understanding that my responses will not be shared with others.” The more the items are rephrased, however, the more prudent it will be to recheck the scale’s psychometric quality before it is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Green, Todd and John Peloza (2014), "Finding the Right Shade of Green: The Effect of Advertising Appeal Type on Environmentally Friendly Consumption," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 128-141. Peloza, John (2015), personal correspondence. 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.

381

ITEMS:1 1. It is (r) 2. It is 3. It is 4. It is

my impression that my responses will be shared with everyone else here today. my understanding that my responses will be made public. (r) my impression that my responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. my understanding that my responses will not be shared with others in the room.

-------------1. The verbal anchors were not stated by Green and Peloza (2014) but are assumed to have been the typical Likert-type phrases such as strongly disagree / strongly agree.

382

PRODUCT COMPONENT CENTRALITY How integral a particular product part is viewed as being to a product is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale does not measure how important a component is to a consumer’s decision but rather how much a component is considered to be a defining feature of the object.

ORIGIN: Gershoff and Frels (2015) used the scale in Study 1 of the four described in their article. In describing the scale, the authors cited Sloman, Love, and Ahn (1998) and drew inspiration for scale items from their work. The centrality scales used by Gershoff and Frels (2015) in Studies 2 and 4 were based much more closely on items by Sloman, Love, and Ahn (1998).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .90 (Gershoff and Frels 2015, p. 101).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Gershoff and Frels (2015).

REFERENCES: Gershoff, Andrew D. and Judy K. Frels (2015), "What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products," Journal of Marketing, 79 (1), 97-110. Sloman, Steven A., Bradley C. Love, and Woo-Kyoung Ahn (1998), “Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence,” Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 189–228.

ITEMS:1 1. If they changed the _____ it would change the nature of this __________. 2. If this __________ did not have this _____, how similar would it be to an ideal version of this __________? 3. How important is the _____ to this __________? 4. To what extent is the _____ a defining part of this __________?

-------------1. The generic name of the product should be placed in the longer space in each item while the shorter space should be filled with the name of the focal component. As used by Gershoff and Frels (2015) in Study 1, the product was a mattress and the component was referred to in the items as “side foam.” The response format used with the items was merely described as Likert-type which suggests the anchors were something like strongly disagree and strongly agree.

383

PRODUCT COMPONENT CENTRALITY Four, seven-point items are used to measure how much a person believes a particular product part is an integral feature of a product. To be clear, the scale measures how much a component is considered to be a defining feature of the product rather than how important the component is to a consumer’s decision.

ORIGIN: Gershoff and Frels (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 and 4. The items were adapted for two products in Study 2 (waffle and panini makers). In Study 4, versions were made for two fictional components of a product supposedly used in the plastic molding industry (a reaction probe and a perator box). The authors drew inspiration and phrasing for the basic structure of the scale questions from items created by Sloman, Love, and Ahn (1998) to measure what they called conceptual centrality, "the degree to which a feature in a concept can be transformed while maintaining the concept’s coherence" (p. 195).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .903 (waffle maker), .938 (panini maker), .884 (reaction probe), and .842 (operator box).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Gershoff and Frels (2015). However, in Studies 2 and 4 the scale was used as manipulation checks. In both cases, the manipulations were considered successful which provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Gershoff, Andrew D. and Judy K. Frels (2015), "What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products," Journal of Marketing, 79 (1), 97-110. Sloman, Steven A., Bradley C. Love, and Woo-Kyoung Ahn (1998), “Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence,” Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 189–228.

ITEMS:1 1. How surprising would it be to find a __________ without a _____? (r)2 2. How easily can you imagine a __________ without a _____? 3. How good an example of a __________ would you consider one that does not have a _____ to be? 384

4. How similar is a __________ that does not have a _____ to an ideal __________?

-------------1. The generic name of the product should be placed in the longer space in each item while the shorter space should be filled with the name of the focal component. As used by Gershoff and Frels (2015) in Study 2, for example, one of the products was a waffle maker and the component was referred to in the items as “waffle plates.” The verbal anchors used to respond to the items were not stated. It is likely they were a little different for each item and referred to some key word or phrase in the question. For example, the extreme verbal anchors used with item #1 could have been not surprising at all and very surprising. 2. Indications of reverse-coding were not provided in the article by Gershoff and Frels (2015). The indication is shown here because it appears that agreeing strongly with this statement expresses the opposite of what is stated in the other items. However, it could be affected by the scale anchors. Users of this scale should conduct tests to determine which items in the scale should be reverse-coded.

385

PRODUCT COMPONENT IMPORTANCE Using three, seven-point items, the scale measures how important a product feature is to a consumer’s evaluation of a particular product and the decision about it.

ORIGIN: Gershoff and Frels (2015) used the scale in Study 4. The items were adapted for two fictional components of a product supposedly used in the plastic molding industry (a reaction probe and an operator box). The authors drew inspiration for the items from a scale created by Sujan and Bettman (1989).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .924 (reaction probe), and .936 (operator box).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Gershoff and Frels (2015). However, the scale was used as a manipulation check with respect to both components. In both cases, the manipulations were considered successful which provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Gershoff, Andrew D. and Judy K. Frels (2015), "What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products," Journal of Marketing, 79 (1), 97-110. Sujan, Mita and James R. Bettman (1989), “The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights From Schema Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (November), 454-467.

ITEMS:1 1. How important is the _____ for your evaluation of and decision for or against the __________? 2. To what extent is the _____ a feature that you would consider in your evaluation of and decision for or against the __________? 3. How relevant or irrelevant is the _____ in your choice of a __________?

-------------1. The name of the brand and/or product should be placed in the longer space in each question while the shorter space should be filled with the name of the focal component. As used by Gershoff and Frels (2015) with one of the components in Study 4, the product was a “plastic molding monitor” and the component was a “reaction probe.” The verbal anchors used to respond to

386

the questions were not stated. It is likely they were the same or similar to the ones used by Sujan and Bettman (1989): not at all important / very important for question #1, a feature I would not consider / a feature I definitely consider for question #2, and irrelevant to my choice / very relevant to my choice for questions #3.

387

PRODUCT DESIGN (AESTHETIC) The scale is composed of three, five-point Likert-type items that measure how appealing and striking a product appears to be. Based on the current phrasing of the items, the emphasis is on the visual aspects of a product’s aesthetics.

ORIGIN: This scale, along with two companion measures, were developed in an excellent set of steps and procedures by Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl (2015a). The goal was to create an instrument that could be used to measure the three hypothesized dimensions of product design: aesthetic, functional, and symbolic. Briefly, an initial set of items were generated by some consumers and the authors. The resulting 29 items were reduced using ratings from those consumers as well as from data gathered in the first of three quantitative studies. That initial quantitative study had a final sample size of 6,418 U.S. consumers. The second and third quantitative studies were conducted with European consumers resulting in 1,083 and 583 usable questionnaires, respectively. Scale items were translated in the European studies and then checked in a back translation process.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliabilities were .92, .88, and .81 in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 46; Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015b, pp. 29, 30).

VALIDITY: Several methods were used to provide evidence in support of the validity of this scale and its companions. Briefly, Study 1 employed EFA and CFA to show that the items used to measure each of the three dimensions of product design loaded high on their respective factors. Separate tests were conducted to examine discriminant validity and found to be successful. These tests were repeated with similar results in Studies 2 and 3. Beyond that, the discriminant validity of the product design scales was examined in Study 3 with respect to a pair of scales by Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) that measure hedonic and utilitarian attitudes about products. Several models were tested and the best one showed that the dimensions represented by the five scales were distinct. With respect to the aesthetic dimension’s AVEs, they were .79, .71, and .58 in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 48; Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015b, pp. 29, 30).

COMMENTS: If the scale is to be used with non-visual aspects of a good or service then items #1 and #2 should be rephrased and the scale revalidated. 388

REFERENCES: Homburg, Christian, Martin Schwemmle, and Christina Kuehnl (2015a), "New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 41-56. Homburg, Christian, Martin Schwemmle, and Christina Kuehnl (2015b), "New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, web appendix. Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (August), 310–320.

ITEMS:1 The product . . . 1. is visually striking. 2. is good looking. 3. looks appealing.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used in Study 1 were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). It is assumed that equivalent terms were translated into the local languages for Studies 2 and 3.

389

PRODUCT DESIGN (FUNCTIONAL) With three, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s belief that a product appears to perform well and is capable of doing what it intended to do.

ORIGIN: This scale, along with two companion measures, were developed in an excellent set of steps and procedures by Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl (2015a). The goal was to create an instrument that could be used to measure the three hypothesized dimensions of product design: aesthetic, functional, and symbolic. Briefly, an initial set of items were generated by some consumers and the authors. The resulting 29 items were reduced using ratings from those consumers as well as from data gathered in the first of three quantitative studies. The initial quantitative study had a final sample size of 6,418 U.S. consumers. The second and third quantitative studies were conducted with European consumers resulting in 1,083 and 583 usable questionnaires, respectively. Scale items were translated in the European studies and then checked in a back translation process.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliabilities were .95, .91, and .86 for Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 46; Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015b, pp. 29, 30).

VALIDITY: Several methods were used to provide evidence in support of the validity of this scale and its companions. Briefly, Study 1 employed EFA and CFA to show that the items used to measure each of the three dimensions of product design loaded high on their respective factors. Separate tests were conducted to examine discriminant validity and found to be successful. These tests were repeated with similar results in Studies 2 and 3. Beyond that, the discriminant validity of the product design scales was examined in Study 3 with respect to a pair of scales by Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) that measure hedonic and utilitarian attitudes about products. Several models were tested and the best one showed that the dimensions represented by the five scales were distinct. With respect to the functional dimension’s AVEs, they were .86, .78, and .68 in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 48; Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015b, pp. 29, 30).

REFERENCES: Homburg, Christian, Martin Schwemmle, and Christina Kuehnl (2015a), "New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 41-56. 390

Homburg, Christian, Martin Schwemmle, and Christina Kuehnl (2015b), "New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, web appendix. Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (August), 310–320.

ITEMS:1 The product . . . 1. is likely to perform well. 2. seems to be capable of doing its job. 3. seems to be functional.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used in Study 1 were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). It is assumed that equivalent terms were translated into the local languages for Studies 2 and 3. The authors indicated that respondents were instructed to assess the product “only from looking at it” (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 47).

391

PRODUCT DESIGN (SYMBOLIC) A person’s belief that a product would help give him/her a distinctive image is measured using three, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: This scale, along with two companion measures, were developed in an excellent set of steps and procedures by Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl (2015a). The goal was to create an instrument that could be used to measure the three hypothesized dimensions of product design: aesthetic, functional, and symbolic. Briefly, an initial set of items were generated by some consumers and the authors. The resulting 29 items were reduced using ratings from those consumers as well as from data gathered in the first of three quantitative studies. The initial quantitative study had a final sample size of 6,418 U.S. consumers. The second and third quantitative studies were conducted with European consumers resulting in 1,083 and 583 usable questionnaires, respectively. Scale items were translated in the European studies and then checked in a back translation process.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliabilities were .93, .88, and .86 in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 46; Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015b, pp. 29, 30).

VALIDITY: Several methods were used to provide evidence in support of the validity of this scale and its companions. Briefly, Study 1 employed EFA and CFA to show that the items used to measure each of the three dimensions of product design loaded high on their respective factors. Separate tests were conducted to examine discriminant validity and found to be successful. These tests were repeated with similar results in Studies 2 and 3. Beyond that, the discriminant validity of the product design scales was examined in Study 3 with respect to a pair of scales by Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) that measure hedonic and utilitarian attitudes about products. Several models were tested and the best one showed that the dimensions represented by the five scales were distinct. With respect to the symbolic dimension’s AVEs, they were .83, .71, and .86 in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 48; Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015b, pp. 29, 30).

REFERENCES: Homburg, Christian, Martin Schwemmle, and Christina Kuehnl (2015a), "New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 41-56. 392

Homburg, Christian, Martin Schwemmle, and Christina Kuehnl (2015b), "New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, web appendix. Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (August), 310–320.

ITEMS:1 The product . . . 1. would help me in establishing a distinctive image. 2. would be helpful to distinguish myself from the mass. 3. would accurately symbolize or express my achievements.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used in Study 1 were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). It is assumed that equivalent terms were translated into the local languages for use in Studies 2 and 3. The authors indicated that respondents were instructed to assess the product “only from looking at it” (Homburg, Schwemmle, and Kuehnl 2015a, p. 47).

393

PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS (ENERGY STIMULATION) Ten, seven-point items are used to measure how effectively a product is believed to enhance physical energy and mental acuity. To answer some of the questions, the respondent must have used the product rather than merely hearing about it. The scale seems to be amenable for use with a variety of foods, beverages, drugs, and supplements which are claimed to increase one’s energy.

ORIGIN: Ilyuk, Block, and Faro (2014; Ilyuk 2015) created the scale and used it in Studies 2a (n = 36) and 2b (n = 130). Participants in both cases were students at Baruch College, City University of New York. The authors referred to the scale as general efficacy.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .95 (Study 2a) and .96 (Study 2b).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Ilyuk, Block, and Faro (2014). However, in the web appendix for the article, the authors said they conducted a factor analysis of the items in this scale and two others. Of most interest is that one of the other scales was intended to measure the duration of the product’s stimulation whereas this scale (items shown below) focused more in the degree of stimulation. Given that the items for each scale loaded on their respective factors, it provides some evidence of each scale’s unidimensionality and possibly their convergent and discriminant validities as well.

REFERENCES: Ilyuk, Veronika (2015), personal correspondence. Ilyuk, Veronika, Lauren Block, and David Faro (2014), "Is It Still Working? Task Difficulty Promotes a Rapid Wear-Off Bias in Judgments of Pharmacological Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 775-793.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

How effective is the product? Not effective at all / Very effective How powerful is the product? Not powerful at all / Very powerful How much do you think this product increases energy? Not much at all / A great deal How much do you think this product increases mental acuity? Not much at all / A great deal 5. How would you rate the quality of this product? Very poor quality / Very high quality 6. How disappointing is this product? Not disappointing at all / Very disappointing (r) 394

7. How much did this product help you understand the video? Not at all / Very much 8. How much did this product enhance your performance? Not at all / Very much 9. How much did this product exceed your expectations? Did not exceed at all / Greatly exceeded 10. How much did this product increase your energy? Not at all / Very much 11. How much do you think this product does what it claims? Not at all / Very much

-------------1. Item #7 was only used in Study 2a while #8 was only used in Study 2b. The extreme verbal anchors are shown after each item and were provided by Ilyuk (2015).

395

PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS (STIMULATION DURATION) How long a product improved a person’s mental performance is assessed with four, seven-point items. To answer the questions, the respondent must have used the product rather than merely hearing about it. The scale seems to be amenable for use with a variety of foods and supplements for which claims are made about increasing one’s cognitive ability in some way.

ORIGIN: Ilyuk, Block, and Faro (2014, Ilyuk 2015) created the scale and used it in Studies 2b (n = 130), 2c (n = 48), and 3 (n = 197). Participants in Studies 2b and 2c were students at Baruch College, City University of New York while those in Study 3 were recruited at the London Business School. The authors referred to the scale as retrospective duration of product efficacy. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .81 (Study 2b), .84 (Study 2c), and .79 (Study 3).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Ilyuk, Block, and Faro (2014). However, in the web appendix for the article, the authors said they conducted a factor analysis of the items in this scale and two others. Of most interest is that one of the other scales was intended to measure the degree of stimulation whereas this scale (items shown below) focused more on the duration of the product’s effectiveness. Given that the items for each scale loaded on their respective factors, it provides some evidence of each scale’s unidimensionality and possibly their convergent and discriminant validities as well.

COMMENTS: A more product-specific (less generalizable) version of the scale was used by Ilyuk, Block, and Faro (2014) in Study 5.

REFERENCES: Ilyuk, Veronika (2015), personal correspondence. Ilyuk, Veronika, Lauren Block, and David Faro (2014), "Is It Still Working? Task Difficulty Promotes a Rapid Wear-Off Bias in Judgments of Pharmacological Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 775-793.

396

ITEMS:1 1. For how long did each _____ increase your mental acuity? Not long at all / Very long time 2. How long-lasting is the product? Not long at all / Very long 3. How quickly did the effects of the _____ wear off? Not quickly at all / Very quickly (r) 4. For how much time did each _____ enhance your performance? Very short time / Very long time

-------------1. The name of the product or brand should be placed in the blanks. The extreme verbal anchors are shown after each item and were provided by Ilyuk (2015).

397

PRODUCT EVALUATION (BEVERAGE) How much a person likes a beverage based on the way it looks and tastes is measured with four, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Chae and Zhu (2014) used the scale in Study 4 with 90 undergraduate students attending the University of British Columbia. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .89 (Chae and Zhu 2014, p. 1207).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Chae and Zhu (2014).

COMMENTS: It is quite possible for a person to like the appearance of a beverage but not the taste or vice versa. If appearance and taste are two different dimensions then this scale is not unidimensional despite its high internal consistency as in this case. Testing of the scale’s dimensionality with more beverages is recommended to determine if it tends to be unidimensional or not.

REFERENCES: Chae, Boyoun (Grace) (2015), personal correspondence. Chae, Boyoun (Grace) and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2014), "Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1203-1218.

ITEMS:1 1. How pleasant was it for you while drinking the beverage? not at all pleasant / very pleasant 2. How attractive was the color of the beverage? not at all attractive / very attractive 3. How tasty was it for you? not at all tasty / very tasty 4. How much did you like the beverage? not at all / very much

-------------1. The phrasing of the scale items was clarified by Chae (2015).

398

PRODUCT EVALUATION (CREDENCE) The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which one believes the quality and other information about a particular product cannot be judged even after buying and using it.

ORIGIN: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used the scale in a pretest prior to Study 1. Data were collected from 240 participants recruited from a shopping mall in Singapore. The authors said that they adapted the scale along with two companion measures from work by Mitra at al. (1999). This form of product evaluation is most likely to be experienced for products with intangible attributes as is true with many professional services, particularly those that are difficult to judge even after multiple interactions over a long period of time.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s composite reliability in the pretest by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) was .81.

VALIDITY: Based on the results of a CFA and related analyses, Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) stated that the measurement model had a good fit and that there was evidence supporting their scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. With specific reference to this scale, the AVE was .56.

COMMENTS: As noted in the footnote (below), Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used this scale with a service. With minor rephrasing, the items seem to be flexible for use with most goods as well.

REFERENCES: Mitra, Kaushik, Michelle C. Reiss, and Louis M. Capella (1999), "An Examination of Perceived Risk, Information Search and Behavioral Intentions in Search, Experience and Credence Services", Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (3), 208-228. Sharma, Piyush, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Roger Marshall (2014), "Exploring Impulse Buying in Services: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (2), 154-170.

399

ITEMS:1 1. I cannot get all the information about __________ even after buying it. 2. I cannot evaluate the quality of __________ even after buying it. 3. I cannot evaluate the quality of __________ even after using it.

-------------1. The name of the product category should fill the blanks. Alternatively, the blanks may be used to refer to a product in the instructions or context such as Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) did when they filled the blanks with the phrase “this service.”

400

PRODUCT EVALUATION (EXPERIENCE) The belief that one cannot determine the quality and other attributes of a particular product until after it has been purchased and used is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used the scale in a pretest prior to Study 1. Data were collected from 240 participants recruited from a shopping mall in Singapore. The authors said that they adapted the scale along with two companion measures from work by Mitra at al. (1999).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s composite reliability in the pretest by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) was .80.

VALIDITY: Based on the results of a CFA and related analyses, Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) stated that the measurement model had a good fit and that there was evidence supporting their scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. With specific reference to this scale, the AVE was .59.

COMMENTS: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used this scale with a service but, with minor rephrasing, the items seem to be flexible for use with most goods as well.

REFERENCES: Mitra, Kaushik, Michelle C. Reiss, and Louis M. Capella (1999), "An Examination of Perceived Risk, Information Search and Behavioral Intentions in Search, Experience and Credence Services", Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (3), 208-228. Sharma, Piyush, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Roger Marshall (2014), "Exploring Impulse Buying in Services: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (2), 154-170.

ITEMS:1 1. I can get all the information about __________ only after buying it. 2. I can evaluate the quality of __________ only after buying it. 401

3. I can evaluate the quality of __________ only after using it.

-------------1. The name of the product category should fill the blanks. Alternatively, the blanks may be used to refer to a product in the instructions or context such as Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) did when they filled the blanks with the phrase “this service.”

402

PRODUCT EVALUATION (SEARCH) Three, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale and measure one’s belief that he/she can judge the quality and other attributes of a particular product before buying it.

ORIGIN: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used the scale in a pretest prior to Study 1. Data were collected from 240 participants recruited from a shopping mall in Singapore. The authors said that they adapted the scale along with two companion measures from work by Mitra at al. (1999).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s composite reliability in the pretest by Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) was .82.

VALIDITY: Based on the results of a CFA and related analyses, Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) stated that the measurement model had a good fit and that there was evidence supporting their scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. With specific reference to this scale, the AVE was .61.

COMMENTS: Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) used this scale with a service but, with minor rephrasing, the items seem to be flexible for use with most goods as well.

REFERENCES: Mitra, Kaushik, Michelle C. Reiss, and Louis M. Capella (1999), "An Examination of Perceived Risk, Information Search and Behavioral Intentions in Search, Experience and Credence Services", Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (3), 208-228. Sharma, Piyush, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Roger Marshall (2014), "Exploring Impulse Buying in Services: Toward an Integrative Framework," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (2), 154-170.

ITEMS:1 1. I can get all the information about __________ before buying it. 2. I can evaluate the quality of __________ before buying it. 403

3. I can evaluate the quality of __________ before using it.

-------------1. The name of the product category should fill the blanks. Alternatively, the blanks may be used to refer to a product in the instructions or context such as Sharma, Sivakumaran, and Marshall (2014) did when they filled the blanks with the phrase “this service.”

404

PRODUCT SELECTION FREEDOM Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a consumer feels a certain product enables him/her to express self, with an emphasis on the freedom in choosing it.

ORIGIN: As clarified by Bhattacharjee (2015), Bhattacharjee, Berger, and Menon (2014) used only one of the items (#3) in Studies 2 and 3. The three-item scale was only used in Study 5. The construct was called “agency in identity expression” and the scale itself was referred to as a “perceived agency index,” with reference to agency theory (e.g., Botti and McGill 2011; Deci and Ryan 1985). The source of the scale was not stated but appears to have been the authors.

RELIABILITY: As used in Study 5, the scale’s alpha was .88 (Bhattacharjee, Berger, and Menon 2014, p. 303).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Bhattacharjee, Berger, and Menon (2014). However, they did say that the items were highly correlated (p. 303). Further, Bhattacharjee (2015) said the items “loaded together.” It would be useful to confirm the unidimensionality of the set since item #1 has to do with the freedom to express self with the product whereas items #1 and #2 have to do with the freedom in the product selection process. While related, those are not necessarily the same.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jonah Berger, and Geeta Menon (2014), "When Identity Marketing Backfires: Consumer Agency in Identity Expression," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 294-309. Botti, Simona, and Ann L. McGill (2011), “The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (April), 1065–1078. Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, New York: Plenum.

405

ITEMS: 1. The process of choosing this product offered me the freedom to express myself. 2. The process of choosing this product made me feel ownership of my identity as a _____ consumer.1 3. This product allows me the freedom to express who I am.

-------------1. The items were supplied by Bhattacharjee (2015). According to him, the blank was filled with the word “green” given the context of the study. Depending upon the situation, other terms could easily be substituted, e.g., innovative, fashionable, smart.

406

PRODUCTION EFFORT With three, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures to what degree a person believes that something was difficult to make, particularly because of the time and effort involved. The object and the party that produced it are not stated in the items themselves and must be communicated to participants in the instructions or the context of the study.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a) used the scale in Study 2 of the four discussed in their article. Analysis was apparently conducted with data collected from a final sample of 434 members of an Austrian consumer panel. Based on what was stated in the web appendix to the article, the scale and the rest of the study was phrased in German. The source of the scale itself was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .91 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b, p. 8).

VALIDITY: Although not clear, it appears that CFA and two different tests were used to provide evidence of the discriminant validity between this scale (production effort) and all other measures in the study (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015a, p. 103).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015a), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110. Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015b), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), web appendix.

ITEMS:1 1. Not time-intensive to produce / time-intensive to produce 2. Not effortful to produce / effortful to produce 3. Not difficult to produce / difficult to produce

-------------1. Items for this scale were provided in a web appendix by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015b, p. 8).

407

PRORELATIONSHIP BEHAVIORS (ABILITY) The scale has seven, seven-point items that are intended to measure a person’s ability to engage in behaviors with a “partner” that are likely to benefit their relationship.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Dzhogleva and Lamberton (2014) in Study 3. Analysis was apparently based on responses from 192 participants who were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .95 (Dzhogleva and Lamberton 2014, p. 370).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Dzhogleva and Lamberton (2014). However, they did use EFA to show that the items in this scale and those in a companion scale intended to measure motivation to engage in prorelationship behaviors loaded significantly on their expected factors.

REFERENCES: Dzhogleva, Hristina and Cait Poynor Lamberton (2014), "Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 361-380.

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

avoiding conflict between me and my partner keeping things smooth between me and my partner maintaining harmony between me and my partner getting along with my partner avoiding tension between me and my partner reaching a decision that my partner is happy about acting in a way that would be beneficial to the relationship with my partner

-------------1. Participants were asked to imagine that they are making a joint decision with someone else such as a spouse. After that, they were asked to think about their past experiences in making joint decisions and to indicate how able they usually were to exhibit each behavior listed. Participants evaluated each behavior using a response scale with the following extreme anchors: not at all (1) and very much (7).

408

PRORELATIONSHIP BEHAVIORS (MOTIVATION) The importance a person places on engaging in behaviors with a “partner” that are likely to benefit a relationship is measured with seven, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Dzhogleva and Lamberton (2014) in Studies 3 and 4B. The source of the scale was not stated. They did cite Ryan and Deci (2000) but the latter did not use the scale.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .94 and .89 in Studies 3 and 4B, respectively (Dzhogleva and Lamberton 2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Dzhogleva and Lamberton (2014). However, they did use EFA to show that the items in this scale and those in a companion scale intended to measure ability to engage in prorelationship behaviors loaded significantly on their expected factors.

REFERENCES: Dzhogleva, Hristina and Cait Poynor Lamberton (2014), "Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 361-380. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci (2000), “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78.

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

avoiding conflict between me and my partner keeping things smooth between me and my partner maintaining harmony between me and my partner getting along with my partner avoiding tension between me and my partner reaching a decision that my partner is happy about acting in a way that would be beneficial to the relationship with my partner

409

-------------1. Participants were asked to imagine that they were making a joint decision with someone else such as a spouse. After that, they were asked to indicate how much they valued each of the listed behaviors. They evaluated each behavior using a response scale with the following extreme anchors: not important at all (1) and extremely important (7).

410

PROSOCIAL CONSUMPTION (CLOSE-OTHERS) Three, seven-point items measure a person’s self-expressed likelihood of engaging in consumption behaviors over some period of time that are thought to benefit people in the local area.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in Study 1 of the four reported in their article. The sample was composed of 82 college students ranging in age from 18 to 41 years. The scale appears to have been used in Study 2 as well but little information about its use was provided. The source of the scale was not stated and seems likely to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale when used in Study 1 was .71 (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015, p. 661).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673.

ITEMS:1 1. Buy locally grown produce. 2. Donate used items/clothing to a charitable organization to help local families in need. 3. Buy products made from recycled materials, helping to preserve local forest lands.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were extremely unlikely (1) and extremely likely (7). Apparently, the instructions used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) specified the time period for the behaviors as being “over the coming year” (p. 661).

411

PROSOCIAL CONSUMPTION (DISTANT-OTHERS) The likelihood that a person will engage in consumption behaviors over some period of time that are believed to benefit people in another country is measured with four, sevenpoint items.

ORIGIN: Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) used the scale in Study 1 of the four reported in their article. The sample was composed of 82 college students ranging in age from 18 to 41 years. The scale appears to have been used in Study 2 as well but little information about its use was provided. The source of the scale was not stated and seems likely to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale when used in Study 1 was .80 (Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce 2015, p. 661).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015).

REFERENCES: Cavanaugh, Lisa A., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (2015), "Feeling Love and Doing More for Distant Others: Specific Positive Emotions Differentially Affect Prosocial Consumption," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 657-673.

ITEMS:1 1. Refuse to buy a product if it is made using child or sweat shop labor in foreign countries. 2. Buy a product that donates part of its profits to a charitable organization helping refugee families in a foreign country. 3. Donate money to a charitable organization/cause benefiting rainforest conservation in foreign countries. 4. Refuse to buy a product because it was tested on animals abroad.

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale used with these items were extremely unlikely (1) and extremely likely (7). Apparently, the instructions used by Cavanaugh, Bettman, and Luce (2015) specified the time period for the behaviors as being “over the coming year” (p. 661).

412

PUBLIC NATURE OF RESPONSES Four, seven-point items measure the degree to which a person expects the information he/she is providing in a situation to become public or, at the other extreme, to be kept private.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014; White 2015) but seems to draw heavily on a somewhat similar measure used by Green and Peloza (2014). White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the scale in Study 1 with 93 undergraduate students as a manipulation check.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .84 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 436).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity. Despite that, some evidence of predictive validity comes from the scale’s confirmation of the expected manipulation.

REFERENCES: Green, Todd and John Peloza (2014), "Finding the Right Shade of Green: The Effect of Advertising Appeal Type on Environmentally Friendly Consumption," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 128-141. White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

To To To To

what what what what

degree degree degree degree

are are are are

your your your your

responses responses responses responses

going going going going

to to to to

be be be be

private? (r) anonymous? (r) made public? discussed with others today?

-------------1. According to White (2015), the verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (7).

413

PUNISHMENT SEEKING A person’s admission of deserving punishment and desire to punish one’s self is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Allard and White (2015) in Study 3 of the five discussed in the article. Data were gathered in the experiment from 157 undergraduate students. The authors did not state the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Allard and White 2015, p. 409).

VALIDITY: Allard and White (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Allard, Thomas and Katherine White (2015), "Cross-Domain Effects of Guilt on Desire for Self-Improvement Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 401-419.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

want to punish myself. want to deny myself rewards. seek penance. deserve to be penalized.

-------------1. The extreme anchors on the response scale that Allard and White (2015, p. 409) used with these items were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7).

414

PURCHASE ACTIVISM With five, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the extent to which a consumer’s decision to buy a certain brand was heavily determined by personal values and the motivation to make a political statement.

ORIGIN: Paharia, Avery, and Keinan (2014) used the scale in Study 4 using data from 201 participants recruited from MTurk. The scale was constructed in a series of studies described in a web appendix rather than the article itself. Briefly, after item generation, the authors conducted several studies in which they performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, reliability assessment, and convergent and discriminant validity tests. Reliability was consistently high (Cronbach’s alphas above .90), AVEs were acceptable, and evidence was found of the scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities.

RELIABILITY: An alpha of .95 was found for the scale in Study 4 by Paharia, Avery, and Keinan (2014, p. 653).

VALIDITY: Beyond the information noted above that was described in the web appendix, no additional information was provided by Paharia, Avery, and Keinan (2014) regarding the scale’s validity based on its use in Study 4.

REFERENCES: Paharia, Neeru, Jill Avery, and Anat Keinan (2014), "Positioning Brands Against Large Competitors to Increase Sales," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 647-656.

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

This This This This This

purchase purchase purchase purchase purchase

supported what I believe in. helped make a difference in the world. was driven by my moral beliefs. embodies the ideals that I live by. helped me make a political statement.

-------------1. Some directions are needed to focus participants’ responses on a particular purchase they have made or pretended to make in a role-playing scenario.

415

PURCHASE CHOICE CERTAINTY With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a consumer is sure that buying a particular product is the correct decision.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Haas and Kenning (2014) with 425 department store shoppers immediately following their store visits. The authors developed the scale by adapting items from a scale by Jain and Srinivasan (1990) that was called risk probability.

RELIABILITY: Haas and Kenning (2014, p. 439) reported the scale’s construct reliability to be .78.

VALIDITY: Using LISREL, Haas and Kenning (2014) examined all the multi-items measures in their study and provided evidence of their convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the purchase choice certainty scale was 0.55.

REFERENCES: Haas, Alexander and Peter Kenning (2014), "Utilitarian and Hedonic Motivators of Shoppers’ Decision to Consult with Salespeople," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 428-441. Jain, Kapil and Narasimhan Srinivasan (1990), “An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of Involvement,” Advances in Consumer Research, 17 (1), 594–602.

ITEMS:1 1. When I purchase _____, I am certain of my choice. 2. When I purchase _____, I know for sure that I am making the right purchase. 3. When I purchase _____, I don’t feel at a loss in choosing the product.

-------------1. The name of the product should be stated in the blanks. As used by Haas and Kenning (2014), each item was reversescored so as to measure purchase uncertainty.

416

PURCHASE INTENTION (ORGANIC FOOD) A consumer’s expressed likelihood of buying four different categories of organic foods is measured with four, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) used the scale in Study 1. The sample for that study was 302 adult members of an online panel living in the United States. The source of the scale was not explicitly stated but it appears to be original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) reported the alpha for the scale to be .91.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) tested their measurement model, concluded that it adequately fit the data, and found support for the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. In particular, the AVE for the purchase intention scale was .71.

REFERENCES: Kareklas, Ioannis, Jeffrey R. Carlson, and Darrel D. Muehling (2014), "'I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours': Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 18-32.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The next time The next time The next time The next time vegetables?

you you you you

buy buy buy buy

milk, how likely is it that you will choose organic milk? meat, how likely is it that you will choose organic meat? fruits, how likely is it that you will choose organic fruits? vegetables, how likely is it that you will choose organic

-------------1. The response format used by Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling (2014) had anchors that ranged from Not at all likely (1) to Very likely (7).

417

PURCHASE REWARD EXPECTATION A customer’s belief that he/she deserved special treatment or reward from the retailer because of his/her purchase is measured with three, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 4 of the four discussed in their article. Their hypothesis was that past loyalty to a retailer could lead a customer to expect special treatment in the future. Analysis was based on data from 138 participants recruited on a college campus. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .81 in Study 4 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, web appendix, p. 6).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) but they did provide the scale’s AVE: .61.

REFERENCES: Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

ITEMS: 1. I did not expect a reward for my purchase / I expected a reward for my purchase 2. I did not demand special treatment from the retailer / I demanded special treatment from the retailer 3. I was not of the opinion to deserve a gratification for my purchase / I was of the opinion to deserve a gratification for my purchase1

-------------1. This is the phrasing provided in the web appendix of the article by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014). Although not explicitly stated by the authors, this seems to be a translation of what was actually in the questionnaire. (The questionnaire was probably in German.) Given the awkwardness of the translation to native English speakers, a clearer translation is needed. Perhaps something like this would be appropriate: I was not of the opinion that I deserved special thanks for my purchase / I was of the opinion I deserved special thanks for my purchase.

418

PURCHASING POWER The belief that goods and services cost more at the present time compared to some unidentified time in the past is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014) used the scale in Experiment 3 with 83 people recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .77 (Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs 2014, p. 718).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014).

REFERENCES: Lasaleta, Jannine D., Constantine Sedikides, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2014), "Nostalgia Weakens the Desire for Money," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 713-729.

ITEMS: 1. It takes more money now to buy the same amount of goods and services than in the past. 2. Items seem more expensive to buy now than in the past. 3. Things were less expensive than they are now.

419

QUALITY CONSCIOUSNESS The level of concern a consumer has about product quality, including the willingness to pay more to get it, is measured in this scale with four, five-point Likert-type items. Three of the items are general with regard to product categories while one refers specifically to food.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) by borrowing two items (#3 and #4 below) from a scale the lead author and colleagues used to measure the construct in previous research (Ailawadi, Pauwels, and Steenkamp 2008). Two additional items were added by the authors to produce the four item measure. In an impressive set of studies, the scale was used along with several other consumer trait-related measures to examine temporal stability in the traits. Data were gathered from 1,411 Dutch consumers over a period of 12 years. The language in which the questionnaires were phrased for respondents was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The authors provided evidence of each trait-related scale’s temporal stability based on an evaluation of configural invariance as well as scalar invariance. With respect to the quality consciousness scale, alphas over the 12 year period were rather consistent, ranging from .67 to .74 (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 293). Test-retest correlations were also examined over the 12 year period. There were 11 lag-1 testretest correlations, 10 lag-2 correlations, 9 lag-3 correlations, and so on. As may be expected, the correlation between the scores on the quality consciousness scale for the respondents decreased over time from .72 (comparing scores from the second year to the second) to .59 (comparing the last year to the second to last year). In total, these measures indicate the scale has low but possibly acceptable internal consistency and an adequate level of stability for the long periods studied.

VALIDITY: Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) did not report examining the validity of their scales per se in these studies. However, in one of the years of data collection, an additional set of five items was used to measure quality consciousness. (The five different items were from the scales by Ailawadi, Pauwels, and Steenkamp [2008] and Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares [2015].) The correlation between the two scales was .81 which provides some evidence of convergent validity (Steenkamp and MaydeuOlivares 2015, web appendix).

420

COMMENTS: It seems odd to phrase three items generally and one that is specific to a particular product category. This may be affecting the scale’s level of internal consistency and its content validity. It would be best if all of the items either were general or all were specific.

REFERENCES: Ailawadi, Kusum L., Koen Pauwels, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2008), “Private Label Use and Store Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November), 19–30. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Alberto Maydeu-Olivares (2015), "Stability and Change in Consumer Traits: Evidence from a 12-Year Longitudinal Study, 2002–2013," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 287-308.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

When it comes to food, the quality is much more important than the price. I am willing to pay a bit more for a higher quality product. I always strive for the best quality. Quality is decisive for me while buying a product.

-------------1. The extreme anchors for the response scale used with these items were completely disagree (1) and completely agree (5) (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015, p. 292).

421

QUALITY OF THE JEANS Four, nine-point uni-polar items are used to measure the degree to which a consumer believes that a particular pair of jeans is durable and well made.

ORIGIN: Newman and Dhar (2014) used the scale in Experiments 1 and 2. The source of the items was not identified. Participants evaluated the jeans after having read some information about Levi Strauss & Co. and seeing a picture of a pair of the company’s jeans. Since quality was judged based on that information rather than any personal experience, the authors viewed the construct as "expected quality."

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .98 and .95 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively (Newman and Dhar 2014).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Newman and Dhar (2014).

REFERENCES: Newman, George E. and Ravi Dhar (2014), "Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 371-386.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

durability materials craftsmanship overall quality

-------------1. The extreme response scale anchors used by Newman and Dhar (2014, p. 375) with these items were low (1) and high (9).

422

QUALITY OF THE MEAL Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a customer’s belief that the food in a meal is of high quality and has premium ingredients. The scale does not measure how the food tastes per se.

ORIGIN: The scale appears to have been used by Alavi, Bornemann, and Wieseke (2015, p. 72) in several of the studies reported in their article. The authors said that they “adopted” the scale from Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan (1998) but, since there is no such scale in that article, it may be more precise to say they drew inspiration from that source as they created the measure.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .90 in Study 1 (Alavi, Bornemann, and Wieseke 2015, pp. 67, 76). (Even though the scale was used in several studies, reliability was only reported for Study 1.)

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Alavi, Bornemann, and Wieseke (2015).

COMMENTS: The scale was used by Alavi, Bornemann, and Wieseke (2015) with respect to a meal from a fast-food restaurant chain. The items appear to be amenable for use with meals at other types of restaurants and possibly at non-restaurants as well, e.g., homes, banquets, airlines.

REFERENCES: Alavi, Sascha, Torsten Bornemann, and Jan Wieseke (2015), "Gambled Price Discounts: A Remedy to the Negative Side Effects of Regular Price Discounts," Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 62-78. Grewal, Dhruv, Kent B. Monroe and R. Krishnan (1998), “The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising on Buyer’s Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 46-59.

ITEMS:1 1. The _____ meal appears to be of good quality. 423

2. The _____ meal seems to be a premium product. 3. The _____ meal seems to contain high-quality ingredients.

-------------1. The response format used with these statements was described as a “seven point Likert scale” (Alavi, Bornemann, and Wieseke 2015, p. 76). The verbal anchors were not explicitly stated but were likely to have been something like strongly disagree / strongly disagree.

424

QUALITY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER’S FACILITIES The scale has four, seven-point Likert-type items that measure how much a person believes that a particular location-based retailer where he/she receives a service has facilities that are high quality and easy to use.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) who used it in Study 2 (n = 907 respondents from the community). The authors referred to the scale as physical environment quality and drew inspiration in creating it scale from measures used by Brady and Cronin (2001).

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .89.

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and several others in Study 2. The model had good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVE for this scale was .66.

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a restaurant, the items could be used with a wide variety retail or non-retail places.

REFERENCES: Brady, Michael K. and Joseph J. Cronin Jr. (2001), “Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (July), 34-49. Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

ITEMS: 1. This place’s facilities are high quality. 2. This location’s facilities are easy to use. 425

3. The facilities at this location are among the best of its type. 4. This facility is exactly what I need for this service.

426

QUALITY OF THE STORE (PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT) Using three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes the physical environment of a store is high quality.

ORIGIN: Dagger and Danaher (2014) used the scale in Study 1. The items were created by the authors based on phrases and concepts found in measures of similar constructs by Brady and Cronin (2001).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .96 (Dagger and Danaher 2014, p. 78).

VALIDITY: All of the scales used in Study 1 were examined in a CFA. Not only did the measurement model have a good fit but evidence was found in support of each scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE of the physical environment measure was .89.

REFERENCES: Brady, Michael K. and Joseph J. Cronin Jr. (2001), “Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (July), 34-49. Dagger, Tracey S. and Peter J. Danaher (2014), "Comparing the Effect of Store Remodeling on New and Existing Customers," Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 62-80.

ITEMS: 1. I believe the physical environment at the store is excellent. 2. I am impressed with the quality of the store’s physical environment. 3. The physical environment at the store is of a high standard.

427

QUALITY OF THE STORE Three, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a consumer believes a store offers good quality that is better than its competion.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 2 of the four discussed in their article. They referred to it as quality basis for loyalty. Analysis was based on data from 151 participants who were customers of a European jewelry store chain. The authors implied that the sources of the scale were Gustafsson, Johnson, and Roos (2005) as well as Oliver (1999). However, since nothing like the scale is in those articles, Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) probably meant that they got ideas for creating the scale from the work of those cited researchers.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .70 in Study 2 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, p. 27).

VALIDITY: Information regarding the scale’s validity was not explicitly provided by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014). Related to it, however, is that the model they tested of the relationships between various constructs (including store quality) had an acceptable fit. Further, the AVE for the scale was .53.

REFERENCES: Gustafsson, Anders, Michael D. Johnson, and Inger Roos (2005), “The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 210–218. Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 33–44. Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

ITEMS: 1. This store offers better quality than its competitors. 2. In my opinion, this store offers very good quality. 3. In my opinion, this store offers very good service.

428

RAPPORT WITH EMPLOYEES The extent to which a customer believes he/she has good relationships with employees of a retail establishment is measured with three statements.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2, 3, and 4 discussed in their article. The authors referred to the construct as customer rapport. They created the scale for use in their studies by drawing some concepts and phrases from a measure by Gremler and Gwinner (2000). The latter called the scale enjoyable interaction and viewed the construct it measured as one dimension of rapport.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .79, .84, and .84 in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models fit the data well. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to the rapport scale, the AVEs were .56 (Study 2), .64 (Study 3), and .64 (Study 4).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Gremler, Dwayne D. and Kevin P. Gwinner (2000), "Customer-Employee Rapport in Service Relationships," Journal of Service Research, 3 (August), 82-104. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. I relate well with the employees at this _____. 2. I enjoy interacting with the employees at this _____. 3. I have harmonious relationships with the employees at this _____.

-------------1. The focal type of facility should be stated in the blanks, e.g., store, restaurant, fitness center. Also, Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items.

429

REACTANCE (INTRUSIVENESS) The scale has seven, seven-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a consumer is motivated to resist a specific object, such as an ad, that is believed to have been forced upon him/her. The emphasis is on the impropriety of the object rather than how much it limits one’s decision-making freedom.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in an experimental lab study reported by Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015). The study was conducted at a German university with analysis based on data collected from a final sample of 252 students. The focal object in the experiment was a banner ad which was personalized to various degrees for subjects. The authors created the scale items by drawing ideas and terms from measures by Edwards, Li, and Lee (2002) as well as Hong and Faedda (1996).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .88 (Bleier and Eisenbeiss 2015, p. 398). The authors also reported that the scale’s composite reliability was .648 for the group in which retailer trustworthiness was manipulated to be “more” and the composite reliability was .631 for the group in which trustworthiness was manipulated to be “less.”

VALIDITY: Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) used CFA to examine their measures. Evidence was provided in support of each multi-item scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the reactance construct, the scale’s AVEs were .590 in the “more trusted retailer” group and .569 in the “less trusted retailer” group.

REFERENCES: Bleier, Alexander and Maik Eisenbeiss (2015), "The Importance of Trust for Personalized Online Advertising," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 390-409. Edwards, Steven M., Hairong Li, and Joo-Hyun Lee (2002), “Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-Up Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 83-95. Hong, Sung-Mook and Salvatora Faedda (1996), “Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56 (1), 173–182.

ITEMS:1 1. The _____ is disturbing.

430

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The _____ is interfering. The _____ is intrusive. The _____ is forced upon me. The _____ is unwelcomed. I want to resist the _____. I want to dismiss the content of this _____.

-------------1. The name or description of the focal object should be placed in the blanks. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7).

431

REALISM OF THE PURCHASE SIMULATION The scale measures how much a subject who has been in an experiment believes the purchase situation was realistic. A three- and a four-item version were created.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale is Emricha and Rudolph (2015) and the authors used it in both of the studies reported in their article. The scale was used as a way to confirm the external validity of the experiments which required subjects to imagine planning to purchase some products using detailed descriptions of channel characteristics and assortment configurations about a fictional retailer’s online and physical stores.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the three-item version of the scale used in Study 1 was .89 while the alpha for the four-item version used in Study 2 was.90 (Emricha and Rudolph 2015, pp. 331, 335).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Emricha and Rudolph (2015). Although the authors performed some tests of their measurement model which touched on aspects of scale validity, the realism scale was not included in the measurement model.

REFERENCES: Emricha, Oliver, Michael Paul, and Thomas Rudolph (2015), "Shopping Benefits of Multichannel Assortment Integration and the Moderating Role of Retailer Type," Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 326–342.

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

_____ and its channels could exist in reality as described. _____ could exist in reality as described. The described sales channels could exist in reality. I think the purchase situation at the retailer _____ is realistic. It was very easy for me to put myself into the purchase situation.

-------------1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks. The three item version of the scale used in Study 1 was composed of #1, #4, and #5 while in Study 2 the four items were #2 to #5 (Emricha and Rudolph 2015, p. 340). Although not stated explicitly, a seven-point Likert-type response format appears to have been used with the items, e.g., completely disagree (1) and completely agree (7).

432

REASONS AGAINST ADOPTING THE INNOVATION (RISK) Three, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure concerns a consumer has about a product. The concerns have to with uncertainty about the product’s benefits as well as its need for ongoing maintenance.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 home owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes (micro wind turbines). The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing heavily on work by Westaby and colleagues (2005; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .81 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .59.

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Westaby, James D. (2005), "Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97–120. Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010), "Leadership DecisionMaking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481–495.

ITEMS:1 1. Because I worry about how dependable and reliable _____ would be. 2. Because I worry about how much ongoing maintenance _____ would require. 3. Because I am concerned that _____ would not provide the level of benefits I would be expecting.

433

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items was not provided in the article by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015). Most likely it merely asked why they would not adopt the product. The generic name of the product should be placed in the blank of each item, e.g., micro wind turbines. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

434

REASONS AGAINST INSTALLING THE PRODUCT (COST) Using three, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures some cost-related reasons a consumer has for not installing a particular energy-saving device.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 house owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes (micro wind turbines). The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing heavily on work by Westaby and colleagues (2005; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .89 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .74.

COMMENTS: Although the statements in the scale were made with respect to installing an energy saving device in a house, it seems the sentences could be easily modified for installation of energy-saving products in other structures (garage, shed, barn) or vehicles (car, motorcycle, bicycle).

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Westaby, James D. (2005), "Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97–120. Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010), "Leadership DecisionMaking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481–495.

435

ITEMS:1 1. Because I do not have the money to install __________. 2. Because I would find it a financial strain to install __________. 3. Because the initial cost of installing __________ would be too high for me.

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items was not provided in the article by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015). Most likely it merely asked respondents why they would not purchase the product. The generic name of the product should be placed in the blank of each item. For example, the exact phrasing of item #1 was “Because I do not have the money to install micro wind turbines on my house.” The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

436

REASONS AGAINST INSTALLING THE PRODUCT (DIFFICULTY) The scale has three, five-point Likert-type items which measure a consumer’s objections to having a product installed on his/her house. The objections have to do with the effort involved with the installation process and making the product fit the house’s existing structure.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 house owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes (micro wind turbines). The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing heavily on work by Westaby and colleagues (2005; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .80 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .58.

COMMENTS: Although the statements in the scale were made with respect to installing an object on a house, it seems the sentences could be easily modified for installation in/on other objects such as a yard or car.

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Westaby, James D. (2005), "Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97–120. Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010), "Leadership DecisionMaking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481–495.

437

ITEMS:1 1. Because _____ do not fit with the existing infrastructure of my house. 2. Because _____ could only be installed on my house with major additional work. 3. Because in order to install _____ on my house, I’d have to undertake some serious renovation.

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items was not provided in the article by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015). Most likely it merely asked respondents why they would not purchase the product. The generic name of the product should be placed in the blank of each item, e.g., micro wind turbines. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

438

REASONS FOR INSTALLING THE PRODUCT (FINANCIAL) A three item, five-point Likert-type scale is used to measure a consumer’s belief that installation of a particular product would help him/her save money on energy-related expenses.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 house owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes (micro wind turbines). The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing heavily on concepts found in the work of Westaby and colleagues (2005; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .88 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .70.

COMMENTS: Although the statements in the scale were made for installation of a product in a home to save energy, it seems the sentences could be easily modified for installation of energysaving devices in other objects (garage, shed, barn) or vehicles (car, motorcycle, bicycle).

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Westaby, James D. (2005), "Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97–120. Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010), "Leadership DecisionMaking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481–495.

439

ITEMS:1 1. Because installing __________ would reduce my monthly energy bill significantly. 2. Because installing __________ would allow me to spend more money on other things in life other than energy. 3. Because by installing __________, they would eventually pay off and make a profit.

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items was not provided in the article by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015). Most likely it merely asked respondents why they installed the product. The generic name of the product should be placed in the blank of each item. For example, the exact phrasing of item #1 was “Because installing micro wind turbines on my house would reduce my monthly energy bill significantly.” The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

440

REASONS FOR INSTALLING THE PRODUCT (INDEPENDENCE) The scale is composed of three, five-point Likert-type items measuring a consumer’s belief that installation of a particular energy-saving device would help reduce his/her dependence on other sources of energy.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 1 discussed in their article. Data were collected from 254 house owners in Ireland by a professional market research company. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to purchase an innovative energy system for their homes (micro wind turbines). The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing heavily on concepts found in the work of Westaby and colleagues (2005; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .91 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .77.

COMMENTS: Although the statements in the scale were made for installation of a product in a house to save energy, it seems the sentences could be easily modified for installation of energy-saving products in other structures (garage, shed, barn) or vehicles (car, motorcycle, bicycle).

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544. Westaby, James D. (2005), "Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identifying New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97–120. Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010), "Leadership DecisionMaking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481–495.

441

ITEMS:1 1. Because installing __________ would make me independent from national energy providers. 2. Because installing __________ would make me self-sufficient. 3. Because installing __________ would reduce my dependence on oil or gas.

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items was not provided in the article by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015). Most likely it merely asked respondents why the product was installed. The generic name of the product should be placed in the blank of each item. For example, the exact phrasing of item #1 was “Because installing micro wind turbines on my house would make me independent from national energy providers.” The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).

442

REASONS FOR USING THE PRODUCT (CONVENIENCE) The scale has three, five-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a consumer believes that using a particular good or service would be easier and allow greater flexibility than the currently used product.

ORIGIN: Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) used the scale in Study 2 discussed in their article. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 379 staff and students at a university in Ireland via a web survey. Respondents were questioned about their intentions to adopt a car sharing service. The source of the scale was not stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliability was .79 (Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll 2015, p. 536).

VALIDITY: Evidence was provided by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) in support of this scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVE was .57.

REFERENCES: Claudy, Marius C., Rosanna Garcia, and Aidan O’Driscoll (2015), "Consumer Resistance to Innovation: A Behavioral Reasoning Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 528-544.

ITEMS:1 1. Because it is more convenient than _____.2 2. Because it gives me greater flexibility. 3. Because it makes my life easier.

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items was not provided in the article by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015). Most likely it merely asked why respondents would use the focal good/service. The response scale was anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). 2. The generic name of the product for which an alternative is being considered should be placed in the blank. For example, a car sharing service was being studied by Claudy, Garcia, and O’Driscoll (2015) as an alternative to owing a car.

443

RECYCLING INTENTION A person’s plan to engage in behaviors that support of a recycling program are measured with seven, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the scale in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students. The scale was created by the authors (White 2015) and is strongly based on phrasings from other intention measures used by the lead author in previous research (White and Peloza 2009; White and Simpson 2013).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .865 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 441).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine and John Peloza (2009), "Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support," Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 109-124. White, Katherine and Bonnie Simpson (2013), "When Do (and Don't) Normative Appeals Influence Sustainable Consumer Behaviors?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 78-95. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

ITEMS:1 1. How likely are you to take part in _____’s recycling program?2 Highly Unlikely / Highly Likely 2. How inclined are you to take part by recycling? Not Very Inclined / Highly Inclined 3. How willing are you to take part by recycling? Not Very Willing / Very Willing 4. To what degree do you intend to recycle in support of the recycling program? Not at all / Very much so 444

5. To what degree do you have positive intentions toward the recycling program? Not at all / Very much so 6. How likely will you be to recycle a plastic drink bottle? Not at all / Very much so 7. How likely will you be to recycle paper from the printer? Not at all / Very much so

-------------1. Clarification of the scale’s items and response format was provided by White (2015). 2. The name of the focal recycling program should be stated in the blank.

445

REFLECTED APPRAISAL OF PERSONS IN THE AD Seven, seven-point Likert-type items measure a person’s belief about how favorably “other people” would think a group of people were portrayed in an ad.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Thomas, Trump, and Price (2015) in Study 2. The items in the scale were said to have been adapted from a measure used in the lead author’s dissertation (Chalmers 2009).

RELIABILITY: An alpha of .94 was reported for the scale by Thomas, Trump, and Price (2015, p. 63).

VALIDITY: Thomas, Trump, and Price (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: The group portrayed in the ad were women. The scale items appear to be flexible enough for use with other groups as well.

REFERENCES: Chalmers, Tandy D. (2009), “The Social Context of Advertising: Authenticity, Social Identity, and Reflected Appraisals,” unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Arizona. Thomas, Tandy Chalmers, Rebecca K. Trump, and Linda L. Price (2015), "Advertising as Unfavorable Self-Presentation: The Dirty Laundry Effect," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 58-70.

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

Other people will think _____ are presented in a favorable way. Other people will think _____ are portrayed well. Other people will form a great impression of _____. Other people will form negative views of _____. (r) Other people will think the image portrayed of _____ is good. This advertisement creates a favorable impression of _____. _____ look good in the eyes of other people.

446

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with a proper term for the focal group portrayed in the ad, e.g., women, students, Asians. The instructions used with this scale were not provided in the article by Thomas, Trump, and Price (2015). Participants may have been asked to indicate what other people would think about the group of people featured in the ad that was just seen.

447

REGRET ABOUT THE CUSTOMIZATION DECISION The scale has three, seven-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a person is not pleased with the features he/she choose while customizing a product and would feel better if given the chance to change them.

ORIGIN: Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) used the scale in Study 4 composed of 104 female members of an online consumer panel. The authors created the scale by drawing heavily on phrases and concepts in a scale by Inman and Zeelenberg (2002). The task in which the participants engaged was customizing a pair of earrings for themselves.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale used by Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014, p. 715) in Study 4 was .80.

VALIDITY: This scale’s validity was not discussed by Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014).

REFERENCES: Hildebrand, Christian, Gerald Häubl, and Andreas Herrmann (2014), "Product Customization via Starting Solutions," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 707-725. Inman, Jeffrey J. and Marcel Zeelenberg (2002), “Regret in Repeat Purchase versus Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 116-128.

ITEMS:1 1. If I could customize my product one more time, I would change my feature choices. 2. I would be much happier if I would have made different feature choices. 3. I regret my feature choices. -------------1. The extreme anchors that Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) used with these items were do not agree at all (1) and fully agree (7).

448

REGULATORY FOCUS OF THE CHARITY With six, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures the apparent regulatory orientation of a charitable organization, ranging from a promotion focus to a prevention focus.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Botner, Mishra, and Mishra (2015) for use in a pretest before their longitudinal study. Participants (n = 80) were from an online panel. The items composing the scale were adapted from keywords in promotion/prevention descriptions from Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997) as well as Higgins (1998). To help determine which names for charities would be used in the main study, the authors compared them to see what type of regulatory orientations were triggered. (Although not stated explicitly, the names of the charities appear to have been fictitious.)

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .8657 (Botner 2016).

VALIDITY: No information regarding the scale’s validity was reported by Botner, Mishra, and Mishra (2015).

REFERENCES: Botner, Keith (2016), personal correspondence. Botner, Keith A., Arul Mishra, and Himanshu Mishra (2015), "What's in a Message? The Longitudinal Influence of a Supportive Versus Combative Orientation on the Performance of Nonprofits," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 39-55. Higgins, E. Tory (1998), “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. Higgins, E. Tory, James Shah, and Ronald Friedman (1997), “Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), 515–525.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

promotion / prevention hope / duty aspiration / responsibility approach / avoid 449

5. nurture / protect 6. wish / obligate

-------------1. The scale stem/question used with these items was not stated by Botner, Mishra, and Mishra (2015). Participants saw a message from a charity and then evaluated the charity with the scale. In some way, participants were asked to describe the charity using the scale items.

450

RELATIONAL EXPECTATIONS With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person believes there is a relationship between self and a particular party (person, group, or company) and that he/she values it.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Harmeling et al. (2015) in Study 2 as a manipulation check with 228 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel. Participants were assigned to either high or low relational expectations experimental conditions. The authors created the scale with inspiration from the work of Kaufmann and Stern (1988).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .77 (Harmeling 2017).

VALIDITY: Harmeling et al. (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Harmeling, Colleen M. (2017), personal correspondence. Harmeling, Colleen M., Robert W. Palmatier, Mark B. Houston, Mark J. Arnold, and Stephen A. Samaha (2015), "Transformational Relationship Events," Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 39-62. Kaufmann, Patrick J. and Louis W. Stern (1988), “Relational Exchange Norms, Perceptions of Unfairness, and Retained Hostility in Commercial Litigation,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (3), 534–552.

ITEMS:1 1. I consider _____ and I to be a team. 2. I know _____ values their relationship with me as much as I value my relationship with them. 3. When it comes to _____, we often help each other out.

-------------1. The name of the person, group, or company in the relationship with the respondent should be stated in the blanks. The extreme anchors used by Harmeling et al. (2015, p. 51) for the response scale appear to have been strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

451

RELATIONAL SENSEMAKING The scale has three, seven-point Likert-type items that measure the degree to which a person redefined his/her role in a relationship due to some event. The event is not stated in the items themselves but should be made clear to respondents in the context of the study or the instructions.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Harmeling et al. (2015) in Study 2 with 228 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel. Participants were assigned randomly to negative and positive relational disconfirmation experimental conditions. The authors created the scale based on concepts in the work of Weick (1995).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were .96 and .83, for the negative and positive conditions, respectively (Harmeling et al. 2015, p. 48).

VALIDITY: The CFA used by Harmeling et al. (2015) showed an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Evidence was provided of this scale’s discriminant validity with the others in the model. The scale’s AVEs were .88 and .82 for the negative and positive conditions, respectively (Harmeling et al. 2015, p. 48).

COMMENTS: The scale was also used in Study 3 by Harmeling et al. (2015) in a business-to-business context. Given that, the phrasing of the items was slightly different from what is shown below in order to have the proper syntax.

REFERENCES: Harmeling, Colleen M., Robert W. Palmatier, Mark B. Houston, Mark J. Arnold, and Stephen A. Samaha (2015), "Transformational Relationship Events," Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 39-62. Weick, Karl E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

ITEMS:1 Because of this event, . . . 452

1. I reconsidered my role in my relationship with _____. 2. I redefined how this relationship works. 3. I thought about how this event changed my relationship with _____.

-------------1. The name of the person, group, or company in the relationship with the respondent should be stated in the blanks. The extreme anchors used by Harmeling et al. (2015, p. 51) for the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

453

RELEVANCE OF THE SLOGAN Three statements with a nine-point response format are used to measure how important and meaningful a slogan is to a person.

ORIGIN: The scale used by Cian, Krishna, and Schwarz (2015) was adapted from a measure by Williams and Drolet (2005) who phrased the items with respect to an advertisement. The former modified the scale in Study 5 to measure the relevance of a political slogan. Then, they appear to have slightly adapted the phrasing in Study 6 for use in measuring two different ad headlines.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .96 and .94 for Studies 5 and 6, respectively (Cian, Krishna, and Schwarz 2015, pp. 643, 644).

VALIDITY: Cian, Krishna, and Schwarz (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Norbert Schwarz (2015), "Positioning Rationality and Emotion: Rationality Is Up and Emotion Is Down," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 632-651. Williams, Patti and Aimee Drolet (2005), “Age-Related Differences in Responses to Emotional Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 343–354.

ITEMS:1 1. This slogan was meaningful to me. 2. This slogan is relevant to me. 3. This slogan is important to me.

-------------1. The anchors for the response scale used with these items by Cian, Krishna, and Schwarz (2015, p. 643) were Not at all (1) and Very much (9).

454

RELIGIOSITY (AFFECTIVE) The scale uses five, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree of love and devotion a person has toward GOD.

ORIGIN: Minton (2015) used the scale in the three studies reported in her article. She borrowed the scale from Cornwall et al. (1986) who called it spiritual commitment, one of seven religiosity factors for which they developed measures. Minton (2015) used all five items in the spiritual commitment scale and made slight changes to three of them.

RELIABILITY: As used by Minton (2015) in Studies 1, 2, and 3, the alphas were .980, .979, and .982, respectively.

VALIDITY: As part of Study 1, Minton (2015) used CFA to examine the distinctiveness of the affective religiosity scale from measures of two other types of religiosity (cognitive and behavioral). The results supported claims of each scales’ discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Cornwall, Marie, Stan L. Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham, and Brian L. Pitcher (1986), “The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test,” Review of Religious Research, 27 (3), 226–244. Minton, Elizabeth A. (2015), "In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity's Influence on Marketplace and Relational Trust," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 403-414.

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

My relationship with GOD is an important part of my life. GOD is an important influence in my life. I love GOD with all my heart. Without religious faith, the rest of my life would not have much meaning. I am willing to do whatever GOD wants me to do.

-------------1. As described in the online Appendix C of Minton’s (2015) article, the extreme verbal anchors of the seven-point response scale were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

455

RELIGIOSITY (BEHAVIORAL) With three, seven-point items, the scale is intended to measure how much a person engages in particular religious activities: praying, reading scripture, and attending services.

ORIGIN: Minton (2015) used the scale in the three studies reported in her article. In creating the scale, she drew inspiration from the “home religious observance” scale developed by Cornwall et al. (1986).

RELIABILITY: As used by Minton (2015) in Studies 1, 2, and 3, the alphas were .895, .894, and .872, respectively.

VALIDITY: In Study 1, Minton (2015) used CFA to examine the distinctiveness of the behavioral religiosity scale from measures of two other types of religiosity (cognitive and affective). The results supported a claim of the three scales’ discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Cornwall, Marie, Stan L. Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham, and Brian L. Pitcher (1986), “The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test,” Review of Religious Research, 27 (3), 226–244. Minton, Elizabeth A. (2015), "In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity's Influence on Marketplace and Relational Trust," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 403-414.

ITEMS:1 1. How often do you pray? 2. How often do you read religious scripture? 3. How often do you attend religious services?

-------------1. As described in the online Appendix C of Minton’s (2015) article, the verbal anchors of the seven-point response scale for items #1 and #2 were never, less than once a month, once a month, 2-3 times a month, once a week, 2-3 times a week, and daily. For item #3, the verbal anchors were never, once or twice a year, less than once a month, once a month, 2-3 times a month, once a week, and twice a week or more.

456

RELIGIOSITY (COGNITIVE) The degree to which a person believes the fundamental tenets of a religion, such as the reality of GOD, is measured using four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Minton (2015) used the scale in the three studies reported in her article. She adapted the “traditional orthodoxy” scale developed by Cornwall et al. (1986), which was one of seven religiosity factors for which they developed measures. Minton (2015) borrowed one item of the traditional orthodoxy scale intact and made changes to three other items.

RELIABILITY: As used by Minton (2015) in Studies 1, 2, and 3, the alphas were .956, .954, and .933, respectively.

VALIDITY: In Study 1, Minton (2015) used CFA to examine the distinctiveness of the cognitive religiosity scale from measures of two other types of religiosity (behavioral and affective). The results supported a claim of the three scales’ discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Cornwall, Marie, Stan L. Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham, and Brian L. Pitcher (1986), “The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test,” Review of Religious Research, 27 (3), 226–244. Minton, Elizabeth A. (2015), "In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity's Influence on Marketplace and Relational Trust," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 403-414.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I believe in GOD. I have no doubts that GOD lives and is real. There is life after death. The scripture for my religious affiliation is the word of GOD.

-------------1. As described in the online Appendix C of Minton’s (2015) article, the extreme verbal anchors of the seven-point response scale were strongly disagree and strongly agree.

457

REPRODUCTIVE VALUE (GENDER COMPARISON) Three, eight-point items are used to measure a person’s belief regarding which gender provides parents with more grandchildren. The questions are phrased in terms of “boys” and “girls.”

ORIGIN: Durante et al. (2015) used the scale in Experiment 2 with 162 adult participants recruited from MTurk. The source of the scale was not stated and it is assumed to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .89 (Durante et al. 2015, p. 441).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided by Durante et al. (2015).

COMMENTS: The scale stem referred to “today’s conditions” (below) and was used by Durante et al. (2015) to test the hypothesis that the reproductive value of girls is viewed as higher in a recession compared to an economic upswing. Dropping this stem or replacing it with one that references another condition could be done to adapt the scale for use in a wider variety of studies.

REFERENCES: Durante, Kristina M., Vladas Griskevicius, Joseph P. Redden, and Andrew Edward White (2015), "Spending on Daughters versus Sons in Economic Recessions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 435-457.

ITEMS:1 Under today’s conditions . . . 1. Do girls or boys give parents more grandchildren? 2. Is it easier to imagine a girl or a boy giving parents more grandchildren? 3. Is it easier for boys or girls to give parents grandchildren?

458

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors for the response scale used with these items were Definitely boys (1) and Definitely girls (8).

459

REPURCHASE INTENTION TOWARDS THE SERVICE PROVIDER The scale uses four items to measure a customer’s emotional attachment to and identification with an entity which he/she might use in the future. As currently phrased, the items are particularly suited for use with reference to a service provider but they might be appropriate for use with other entities such as a brand.

ORIGIN: Karpen et al. (2015) used the scale in what they referred to as Stage 5 of developing a set of service-dominant orientation scales. The context was automotive retail and data were collected from 412 members of an Australian online panel. Three of the items in the scale (#1, #2, #4 below) were borrowed from Ruiz et al. (2008).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .910 (Karpen et al. 2015, p. 101).

VALIDITY: As part of testing hypotheses in Stage 5, evidence was provided in support of convergent and discriminant validity for all of the scales used in the structural model. The AVE of the purchase intention scale was .788 (Karpen et al. 2015, p. 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108. Ruiz, David Martín, Dwayne D. Gremler, Judith H. Washburn and Gabriel Cepeda Carrión (2008), “Service Value Revisited: Specifying a Higher-Order, Formative Measure,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (12), 1278–1291.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

As long as the present service continues, I doubt that I would switch __________. I intend to continue doing business with this __________ over the next years. I don’t seriously consider changing __________. I will choose this __________ next time I need this service.

-------------1. The blank in each item should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the entity being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

460

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AWARENESS Using four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures to what degree a participant in a research project believes that her/she knows what is being studied, with an emphasis on awareness of the hypotheses being tested.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a) used the scale in Study 1 of the four discussed in their article. Analysis was apparently conducted with data collected from 147 college students in the Netherlands. The source of the scale itself was Rubin, Paolini, and Crisp (2010). In their usage of the scale, its internal consistency was moderate, i.e., alphas were .77 (Study 1) and .81 (Study 2).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale when used by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015b, p. 4) was 91.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015a), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110. Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015b), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), web appendix. Rubin, Mark, Stefania Paolini, and Richard J. Crisp (2010), “A Processing Fluency Explanation of Bias Against Migrants,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (1), 21–28.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I knew what the researchers were investigating in this research. I wasn’t sure what the researchers were trying to demonstrate in this research. (r) I did not have a good idea about what the hypotheses were in this research (r). I was unclear about exactly what the researchers were aiming to prove in this research. (r)

-------------1. The extreme anchors used by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015b, p. 4) with the response scale were the same as used by Rubin, Paolini, and Crisp (2010): strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

461

RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP OTHERS A person’s belief about his/her personal responsibility to help others whom he/she does not know is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Winterich and Zhang (2014) Studies 3, 3a, and 3b. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .90 in Study 3 by Winterich and Zhang (2014). (The alphas for the scale as used in Studies 3a and 3b were not reported.)

VALIDITY: Winterich and Zhang (2014) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Winterich, Karen Page and Yinlong Zhang (2014), "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274-293.

ITEMS: 1. Individuals should not be responsible for helping others they don’t know. (r) 2. It is not my responsibility to provide aid to other people. (r) 3. I should not be expected to help others I don’t know. (r) 4. I feel that it is not up to me to provide aid to individuals. (r)

462

RETAIL PATRONAGE (BY STORE TYPE) A consumer’s patronage of a particular type of retail store and willingness to recommend it to others is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale does not measure patronage of a specific store but rather a category of stores. The items can be easily adapted for different types of stores, e.g., discounters, hypermarkets, convenience, specialty.

ORIGIN: Zielke and Komor (2015) used the scale in mall-intercept surveys in Germany and Poland with the final samples having 157 and 166 respondents, respectively. One version of the scale was for “discounters” while another was for “hypermarkets.” Though few details were provided, it does appear that phrasing of the scale items were in the local languages with comparability being tested via the back-translation method. A replication study was also conducted with data gathered from business students from each of the two countries. Less information was provided about the scale’s psychometric quality in that study. As for the scale’s origin, the implication was that it was developed by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) as were several of the other scales used in the study. However, none of the scales developed and reported by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) are like the scale shown below. Given that, it seems likely that Zielke and Komor (2015) created the scale by drawing ideas from the many scales developed by Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the “discounters” version of the scale were .93 and .92 for Germany and Poland, respectively (Zielke and Komor 2015, p. 178). For the “hypermarkets” version of the scale, the alphas were .92 (Germany) and .85 (Poland).

VALIDITY: A multi-group structural equation model was tested by Zielke and Komor (2015) and found to have an acceptable fit to the data. More specifically, the evidence showed that the measure of store-type patronage had sufficient discriminant validity with the scales measuring other latent constructs in the study. Further testing provided evidence for all of the scales’ configural, full metric, and partial scalar invariance. (Similar results were found in the replication study.)

COMMENTS: It is difficult to give a precise name to and description of this scale. Based on the names given to the two applications of the scale (discounters and hypermarkets), Zielke and 463

Komor (2015) viewed them as measures of preference. Yet, participants were not asked if they preferred one store-type over another. Further complicating the selection of a name is that the items seem to represent a blend of related constructs. Item #1 (below) is a measure of attitude; items #2 and #3 are measures of behavior; and, item #4 appears to measure potential behavior. The relative differences among the factor loadings of the items show that the behavioral items loaded much higher on the factor than the attitudinal item, and item #4 loaded in-between the extremes (p. 177). It seems possible that how these items are phrased in a certain language can play a role in the scale’s dimensionality. Care should be taken in using the scale for theory testing until the scale’s psychometric quality can be examined closely for the language used by participants.

REFERENCES: Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer (1993), “Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 234-245. Zielke, Stephan and Marcin Komor (2015), "Cross-National Differences in Price–Role Orientation and Their Impact on Retail Markets," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 159-180.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

_____ are good stores for shopping. I buy many products at _____. I shop frequently at _____. I can recommend _____.

-------------1. The generic name for the type of store should be placed in the blanks. Zielke and Komor (2015) had one version of the scale for “discounters” while another was phrased for “hypermarkets.” The extreme verbal anchors for the response scales used with these items appear to have been the German and Polish equivalents of totally disagree / totally agree.

464

RETALIATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES The four statements composing the scale measure the degree to which a customer expresses irritation with employees of a retail establishment for something they have done. A specific, offending behavior is only referred to in one item and has to do with the belief that the employees were trying to close the facility too early.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2, 3, and 4. They created the scale for use in the studies and they drew ideas from the work of Szlemko et al. (2008).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .88, .94, and .87 in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models had good fit. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to retaliation, the AVEs were .64 (Study 2), .78 (Study 3), and .63 (Study 4).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence. Szlemko, William J., Jacob A. Benfield, Paul A. Bell, Jerry L. Deffenbacher, and Lucy Troup (2008), “Territorial Markings as a Predictor of Driver Aggression and Road Rage,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 (6), 1664–1688.

ITEMS:1 1. I made a mess so the employees had to straighten up after me. 2. I purposely got in the way of the employees who were cleaning or chatting to stand my ground. 3. I went slower than I needed to while I was _____ to get back at the employees for the way they treated me.2 4. I informed the employees they were trying to close the _____ too early.3

465

-------------1. Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items. 2. The type of activity that the participant was engaging in should be stated in the blank, e.g., shopping, dining, exercising. 3. The type of facility the participant was in should be stated in the blank, e.g., store, restaurant, fitness center.

466

REVIEW HELPFULNESS With three, seven-point uni-polar items, the scale measures the quality and usefulness of a review that a person has read. The object of the review is not stated in the scale items themselves but has to be provided to participants in the instructions or the context. The scale seems to be flexible for use with a wide variety of things that could be reviewed, e.g., products, companies, charities, political candidates.

ORIGIN: Moore (2015) used the scale in Study 1B and, though not stated, it appears to have been created by the author. Data were collected for the study from 150 U.S. members of an Amazon Mechanical Turk panel. The context of the scale’s usage was that participants read book reviews that differed in various ways then responded to some questions, such as about the review’s helpfulness.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .95 (Moore 2015, p. 35).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Moore (2015).

REFERENCES: Moore, Sarah G. (2015), "Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 30-44.

ITEMS:1 1. helpful 2. useful 3. high quality

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with these items were not at all / very much (Moore 2015, p. 35). As noted above, the instructions used with the scale were not provided. They were likely to have been something like this: Using the items below, please rate the helpfulness of the review you read.

467

REVIEW WRITER’S INTENTION TO BE HELPFUL The scale is composed of three, seven-point Likert-type items that measure how much a person was trying to provide useful information to readers when choosing what to say in a review. The object of the review is not stated in the scale items. Given that, the scale is flexible for use with a wide variety of things that could be reviewed, e.g., products, companies, charities, political candidates.

ORIGIN: Moore (2015) used the scale in Study 3 and, although not stated, it appears to have been created by the author. Data were collected for the study from 159 members of a national (U.S.) panel. The context of the scale’s usage was that participants chose sentences for an online product review and then stated how helpful to readers they were trying to be as they made their selections.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .88 (Moore 2015, p. 37).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Moore (2015).

REFERENCES: Moore, Sarah G. (2015), "Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 30-44.

ITEMS: 1. I tried to be helpful to others who might read my review while choosing sentences. 2. While selecting sentences, I considered what information would be useful for others. 3. I tried to provide useful information in my review.

468

RISK (PERFORMANCE) The scale is composed of four, nine-point Likert-type items that measure how much concern and worry a person expresses about how a particular product with a particular attribute will function.

ORIGIN: Ma, Gill, and Jiang (2015) used the scale in two studies, adapted in each case for different products: a smartphone in Study 3 (n = 211) and a washing machine in Study 4 (n= 208). In both studies, data were gathered from undergraduate students attending a public university in North America. The source of the scale is unclear. The authors described the measure as being “adopted” (p. 316) from a scale by Stone and Gronhaug (1993). Although the latter did create and use four risk-related measures, none of them were very similar to one shown below.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .78 and .88 in Studies 3 and 4, respectively.

VALIDITY: In Study 4, the performance risk scale along with measures of four other types of risk were examined using CFA (Ma, Gill, and Jiang 2015, p. 319). The results indicated that a five-factor model fit the data well. Additionally, as discussed in the web appendix of the article, analyses provided evidence of the performance scale’s convergent and discriminant validities.

REFERENCES: Ma, Zhenfeng, Tripat Gill, and Ying Jiang (2015), "Core Versus Peripheral Innovations: The Effect of Innovation Locus on Consumer Adoption of New Products," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 309-324. Stone, Robert N. and Kjell Grønhaug (1993), “Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the Marketing Discipline,” European Journal of Marketing, 27 (3), 39-50.

ITEMS:1 1. If I were to purchase the _____, I would be concerned whether it could provide the level of benefits that I expect. 2. I worry about whether the _____ will really perform as well as it is supposed to. 3. I am afraid the __________ will interfere with the proper functioning of the other components of the _____. 469

4. I was concerned that the __________ will disturb the proper functioning of the other components of the _____.

-------------1. The product should be identified in the short blank of each item whereas a specific product attribute or innovative characteristic should be stated in the longer blanks of items #3 and #4. For example, item #3 which Ma, Gill, and Jiang (2015) used in Study 4 was stated as: I am afraid the AirWash® (EcoBubble®) system will interfere with the proper functioning of the other components of the Turbo washing machine. The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly disagree (9).

470

RISK IN CHOOSING FROM AN ASSORTMENT The three-item, seven-point Likert-type scale measures a shopper’s uncertainty that he/she will be able to choose a product from the assortment provided by a particular retailer that will meet his/her expectations. Two slightly different versions of the scale are provided.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale is Emricha and Rudolph (2015) though the authors drew ideas from some measures of risk by Biswas and Biswas (2004) who, in turn, had drawn heavily from some scales developed by Shimp and Bearden (1982).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the version of the scale used in Study 1 was .93 while the alpha for the version used in Study 2 was .75 (Emricha and Rudolph 2015, pp. 330, 335).

VALIDITY: In both studies, Emricha and Rudolph (2015) examined the fit of their measurement models and the discriminant validity of the scales. All were satisfactory. The AVEs for the risk measures were .78 (Study 1) and .51 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Biswas, Dipayan and Abhijit Biswas (2004), “The Diagnostic Role of Signals in the Context of Perceived Risks in Online Shopping: Do Signals Matter More on the Web?” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 30–45. Emricha, Oliver, Michael Paul, and Thomas Rudolph (2015), "Shopping Benefits of Multichannel Assortment Integration and the Moderating Role of Retailer Type," Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 326–342. Shimp, A. Terence and William O. Bearden (1982), “Warranty and Other Extrinsic Cue Effects on Consumers' Risk Perceptions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 38– 46.

ITEMS:1 1. I find it very risky to choose products from the assortment at _____. 2. When choosing products from the assortment at _____, I am not sure whether the selected products will perform satisfactorily. 3. When choosing products from the assortment at _____, I am not certain whether the selected products will perform as expected. 4. Choosing products from the assortment at _____ is very risky. 471

5. When choosing products from the assortment at _____, I am not sure whether I will find products that meet my expectations.

-------------1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks. The version of the scale used in Study 1 was composed of #1 to #3 while in Study 2 the items were #3 to #5 (Emricha and Rudolph 2015, p. 340).

472

RISKINESS OF UNPROTECTED SEX Four, nine-point Likert-type items measure how vulnerable a person believes it would be to engage in sex given a certain hypothetical context.

ORIGIN: The scale appears to have been created by Lisjak and Lee (2014) based on concepts and phrases in measures used by MacDonald et al. (2000). The former used the scale in Study 1 with 211 college students attending Northwestern University in the United States. Participants were divided into two experimental conditions: half were presented with a scenario that involved the opportunity for unprotected sex while the other half were told to imagine an opportunity for protected sex.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .71 (Lisjak and Lee 2014, p. 58).

VALIDITY: Although Lisjak and Lee (2014) did not address the scale’s validity, they did state that participants in the protected sex condition perceived less risk than those in the unprotected sex condition. This provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Lisjak, Monika and Angela Y. Lee (2014), "The Bright Side of Impulse: Depletion Heightens Self-Protective Behavior in the Face of Danger," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 55-70. MacDonald, Tara K., Geoffrey T. Fong, Mark P. Zanna, and Alanna M. Martineau (2000), “Alcohol Myopia and Condom Use: Can Alcohol Intoxication Be Associated with More Prudent Behavior?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (April), 605–619.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

There would be much to worry about if I had sex in that situation. Having sex in that situation might be questionable on moral grounds. Having sex in that situation might transmit an STD (sexually transmitted disease). Having sex in that situation might make the female pregnant.

473

ROMANTIC PURSUIT The scale uses three, seven-point items to measure the self-expressed likelihood that one would go after and even seduce a particular man. (The items appear to be easily adaptable for other interpersonal relationships as discussed further below.)

ORIGIN: Wang and Griskevicius (2014) used the scale in Study 5 with 177 female participants recruited from MTurk. The origin of the scale was not stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .95 (Wang and Griskevicius 2014, p. 844).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by the Wang and Griskevicius (2014).

COMMENTS: As used by Wang and Griskevicius (2014), the scale measured the likelihood of the females in the study to pursue a man described in a scenario they read. Slight changes in the wording of the scale stem and the items could make the scale applicable to other people and contexts.

REFERENCES: Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), "Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 834-854.

ITEMS:1 Imagine you are single and you find yourself attracted to this man. How likely would you be to: 1. go after him? 2. try to pursue him? 3. seduce him?

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (7).

474

SAFETY OF THE FOOD PRODUCT The scale is composed of three, seven-point items that measure how safe a person believes it would be to eat a particular food product. The items are phrased in such a way that the person is assumed to have seen the product or read some information about it but has not actually tasted it yet.

ORIGIN: Berry et al. (2015) used the scale in Studies 1 and 2. In both cases, data were gathered from adult members of Amazon’s MTurk panel (Study 1 = 123 participants; Study 2 = 183 participants). The scale was created by the authors based on concepts and phrases found in a FDA Food Safety Survey (Berry 2016; Lando and Carlton 2011).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .87 and .90 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Berry et al. 2015, p. 536; Berry 2016).

VALIDITY: The discriminant validity of this scale and three others was examined by Berry et al. (2015, p. 536). Although the statistical details were not provided, the authors stated that each factor’s AVE was greater than its squared correlation (φ2) with each other factor. This provided evidence of each scale’s discriminant validity with respect to the other three.

REFERENCES: Berry, Christopher (2016), personal correspondence. Berry, Christopher, Amaradri Mukherjee, Scot Burton, and Elizabeth Howlett (2015), "A COOL Effect: The Direct and Indirect Impact of Country-of-Origin Disclosures on Purchase Intentions for Retail Food Products," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 533-542. Lando, Amy and Ema Carlton (2011), 2010 Food Safety Survey: Key Findings and Topline Frequency Report, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA.

ITEMS:1 1. Based on the information provided, how safe do you think it is to consume this product? not safe at all / very safe 2. I think that the food safety level of this product is: very poor / very good

475

3. Given the information shown, do you think that it is likely or unlikely that the _____ product has germs that could make you sick? very unlikely / very likely (r)

-------------1. The instructions or study task should direct the participant’s attention to a particular food product. The blank in item #3 can be used to provide the generic name of the product. For example, the word meat was used by Berry (2016).

476

SALESPERSON’S CUSTOMER ORIENTATION (FUNCTIONAL) The degree to which a customer believes a particular salesperson tried to understand his/her needs with the best of intentions is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 3 of the four discussed in their article. They referred to it as functional customer orientation. Analysis was based on data from 308 participants in Germany who had just interacted with a salesperson. (Salespeople and customers were from a variety of retail stores where price negotiations are common, e.g., car dealerships.) The authors cited Homburg, Müller, and Klarmann (2011) as the source. The scale by the latter was made for salespeople to indicate their approach to selling. While Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) drew a few phrases and ideas from the salesperson scale, the scale they created for use with customers was unique.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .86 in Study 3 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, p. 27).

VALIDITY: Information regarding the scale’s validity was not provided by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014). It was noted that the scale’s AVE was .67.

REFERENCES: Homburg, Christian, Michael Müller, and Martin Klarmann (2011), “When Does Salespeople’s Customer Orientation Lead to Customer Loyalty? The Differential Effects of Relational and Functional Customer Orientation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (6), 795–812. Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

ITEMS: The salesperson . . . 1. tried to figure out my needs. 2. had my best interests in mind. 3. recommended products that suited my needs. 477

SALESPERSON’S CUSTOMER ORIENTATION (RELATIONAL) The scale has three, seven-point Likert-type items measuring a customer’s belief that a salesperson tried to relate to him/her as a person and discussed other things than just the purchase.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 3 of the four discussed in their article. They referred to it as relational customer orientation. Analysis was based on data from 308 participants in Germany who had just interacted with a salesperson. (Salespeople and customers were from a variety of retail stores where price negotiations are common, e.g., car dealerships.) The authors cited Homburg, Müller, and Klarmann (2011) as the source. The scale by the latter was made for salespeople to indicate their approach to selling. While Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) drew a few phrases and ideas from the salesperson scale, the scale they created for use with customers was unique.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .70 in Study 3 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, p. 27).

VALIDITY: Information regarding the scale’s validity was not provided by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014). It was worth noting, however, that the scale’s AVE was .46. That is considered less than adequate (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

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. Homburg, Christian, Michael Müller, and Martin Klarmann (2011), “When Does Salespeople’s Customer Orientation Lead to Customer Loyalty? The Differential Effects of Relational and Functional Customer Orientation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (6), 795–812. Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

478

ITEMS: The salesperson . . . 1. sympathized with me about the problems associated with the purchase. 2. complimented and praised me. 3. discussed shared interests and hobbies prior to discussing sales issues.

479

SATISFACTION WITH THE BUSINESS The degree to which a customer is glad about a decision he/she made and believes that it was the right decision is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in all three studies reported by Allen et al. (2015). The authors created the scale by drawing concepts and phrases from a measure of the construct used by Oliver (1997) who in turn had drawn upon previous work of his as far back as Westbrook and Oliver (1981).

RELIABILITY: The construct reliabilities were .97, .97, and .94 for the scale as used in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Allen 2016; Allen et al. 2015, p. 651).

VALIDITY: Although exact statistics were not provided by Allen et al. (2015), the authors stated that support for convergent and discriminant validities were found for this scale in all three studies, with AVEs being greater than .50.

REFERENCES: Allen, Alexis M. (2016), personal correspondence. Allen, Alexis M., Michael K. Brady, Stacey G. Robinson, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "One Firm’s Loss is Another’s Gain: Capitalizing on Other Firms’ Service Failures," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (5), 648-662. Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden (1985), "Disconfirmation Processes and Consumer Evaluations in Product Usage," Journal of Business Research, 13 (3), 235–246. Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1981), “Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some Preliminary Results,” in Advances in Consumer Research, V. 8, Kent B. Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 94-99.

ITEMS:1 1. I am satisfied with this _____. 2. I think that I did the right thing when I selected this _____. 3. I am happy with this _____.

-------------1. A generic term for the focal business should be placed in the blanks. For example, Allen et al. (2015, p. 660) used the term “hotel” or “restaurant” depending upon the study. Responses to the items were made on a seven-point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree.

480

SATISFACTION WITH THE CO-PRODUCTION PROCESS How pleased a customer is with a particular product assembly experience is measured with three, seven-point bi-polar adjectives.

ORIGIN: Haumann et al. (2015) used the scale in a study composed of customers of a multinational seller of ready-to-assemble furniture. Customers were contacted and asked to complete an initial questionnaire. Those who responded to that first wave were contacted six weeks later and 803 of those who responded to that second wave indicated that they had purchased and assembled an item. The scale is a slight adaptation of a measure used by Bendapudi and Leone (2003) to measure a similar construct.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 (Haumann et al. 2015, p. 25).

VALIDITY: Although many details were not provided, tests of measurement validity were conducted by Haumann et al. (2015). Evidence was found in support of the convergent and discriminant validities of all their measures. The AVE of the co-production satisfaction scale was .85.

REFERENCES: Bendapudi, Neeli and Robert P. Leone (2003), “Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (January), 14–28. Haumann, Till, Pascal Güntürkün, Laura Marie Schons, and Jan Wieseke (2015), "Engaging Customers in Coproduction Processes: How Value-Enhancing and IntensityReducing Communication Strategies Mitigate the Negative Effects of Coproduction Intensity," Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 17-33.

ITEMS: How satisfied are you with the overall co-production process referring to the assembly of the _____?1 The overall coproduction process was . . . 1. dissatisfying / satisfying 2. displeasing / pleasing 481

3. terrible / delighting

-------------1. The name of the product should be placed in the blank, e.g., furniture.

482

SATISFACTION WITH THE CUSTOMIZATION DECISION Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a person feels good about the way he/she customized a product for him/herself and would make the same decision again.

ORIGIN: Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) used the scale in Studies 3 to 8. The authors indicated they had adapted a measure by Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer (2005), however, the scale appears to have much more in common with a measure by Westbrook and Oliver (1981) that has long been adapted by researchers for use in their studies.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale in six studies by Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) ranged from .76 (Study 3) to .91 (Studies 4 and 7).

VALIDITY: This scale’s validity was not discussed by Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014).

REFERENCES: Hildebrand, Christian, Gerald Häubl, and Andreas Herrmann (2014), "Product Customization via Starting Solutions," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 707-725. Homburg, Christian, Nicole Koschate, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2005), “Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 84-96. Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1981), “Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some Preliminary Results,” in Advances in Consumer Research, V. 8, Kent B. Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 94-99.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

All in all, I am satisfied with my customized product. My customized product corresponds to what I want. If I had to decide among the same features once again, I would decide the same way. I feel good about having made my customization decisions.

-------------1. The extreme anchors that Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) used with these items were do not agree at all (1) and fully agree (7).

483

SATISFACTION WITH THE DISCOUNT The degree to which a customer is pleased with the reduction in price that he/she was able to negotiate during a recent purchase is measured with three, seven-point Likerttype items.

ORIGIN: Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) used the scale in Study 3 of the four discussed in their article. Analysis was based on data from 308 participants in Germany who had just interacted with a salesperson. (Salespeople and customers were from a variety of retail stores where price negotiations are common, e.g., car dealerships.) The authors cited Oliver, Balakrishnan, and Barry (1994) as the source of the measure. However, since nothing like the scale shown below is in that article, Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014) probably meant that they derived ideas for creating the scale from the cited piece.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .81 in Study 3 by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014, p. 27).

VALIDITY: Information regarding the scale’s validity was not provided by Wieseke, Alavi, and Habel (2014). It was noted that the scale’s AVE was .60.

REFERENCES: Oliver, Richard L., P.V. Balakrishnan, and Bruce Barry (1994), “Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 60 (2), 252–275. Wieseke, Jan, Sascha Alavi, and Johannes Habel (2014), "Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations," Journal of Marketing, 78 (6), 17-37.

ITEMS: 1. I am very satisfied with the discount I received at this purchase. 2. I am very satisfied with the concessions I received at this purchase. 3. I think I got the most out of the price negotiation at this purchase.

484

SCARCITY (PERSONAL RESOURCES) The degree to which a person believes that his/her resources are insufficient and that more are needed is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. The items themselves are rather general. Focusing participants’ attention on a particular situation and type of resource would need to be done in the context of the study or the questionnaire’s instructions.

ORIGIN: Roux, Goldsmith, and Bonezzi (2015) used the scale as a manipulation check with samples that were part of Studies 1 and 4 but distinct from the primary samples. In both cases, participants were drawn from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The scale’s source was not described and maybe the authors themselves.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .89 and .85 the samples used in Study 1 and Study 4, respectively (Roux, Goldsmith, and Bonezzi 2015, pp. 618, 623).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not directly addressed by Roux, Goldsmith, and Bonezzi (2015). However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check in Studies 1 and 4 and the manipulations were successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Roux, Caroline, Kelly Goldsmith, and Andrea Bonezzi (2015), "On the Psychology of Scarcity: When Reminders of Resource Scarcity Promote Selfish (and Generous) Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 615-631.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

My resources are scarce. I don’t have enough resources. I need to protect the resources I have. I need to acquire more resources.

-------------1. Participants responded to the items with a scale anchored at the extremes by Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7). Instructions or the context of the study should clarify for participants what resources the items refer to, particularly if they are only to consider one type and not another, e.g., monetary rather than non-monetary resources.

485

SELF IMAGE CONCERNS The seven, seven-point items in this scale are intended to measure a person’s selfconsciousness regarding the way he/she looks and the desire to look good to others.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014; White 2015). It was used in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .854 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 439).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

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

I I I I I I I

am concerned with the publicly displayed aspects of myself. am self-conscious about the way I look to others. am concerned about the way I present myself to others. wish to avoid looking foolish. want to present a positive view of myself to others. want to be viewed positively by others. want to look good to others.

-------------1. According to White (2015), the verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (7).

486

SELF-ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GROUP PERFORMANCE Using three, seven-point items, the scale measures the extent to which a person has a sense of responsibility for helping a group of which he/she is a member perform an activity or achieve a goal.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by White, Simpson, and Argo (2014; White 2015). It was used in Study 3 and analysis was based on data from 240 undergraduate students.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .791 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 439).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

ITEMS:1 1. I feel accountable for my _____’s performance. 2. I feel responsible for my _____’s outcomes. 3. I feel like I should do more to help my _____ __________.2

-------------1. According to White (2015), the verbal anchors for the response scale were not at all (1) and very much so (7). The blanks in #1 and #2 as well as the first one of #3 should be filled with an appropriate generic term for the focal group. White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the term “province,” referring to the provinces in Canada. Other territorial entities could probably be used as well, e.g., town, state, country. It also seems quite possible that the scale could be used with respect to groups such as companies, schools, and sports teams in which members feel responsible for the performance of their group. 2. The second blank should have a word or phrase describing the group activity or goal. Depending upon the treatment group, White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used either “recycle” or “prevent litter.”

487

SELF-CONCEPT (COLLECTIVE) The scale uses five, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s motivation to help groups to which he/she belongs be successful regardless if he/she receives attention for contributing or is liked by group members.

ORIGIN: Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015) used the scale in a study in which data were collected from 210 members of a Norwegian consumer panel. The scale was one of three developed by Selenta and Lord (2005; Johnson, Selenta, and Lord 2006) to measure three chronic, self-concept levels. Those authors claimed they found evidence in support of the scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. As reported in Johnson, Selenta, and Lord (2006, p. 182), the alphas for the measure of collective self-concept were .60 (Study 1) and .73 (Study 2).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .82 in the study by Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015, p. 343).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015) examined the measurement model and provided evidence of the model’s fit as well as the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. With specific reference to the measure of collective self-concept, the AVE was .52.

REFERENCES: Johnson, Russell E., Christopher Selenta, and Robert G. Lord (2006), “When Organizational Justice and the Self-Concept Meet: Consequences for the Organization and its Members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99 (2), 175– 201. Selenta, Christopher and Robert G. Lord (2005), “Development of the Levels of SelfConcept Scale: Measuring the individual, Relational, and Collective levels,” unpublished manuscript. Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Kjell Grønhaug (2015), "The Role of Moral Emotions and Individual Differences in Consumer Responses to Corporate Green and Non-Green Actions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 333-356.

ITEMS: 1. Making a lasting contribution to groups that I belong to, such as my work organization, is very important to me. 488

2. When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success. 3. I feel great pride when my team or group does well, even if I’m not the main reason for its success. 4. I would be honored if I were chosen by an organization or club that I belong to, to represent them at a conference or meeting. 5. When I’m part of a team, I am concerned about the group as a whole instead of whether individual team members like me or whether I like them.

489

SELF-CONCEPT (RELATIONAL) The importance a person places on his/her affective and behavioral involvement with close others is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015) used the scale in a study in which data were collected from 210 members of a Norwegian consumer panel. The scale was one of three developed by Selenta and Lord (2005; Johnson, Selenta, and Lord 2006) to measure three chronic, self-concept levels. Those authors claimed they found evidence in support of the scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. As reported in Johnson, Selenta, and Lord (2006, p. 182), the alphas for the measure of relational self-concept was .74 (Study 1) and .84 (Study 2).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 in the study by Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015, p. 343).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug (2015) examined the measurement model and provided evidence of the model’s fit as well as the convergent and discriminant validities of their measures. With specific reference to the measure of relational self-concept, the AVE was .69.

REFERENCES: Johnson, Russell E., Christopher Selenta, and Robert G. Lord (2006), “When Organizational Justice and the Self-Concept Meet: Consequences for the Organization and its Members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99 (2), 175– 201. Selenta, Christopher and Robert G. Lord (2005), “Development of the Levels of SelfConcept Scale: Measuring the individual, Relational, and Collective levels,” unpublished manuscript. Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Kjell Grønhaug (2015), "The Role of Moral Emotions and Individual Differences in Consumer Responses to Corporate Green and Non-Green Actions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 333-356.

ITEMS: 1. If a friend was having a personal problem, I would help him/her even if it meant sacrificing my time or money. 2. I value friends who are caring, empathic individuals. 490

3. It is important to me that I uphold my commitments to significant people in my life. 4. Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or relative is important to me. 5. Knowing that a close other acknowledges and values the role that I play in their life makes me feel like a worthwhile person.

491

SELF-CONCEPT (SELF-DISCIPLINE) The extent to which a person views him/herself as being regimented and having selfcontrol is measured with three, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 and 4. Data were gathered in the studies from 312 and 257 undergraduate students, respectively. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .82 and .81 in Studies 2 and 4, respectively (Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski 2015, pp. 504, 508).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015).

REFERENCES: Salerno, Anthony (2016), personal correspondence. Salerno, Anthony, Juliano Laran, and Chris Janiszewski (2015), "Pride and Regulatory Behavior: The Influence of Appraisal Information and Self-Regulatory Goals," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 499-514.

ITEMS:1 1. Being a highly regimented person is just part of who I am. 2. I am good at resisting temptation. 3. People would say I have exceptional self-discipline.

-------------1. The items were provided by Salerno (2016). The extreme scale anchors for item #1 were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The extreme anchors for the other two items were not at all like me (1) and very much like me (7).

492

SELF-CONTINUITY PREFERENCE Six, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s desire to experience consistency and stability at the current time rather than change.

ORIGIN: Yang and Urminsky (2015) used the scale in Study 4 of the six described in their article. Data were collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk (n = 418 participants). The scale was developed by the authors (Yang 2016).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Yang and Urminsky 2015, p. 369).

VALIDITY: No information about the scale’s validity was provided in the article by Yang and Urminsky (2015).

REFERENCES: Yang, Adelle X. (2016), personal correspondence. Yang, Adelle X. and Oleg Urminsky (2015), "The Foresight Effect: Local Optimism Motivates Consistency and Local Pessimism Motivates Variety," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 361-377.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Now feels like a good time for some changes to happen. (r) I feel like staying the same right now. I would like to continue to experience what I feel now. I would like to experience something different now. (r) A novel experience would be nice now. (r) I would rather stay the course than to try something new now.

-------------1. Although just a couple of these statements were given in the article itself, the full set of items was provided by Yang and Urminsky (2015) in the online appendix. The scale stem was provided by Yang (2016).

493

SELF-DEFINING EXPERIENCE The degree to which a person believes a particular experience has helped make and/or define him-/herself is measured with three, five-point items.

ORIGIN: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) used the scale in Studies 3A (n = 249) and 3B (n = 316). In both cases, participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The items used to measure a self-defining experience were among 39 drawn from a number of relevant sources that were thought to be potentially useful in differentiating between ordinary and extraordinary experiences. The results of an EFA showed there were 10 clear factors, one of them composed of the three items shown below.

RELIABILITY: In Studies 3A and 3B, the alphas for the scale were .85 and .83, respectively.

VALIDITY: Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity. However, because the scale was used as a manipulation check in Study 3B and was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Bhattacharjee, Amit (2015), personal correspondence. Bhattacharjee, Amit and Cassie Mogilner (2014), "Happiness from Ordinary and Extraordinary Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 1-17.

ITEMS:1 To what extent would you describe the experience as follows? 1. Self-defining 2. Related to my place in the world 3. A personal accomplishment

-------------1. The anchors used by Bhattacharjee and Mogilner (2014) with these items were not at all (1), a little (2), moderately (3), quite a bit (4), and very much (5). The exact phrasing of the items, the scale stem, and the response format were clarified by Bhattacharjee (2015).

494

SELF-ESTEEM ATTACK LIKELIHOOD How much a person believes that a certain event would negatively affect his/her morale and pride is measured with five, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Wang and Griskevicius (2014) used the scale with 101 participants in the pretest prior to Study 3. The origin of the scale was not stated by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .98 (Wang and Griskevicius 2014, p. 840).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by the Wang and Griskevicius (2014). However, since the scale was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides some limited evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), "Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 834-854.

ITEMS:1 How much would this: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

be a blow to your ego? make you feel worthless? lower your self-esteem? decrease your morale? lower your self-respect?

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not at all (1) and very much (7).

495

SELF-IMPROVEMENT MOTIVATION With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s general motivation to do better and succeed.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Allard and White (2015) in Studies 1 and 2. Data were gathered in Study 1 from 169 recruits from Amazon MTurk. In Study 2, data came from 166 undergraduate students. Also, in that study participants completed the scale both before and after they were given a choice to receive a self-improvement product. The authors did not state the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .82 (Study 1), .84 (Study 2, pre-choice), and .88 (Study 2, post-choice).

VALIDITY: Allard and White (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Allard, Thomas and Katherine White (2015), "Cross-Domain Effects of Guilt on Desire for Self-Improvement Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 401-419.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

want to achieve success. want to do better. strive to be better. want to prosper.

-------------1. The extreme anchors on the response scale that Allard and White (2015, p. 407) used with these items were Strongly disagree (-3) and Strongly agree (+3). Given that the authors described it as a seven-point scale, it means the neutral point was scored as zero.

496

SELF-REGULATORY EXERTION (MATH TASK) The degree to which a person reports having to force him/herself to continue engaging in an arithmetically-intensive task is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Lisjak et al. (2015) used the scale in a pretest for Experiment 2 as well as in Experiment 3B. The source of the scale was not identified. The authors believed the use of an arithmetic task was an appropriate measure of mental self-regulation because solving math problems over an extended period of time requires effort and most people have to resist their motivation to stop solving the problems. Further, this approach has been used in previous studies, e.g., Stewart et al. (2009); Vohs et al. (2005, 2008).

RELIABILITY: The alphas calculated for the scale were .77 (Experiment 2 pretest) and .76 (Experiment 3B).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Lisjak et al. (2015).

REFERENCES: Lisjak, Monika, Andrea Bonezzi, Soo Kim, and Derek D. Rucker (2015), "Perils of Compensatory Consumption: Within-Domain Compensation Undermines Subsequent Self-Regulation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1186-1203. Stewart, Christopher C., Rex A. Wright, Siu-Kuen Azor Hui, and Angel Simmons (2009), “Outcome Expectancy as a Moderator of Mental Fatigue Influence on Cardiovascular Response,” Psychophysiology, 46 (November), 1141–1149. Vohs, Kathleen D., Roy F. Baumeister, and Natalie J. Ciarocco (2005), “Self-Regulation and Self-Presentation: Regulatory Resource Depletion Impairs Impression Management and Effortful Self-Presentation Depletes Regulatory Resources,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (April), 632–657. Vohs, Kathleen D., Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Jean M. Twenge, Noelle M. Nelson, and Dianne M. Tice (2008), “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-Control: A Limited-Resource Account of Decision Making, Self-Regulation, and Active Initiative,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (May), 883–898.

ITEMS:1 1. The arithmetic task required effort. 497

2. There were moments when I wanted to stop solving the arithmetic problems. 3. I had to force myself to keep working on the task.

-------------1. The items were paraphrased in the article by Lisjak et al. (2015, pp. 1192, 1196). They are modified here and stated in the first person so as to be more like what the participants are assumed to have seen.

498

SELF-REGULATORY GOAL PROGRESS The scale uses three, seven-point items to measure how much advancement a person believes he/she has made towards achieving of a self-regulatory objective.

ORIGIN: Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 and 4. Data were gathered in the studies from 312 and 257 undergraduate students, respectively. The self-regulatory goal in Study 2 was healthy eating while Study 4 dealt with saving money and budgeting. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .95 and .91 in Studies 2 and 4, respectively (Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski 2015, pp. 504, 508).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015).

REFERENCES: Salerno, Anthony (2016), personal correspondence. Salerno, Anthony, Juliano Laran, and Chris Janiszewski (2015), "Pride and Regulatory Behavior: The Influence of Appraisal Information and Self-Regulatory Goals," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 499-514.

ITEMS:1 1. How much progress do you currently feel you have made towards __________? 2. I have made considerable progress towards the goal of __________. 3. Recently, I have __________.

-------------1. The items were provided by Salerno (2016). The extreme anchors were: very little (1) and a great deal (7) for item #1; not at all (1) and very much so (7) for item #2; and, strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) for item #3. The blanks in the first two items should be filled with a short phrase that describes the focal goal, e.g., healthy eating, saving money. A longer phrase should be used in item #3 that states that the person has improved with respect to the focal goal. For example, the phrase used by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015) in Study 2 was “become better at making healthy eating decisions” while in Study 4 it was “progressed at making sound budgeting decisions.”

499

SELF-TRANSFORMATION (ACQUIRING AN OBJECT) The scale is composed of five, six-point items that measure one’s expectation that if he/she were able to purchase a certain product then it would have a positive impact on one’s life in terms of confidence, status, and image.

ORIGIN: Richins and Chaplin (2015) used the scale in Study 3 with 325 respondents who were members of Amazon Mechanical Turk and grew up in North America. The measure is a subscale of the Transformation Expectations instrument developed by Richins (2011). That measure of self-transformation was composed of three items and, unexpectedly, they loaded with two items measuring appearance transformation. The five items were used together as a scale in Richins (2013). According to Richins (2016), the five item version shown below is the one used by Richins and Chaplin (2015).

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .91 (Richins and Chaplin 2015, p. 1346).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Richins and Chaplin (2015).

COMMENTS: Given the instructions used by Richins and Chaplin (2015), the scale is meant for use when participants are thinking about acquiring a product. However, it seems that with slight changes to the directions, the items could be used for various other transformative events in one’s life such as getting a promotion, winning a lottery, or receiving an advanced degree.

REFERENCES: Richins, Marsha L. (2011), “Materialism, Transformation Expectations, and Spending: Implications for Credit Use,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30 (2), 141–156. Richins, Marsha L. (2013), “When Wanting Is Better than Having: Materialism, Transformation Expectations, and Product-Evoked Emotions in the Purchase Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 1–18. Richins, Marsha L. (2016), personal correspondence. Richins, Marsha L. and Lan Nguyen Chaplin (2015), "Material Parenting: How the Use of Goods in Parenting Fosters Materialism in the Next Generation," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1333-1357. 500

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Below is a list of ways your life might change if you owned the item you just described. How likely is it that each of these things would happen if you were able to buy this object? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Other people would respect me more. I would feel like a more important person. I’d feel more self-confident. I would become more attractive to other people. My appearance would be improved.

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with the response scale for these items were very unlikely and very likely (Richins and Chaplin (2015, p. 1347).

501

SERVICE DOMINANT ORIENTATION (CONCERTED) Employing four statements, the scale measures the degree to which a customer believes that each part (employee, department, partner) of a particular service provider works “in concert” and as one to smoothly provide service to him/her.

ORIGIN: In an admirable five stage process, Karpen et al. (2015) developed and tested this scale along with five companion scales intended to measure six strategic capabilities that form the service-dominant orientation. In the five stages, the authors generated items, evaluated them for content and face validity, purified them, examined them again for several forms of validity, and then tested hypotheses. The final version of the scales were tested in Studies 2 (n = 301) and 3 (n = 412).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for this scale were .882 and .891 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

VALIDITY: As noted above, several tests of validity were conducted in the five stage process used by Karpen et al. (2015). For example, evidence was provided of each scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities. The concerted scale’s AVEs were .740 and .753 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

ITEMS:1 This _____ and its _____ . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

work together seamlessly in serving to me. act as one unit when dealing with me. provide messages to me that are consistent with each other. ensure they have smooth procedures for interacting with me.

502

-------------1. The blanks in the scale stem should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the service provider being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership and its representatives” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

503

SERVICE DOMINANT ORIENTATION (DEVELOPMENTAL) Four statements are used to measure the degree to which a customer believes that a particular service provider helps him/her to become more knowledgeable and skilled with respect to the service.

ORIGIN: In an admirable five stage process, Karpen et al. (2015) developed and tested this scale along with five companion scales intended to measure six strategic capabilities that form the service-dominant orientation. In the five stages, the authors generated items, evaluated them for content and face validity, purified them, examined them again for several forms of validity, and then tested hypotheses. The final version of the scales were tested in Studies 2 (n = 301) and 3 (n = 412).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for this scale were .878 and .914 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

VALIDITY: As noted above, several tests of validity were conducted in the five stage process used by Karpen et al. (2015). For example, evidence was provided of each scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities. The developmental scale’s AVEs were .732 and .796 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

ITEMS:1 This _____ and its _____ . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

share useful information with me. help me become more knowledgeable. provide me with the advice I need to use their offerings successfully. offer me expertise that I can learn from.

504

-------------1. The blanks in the scale stem should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the service provider being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership and its representatives” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

505

SERVICE DOMINANT ORIENTATION (EMPOWERED) In this scale, four statements measure a customer’s belief that a particular service provider involves him/her in shaping resources and experiences to fit one’s preference.

ORIGIN: In an admirable five stage process, Karpen et al. (2015) developed and tested this scale along with five companion scales intended to measure six strategic capabilities that form the service-dominant orientation. In the five stages, the authors generated items, evaluated them for content and face validity, purified them, examined them again for several forms of validity, and then tested hypotheses. The final version of the scales were tested in Studies 2 (n = 301) and 3 (n = 412).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for this scale were .868 and .886 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

VALIDITY: As noted above, several tests of validity were conducted in the five stage process used by Karpen et al. (2015). For example, evidence was provided of each scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities. The empowered scale’s AVEs were .717 and .744 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

ITEMS:1 This _____ and its _____ . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

invite me to provide ideas or suggestions. encourage me to shape the service I receive. provide me with control over my experiences. let me interact with them in my preferred way.

506

-------------1. The blanks in the scale stem should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the service provider being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership and its representatives” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

507

SERVICE DOMINANT ORIENTATION (ETHICAL) The scale uses four statements to measure a customer’s belief that a particular service provider does not exploit or deceive him/her in their business relationship.

ORIGIN: In an admirable five stage process, Karpen et al. (2015) developed and tested this scale along with five companion scales intended to measure six strategic capabilities that form the service-dominant orientation. In the five stages, the authors generated items, evaluated them for content and face validity, purified them, examined them again for several forms of validity, and then tested hypotheses. The final version of the scales were tested in Studies 2 (n = 301) and 3 (n = 412).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .896 and .910 for Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

VALIDITY: As noted above, several tests of validity were conducted in the five stage process used by Karpen et al. (2015). For example, evidence was provided of each scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities. The ethical scale’s AVEs were .762 and .787 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

ITEMS:1 This _____ and its _____ . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

do do do do

not not not not

try to take advantage of me. pressure me in any way. mislead me in any way. try to manipulate me.

508

-------------1. The blanks in the scale stem should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the service provider being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership and its representatives” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

509

SERVICE DOMINANT ORIENTATION (INDIVIDUATED) With four statements, the scale measures a customer’s belief that a particular service provider makes an effort to anticipate and understand his/her unique needs and expectations.

ORIGIN: In an admirable five stage process, Karpen et al. (2015) developed and tested this scale along with five companion scales intended to measure six strategic capabilities that form the service-dominant orientation. In the five stages, the authors generated items, evaluated them for content and face validity, purified them, examined them again for several forms of validity, and then tested hypotheses. The final version of the scales were tested in Studies 2 (n = 301) and 3 (n = 412).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .89 and .911 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

VALIDITY: As noted above, several tests of validity were conducted in the five stage process used by Karpen et al. (2015). For example, evidence was provided of each scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities. The individuated scale’s AVEs were .752 and .789 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

ITEMS:1 This _____ and its _____ . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

make an effort to understand my individual needs. are sensitive to my individual situation. make an effort to find out what kind of offering is most helpful to me. seek to identify my personal expectations.

510

-------------1. The blanks in the scale stem should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the service provider being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership and its representatives” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

511

SERVICE DOMINANT ORIENTATION (RELATIONAL) The extent to which a customer believes a particular service provider expresses genuine interest in him/her and encourages communication is measured with four items.

ORIGIN: In an admirable five stage process, Karpen et al. (2015) developed and tested this scale along with five companion scales intended to measure six strategic capabilities that form the service-dominant orientation. In the five stages, the authors generated items, evaluated them for content and face validity, purified them, examined them again for several forms of validity, and then tested hypotheses. The final version of the scales were tested in Studies 2 (n = 301) and 3 (n = 412).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .864 and .889 for Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

VALIDITY: As noted above, several tests of validity were conducted in the five stage process used by Karpen et al. (2015). Evidence was provided of each scale’s unidimensionality as well as its convergent and discriminant validities. The relational scale’s AVEs were .712 and .751 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Karpen et al. 2015, pp. 95, 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108.

ITEMS:1 This _____ and its _____ . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

make me feel at ease during our dealings. try to establish rapport with me. encourage two-way communication with me. show genuine interest in engaging me.

-------------1. The blanks in the scale stem should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the service provider being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership and its representatives” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the

512

response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

513

SERVICE FAILURE ATTRIBUTIONS (INTERNAL) Four, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure the degree to which a customer believes a particular service-related problem was the fault of the service provider (internal) rather than someone or something else (external).

ORIGIN: Heidenreich et al. (2015) used the scale in Studies 2 (n = 266) and 4 (n = 265) with participants recruited from a German consumer panel. It is not clear if the scale was stated in German or English. As for the scale’s source, the authors indicated that they adapted items from work by Dong et al. (2008). While phrasing of two of the four items appears to have been drawn from a three-item measure by Dong et al. (2008), the source of the other two items in the scale used by Heidenreich et al. (2015) is unknown.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability calculated for the scale as used in Study 2 was .971 (Heidenreich et al. 2015, p. 293). The scale’s reliability in Study 4 was not stated.

VALIDITY: Although the details were limited, structural equations modeling was used in Study 2 and was described as providing support for the convergent and discriminant validities of the constructs' measures (Heidenreich et al. 2015, p. 284). With specific regard to the service failure attributions scale, it is clear that the items loaded very high on the same construct and the AVE was .892.

REFERENCES: Dong, Beibei, Kenneth R. Evans, and Shaoming Zou (2008), “The Effects of Customer Participation in Co-Created Service Recovery, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 123-137. Heidenreich, Sven, Kristina Wittkowski, Matthias Handrich, and Tomas Falk (2015), "The Dark Side of Customer Co-Creation: Exploring the Consequences of Failed Co-Created Services," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 279-296.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

In my view, the service provider is fully responsible for the service failure. The problem that led to the service failure was clearly caused by the service provider. The service failure that I encountered was entirely service provider’s fault. The service provider is solely responsible for the service failure. 514

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items by Heidenreich et al. (2015, p. 283) were totally disagree (1) and totally agree (7) (or the German equivalents). It was also indicated that all of the items were reverse–scored (p. 293). It is not clear why that was done.

515

SERVICE IMPORTANCE The importance a consumer places on good customer service in a particular product category is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Habel and Klarmann (2015) in a survey of 1,522 adult residents of the U.S. who were members of an online panel. Except for education, the sample was considered to be representative of the U.S. population in terms of several typical demographic variables. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of 29 product categories to evaluate various aspects of that category. Habel and Klarmann (2015) did not identify the source of the scale.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliability of the scale was .96 (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 777). This was apparently calculated across 29 product categories.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Habel and Klarmann (2015). They did, however, state that the scale’s AVE was .88 (p. 777).

REFERENCES: Habel, Johannes and Martin Klarmann (2015), "Customer Reactions to Downsizing: When and How is Satisfaction Affected?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 768-789.

ITEMS:1 When it comes to _____, . . . 1. good customer service is very important to me. 2. I place very high value on customer service. 3. I consider a very good customer service to be crucial.

-------------1. The blank should be filled with the name of the focal product category, e.g., internet service providers. The extreme verbal anchors used with these items were fully disagree and fully agree (Habel and Klarmann 2015, p. 779).

516

SERVICE QUALITY (EMPATHY) The scale used three items to measure the degree to which a person believes that a particular set of employees express caring and attention to customers. This scale does not measure empathy in the sense of one person experiencing the feelings on another but rather employees doing things within their power to show concern for customers.

ORIGIN: Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) used the scale in Studies 1 and 2. Respondents in the first study were female members of a consumer research panel. In Study 2, the final sample was 202 female students from a large southwestern university in the United States. The authors implied that the source of the scale was Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988). While some concepts were probably gleaned from the empathy scale of SERVQUAL, none of the items in the two scales are the same.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliabilities of the scale were .88 and .77 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Pounders, Babin, and Close 2015, pp. 676, 681).

VALIDITY: In Studies 1 and 2 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), CFAs were used to provide support for the fit of the measurement models. Further, they provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales being used. The AVEs for the measure of employees’ empathy were .71 (Study 1) and .53 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Parasuraman, A., Valerie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12–40. Pounders, Kathrynn R., Barry J. Babin, and Angeline G. Close (2015), "All the Same to Me: Outcomes of Aesthetic Labor Performed by Frontline Service Providers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 670-693.

ITEMS:1 1. The employees here are likely to be friendly. 2. The employees here provide knowledgeable advice. 3. The employees here treat all customers equally. 517

-------------1. The response format used with these items was merely described by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015, p. 688) as being five-point scales in Study 1 and seven-point scales in Study 2. The statements appear to be Likert-type and it is likely that the extreme verbal anchors of the response scale used with the three items were strongly disagree / strongly agree or something very similar.

518

SERVICE QUALITY (OVERALL) With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the extent to which a person believes that the service provided by a company is high quality, with no reference to any specific type of business or aspect of service quality.

ORIGIN: Dagger and Danaher (2014) used the scale in Study 1. The items were created by the authors based on phrases and concepts found in measures of similar constructs by Brady and Cronin (2001).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .96 (Dagger and Danaher 2014, p. 78).

VALIDITY: All of the scales used in Study 1 were examined in a CFA. Not only did the measurement model have a good fit but evidence was found in support of each scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE of the service quality measure was .88.

REFERENCES: Brady, Michael K. and Joseph J. Cronin Jr. (2001), “Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (July), 34-49. Dagger, Tracey S. and Peter J. Danaher (2014), "Comparing the Effect of Store Remodeling on New and Existing Customers," Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 62-80.

ITEMS: 1. I believe this firm offers service that is superior in every way. 2. The quality of the service provided by this firm is impressive. 3. The service provided by this firm is of a high standard.

519

SERVICE QUALITY (OVERALL) A consumer’s global evaluation of a service experience is measure with three, nine-point bi-polar adjectives.

ORIGIN: Giebelhausen et al. (2014) used the scale in Study 2 in which participants simulated the check-out process at a fast food restaurant. Analysis was based on data collected from the 156 people recruited from MTurk who completed all required measures. The items in the scale have been used many times in various attitude measures, e.g., attitude toward the brand. In particular, Giebelhausen et al. (2014) drew items from two measures used by Miniard, Sirdeshmukh, and Innis (1992).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .986 (Robinson 2016).

VALIDITY: Giebelhausen et al. (2014, p. 119) made a claim of convergent validity for the scale due to its strong correlation with an overall evaluation item used routinely by J.D. Power and Associates in its research.

REFERENCES: Giebelhausen, Michael, Stacey G. Robinson, Nancy J. Sirianni, and Michael K. Brady (2014), "Touch Versus Tech: When Technology Functions as a Barrier or a Benefit to Service Encounters," Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 113-124. Miniard, Paul W., Deepak Sirdeshmukh, and Daniel E. Innis (1992), "Peripheral Persuasion and Brand Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 226-239. Robinson, Stacey (2016), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 Directions: While answering these questions, please imagine that you actually experienced the scenario described during the shopping simulation. Please indicate your overall impression of your experience during _____.2 1. negative / positive 2. unappealing / appealing 3. bad / good 520

-------------1. The directions and scale items were provided by Robinson (2016). 2. A name for the focal aspect of the service experience should be placed in the blank. As used by Giebelhausen et al. (2014; Robinson 2016), the term was “check-out.”

521

SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION The scale uses four uni-polar items with a five-point Likert-type response format to measure how devastating and distressing a situation seems to be.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale was not identified Fisher and Ma (2014). They used it in a pretest as a check of a manipulation used in several subsequent experiments. Participants (n = 110) were adults who were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. As used by the authors, the scale measured the need severity of children based on photos as well as descriptions of how they had suffered in some way.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .93 (Fisher and Ma 2014, p. 440).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not directly assessed by Fisher and Ma (2014). However, given that the scale was used successfully as a manipulation check, it provides some evidence of the measure’s predictive validity.

COMMENTS: As noted in the description (above), the scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) to measure participants’ thoughts about children in photos. The items themselves appear to be amenable for use in a very wide variety of circumstances, for example, how severe an economic situation is viewed or damage done to a brand's image. If used in such situations for theory testing, pretesting of the adapted scale’s psychometric qualities is strongly recommended.

REFERENCES: Fisher, Robert J. (2015), personal correspondence. Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450.

ITEMS:1 1. significant 2. severe 522

3. devastating 4. distressing

-------------1. According to Fisher (2015), the scale stem he and his co-author used with these items was “The effect of the disaster on the child's life was . . . .” A five-point response format was used and its extreme anchors were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

523

SHARING AN EXPERIENCE WITH A BRAND The extent to which a consumer believes that a brand was part of an experience that he/she had is measured with four, seven-point Likert-type items. The items connote an anthropomorphic view of the brand.

ORIGIN: Dunn and Hoegg (2014) created the scale and used it in Study 1 of a series investigating the role of fear in the creation of emotional brand attachment. The sample in the experiment was composed of 86 undergraduate students from the University of British Columbia.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 (Dunn and Hoegg 2014, p. 156).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scales was not addressed by Dunn and Hoegg (2014).

REFERENCES: Dunn, Lea and JoAndrea Hoegg (2014), "The Impact of Fear on Emotional Brand Attachment," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 152-168.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

The brand went through the experience with me. The brand and I underwent the experience together. The brand experienced the situation with me. I felt that the brand was with me.

-------------1. If it would make the items more easily understood to participants, the phrase “the brand” could be replaced with the actual name of the brand.

524

SHOPPING CHOICE DIFFICULTY With three, nine-point items, the scale measures the time and effort a consumer reports spending to choose between options within a product category that were available in a store.

ORIGIN: The scale was reported by Diehl, van Herpen, and Lamberton (2015) to have been used in four studies. They referred to it as perceived effort. No source was identified. The authors may have developed it.

RELIABILITY: Eight calculations of the scale’s internal consistency were reported by Diehl, van Herpen, and Lamberton (2015), varying across the studies and conditions. The alphas ranged from .77 to .90.

VALIDITY: Diehl, van Herpen, and Lamberton (2015) did not address the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Diehl, Kristin (2016), personal correspondence. Diehl, Kristin, Erica van Herpen, and Cait Lamberton (2015), "Organizing Products with Complements versus Substitutes: Effects on Store Preferences as a Function of Effort and Assortment Perceptions," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 1-18.

ITEMS:1 1. How difficult was it to make a choice among the _______ in the store? not at all difficult / very difficult 2. Choosing the best _____ took . . . very little effort / a lot of effort 3. Choosing the _____ in the store took . . . very little time / a lot of time

-------------1. The items were provided by Diehl (2016). As phrased by the author and her co-authors, the items varied somewhat across the four studies in which the scale was used. These are generalized versions of the items. The blanks should be filled with a name for the focal product category, e.g., shirts.

525

SHOPPING CONVENIENCE (GENERAL) The three-item, seven-point Likert-type scale measures a consumer’s attitude regarding the ease and speed with which he/she is able to purchase products at a particular retailer. The scale is general in the sense that the statements are amenable for use with either physical stores or those online.

ORIGIN: The source of the scale is Emricha and Rudolph (2015) who drew primarily upon concepts and phrasing from some measures of convenience by Seiders et al. (2007). The version of the scale shown below was used in Study 1 reported in their article. Another version was used in Study 2 that emphasized the convenience of choosing products from an assortment.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha in Study 1 was .83 (Emricha and Rudolph 2015, pp. 330).

VALIDITY: Emricha and Rudolph (2015) examined the fit of their measurement model and the discriminant validity of the scales. All were satisfactory. The AVE for the convenience measure was .69 (p. 340).

REFERENCES: Emricha, Oliver, Michael Paul, and Thomas Rudolph (2015), "Shopping Benefits of Multichannel Assortment Integration and the Moderating Role of Retailer Type," Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 326–342. 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.

ITEMS:1 1. I can do my shopping quickly and easily at _____. 2. It requires little time and effort to purchase __________ at _____. 3. It is complicated to do my shopping at _____. (r)

-------------1. The name of the retailer should be placed in the blanks except for the first blank of #2 which should have a name or phrase describing the products being sought.

526

SHOPPING INTENTION Using three items, the scale measures a customer’s positive attitude toward purchasing items in a store and shopping there again in the future. Because the items are stated hypothetically and are indefinite about when the shopping would occur, the scale might more precisely be measuring willingness to shop or attitude toward the act of shopping than strictly shopping intention.

ORIGIN: Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) used the scale in Studies 1 and 2, referring to it as patronage intentions. Respondents in the first study were female members of a consumer research panel. In Study 2, the final sample was 202 female students from a large university in the southwestern United States. The authors implied that Baker and Churchill (1977) were the source of the scale, probably referring to the measure of behavioral intentions that the latter created. But, the items in the two scales are not the same. Also, the behavioral intentions measure by Baker and Churchill (1977) was product-focused whereas the scale by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) was store-focused. Ultimately, it seems likely that Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) created the scale by drawing concepts and phrases from several intention-related measures.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s construct reliabilities were .93 in both Studies 1 and 2 (Pounders, Babin, and Close 2015, pp. 676, 681).

VALIDITY: In Studies 1 and 2 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), CFAs were used to provide support for the fit of the measurement models. Further, they provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales being used. The AVEs for their measure of shopping intention were .77 (Study 1) and .81 (Study 2).

COMMENTS: Replacing the term “would” in the items below with “will” could make the scale more clearly a measure of intention. Certainly, this would make sense to do if the measure was used with regard to a real store rather than a hypothetical scenario such as done by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015).

527

REFERENCES: Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1977), “The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 538555. Pounders, Kathrynn R., Barry J. Babin, and Angeline G. Close (2015), "All the Same to Me: Outcomes of Aesthetic Labor Performed by Frontline Service Providers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 670-693.

ITEMS:1 1. I would purchase an item in this store. 2. I would shop in this store. 3. I would return to this store in the future.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was merely described by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015, p. 688) as being five-point scales in Study 1 and seven-point scales in Study 2. The statements appear to be Likert-type and it is likely that the extreme verbal anchors of the response scale used with the three items were strongly disagree / strongly agree or something very similar.

528

SHOPPING LIST PRIORITIZATION Five, five-point items are used in this scale to measure how much a consumer considers trade-offs between his/her shopping goals given resource constraints and opportunity costs.

ORIGIN: Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015) used the scale in Study 4 as well as in pilot studies for Studies 1 and 4. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by them for their studies. They varied the phrasing a bit for two items given the different contexts in which the scale was used (back-to-school purchases in the Study 1 pilot, holiday shopping in the Study 4 pilot, and spring break travel expenses in Study 4).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015) were .82, .68., and .82 for the Study 1 pilot, the Study 4 pilot, and main Study 4, respectively.

VALIDITY: Using CFA with data from the Study 1 pilot, Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015, p. 1205) found evidence in support of the prioritization scale’s discriminant validity with respect to the measure of a related construct (efficiency planning). Further, as briefly mentioned in Appendix F of the article, evidence of discriminant validity was found for the prioritization scale used in the Study 4 pilot as it pertained to measures of two related constructs (efficiency planning and propensity to plan).

REFERENCES: Fernbach, Philip M., Christina Kan, and John G. Lynch Jr. (2015), "Squeezed: Coping with Constraint through Efficiency and Prioritization," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1204-1227.

ITEMS: 1. I think about how the purchase will affect other areas of my budget such as the ability to eat out, pay my bills, etc. 2. I try to imagine how much each purchase affects how much I can spend on the other products on my shopping list. 3. I often consider other items I will not be able to buy if I make a particular purchase. 4. I cut back on other spending __________ to be able to afford to buy the _____ products I want.1 529

5. If the items on my _____ shopping list prove to be more expensive than I had guessed, I change my plan for what to buy.2

-------------1. The phrasing of this sentence was adjusted for each of the studies in which it was used in order to make it specific to the context. For example, in the Study 1 pilot the phrase in the first blank was “before the school semester” and the phrase in the second blank was “back-to-school.” 2. Similar to footnote 1, this phrase in the blank was changed for each study in order to be specific to the context. For Study 1, the phrase in the blank was “back-to-school.”

530

SHOPPING ORIENTATION (EFFICIENCY) A consumer’s tendency to go shopping only when something is needed and buy just what is needed is measured using three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Haas and Kenning (2014) with 425 department store shoppers immediately following their store visits. The authors appear to have created the scale by drawing on concepts in a scale by Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994).

RELIABILITY: Haas and Kenning (2014, p. 439) reported the scale’s construct reliability to be .82.

VALIDITY: Using LISREL, Haas and Kenning (2014) examined all the multi-items measures in their study and provided evidence of their convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for the efficiency orientation scale was 0.61.

REFERENCES: Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 644-656. Haas, Alexander and Peter Kenning (2014), "Utilitarian and Hedonic Motivators of Shoppers’ Decision to Consult with Salespeople," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 428-441.

ITEMS: 1. On my shopping trips, I accomplish just what I want to. 2. When I go shopping I buy just the item(s) I am looking for. 3. I only go shopping when I need something.

531

SHOPPING ORIENTATION (HEDONIC) A consumer’s enjoyment of shopping for a variety of related reasons (adventure, novelty, curiosity) is measured with five, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale is a subset of items borrowed from a seven item scale created by Hausman (2000). Yim et al. (2014) used the five items that had the highest factor loadings in the study by Hausman (2000, p. 416). The five item scale was used by Yim et al. (2014) in a study conducted in a “superstore” located in Seoul, Korea. The language used in the pre-shopping survey instrument was not identified. The analysis was based on data from 167 shoppers.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .87 (Yim et al. 2014, p. 541).

VALIDITY: Yim et al. (2014) conducted a CFA on their measurement model which included the items from this scale. Evidence was found in support of the scale’s discriminant validity. The scale’s AVE was .90.

REFERENCES: Hausman, Angela (2000), “A Multi-Method Investigation of Consumer Motivations in Impulse Buying Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 403–419. Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Seung-Chul Yoo, Paul L. Sauer, and Joo Hwan Seo (2014),"Hedonic Shopping Motivation and Co-Shopper Influence on Utilitarian Grocery Shopping in Superstores," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (5), 528-544.

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

I like to shop for the novelty of it. Shopping satisfies my sense of curiosity. Shopping offers new experiences. I feel like I’m exploring new worlds when I shop. I get a real “high”' from shopping.

532

SHOPPING TRIP FAILURE The five statements composing the scale measure the degree to which a customer was not able to get everything wanted during a particular visit to a store.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 4 by Ashley and Noble (2014) and called temporary abandonment. The authors created the scale for use in the study by borrowing items and concepts from a scale by Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .93 in Study 4 (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement model used in Study 4 and the conclusion was that it fit the data well. For all reflective scales in the model, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to shopping trip failure, the AVE was .73.

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work and /or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 644-656. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. I accomplished just what I wanted on the shopping trip described in the scenario. (r) 2. I was not able to buy what I really needed without coming back to the store another time. 3. I was disappointed because I had to go to another store to complete my shopping. 4. I bought less at the store than I would have because of the employees’ actions. 5. I left the store without getting everything I wanted.

-------------1. Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items.

533

SHOPPING VALUE (HEDONIC) The five statements composing this scale are used to measure the degree to which a consumer believes that part of a particular store’s value is that shopping in it would be a pleasurable experience. The statements are phrased hypothetically in order to fit situations in which respondents have not actually shopped at the store though they know enough about it to have an opinion.

ORIGIN: Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) used the scale in Studies 1 and 2. Respondents in the first study were female members of a consumer research panel. In Study 2, the final sample was 202 female students from a large university in the southwestern United States. The authors created the scale by drawing heavily from a measure originally used by Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994). The difference is that this scale has fewer items, is stated hypothetically, and has added an item not in the original.

RELIABILITY: The construct reliabilities of the scale were .93 and .91 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively (Pounders, Babin, and Close 2015, pp. 676, 681).

VALIDITY: In Studies 1 and 2 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), CFAs were used to provide support for the fit of the measurement models. Further, they provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales being used. The AVEs for the measure of hedonic value were .73 (Study 1) and .68 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work and /or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 644-656. Pounders, Kathrynn R., Barry J. Babin, and Angeline G. Close (2015), "All the Same to Me: Outcomes of Aesthetic Labor Performed by Frontline Service Providers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 670-693.

ITEMS:1 1. Shopping in this store would be a joy. 2. Shopping in this store would be gratifying. 534

3. Shopping in this store would feel like an escape. 4. Shopping in this store would let me forget about my problems. 5. Shopping in this store would be fun.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was merely described by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015, p. 688) as being five-point scales in Study 1 and seven-point scales in Study 2. The statements appear to be Likert-type and it is likely that the extreme verbal anchors of the response scale used with the items were strongly disagree / strongly agree or something very similar.

535

SIMILARITY IN EMPLOYEES’ APPEARANCE How much a person believes that a particular set of employees share a common physical appearance is measured with three items. The statements are phrased generally and do not specify what attributes appear to be similar.

ORIGIN: Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015) referred to the scale as perceived similarity of service provider look and used it in Studies 1, 2, and 3. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistencies of the scale were .85, .81, and .86 in Studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Pounders, Babin, and Close 2015, pp. 676, 681, 684).

VALIDITY: In Studies 1 and 2 by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015), CFAs were used to provide support for the fit of the measurement models. Further, they provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validities of the scales being used. The AVEs for the measure of employees’ similarity in appearance were .66 (Study 1) and .60 (Study 2).

REFERENCES: Pounders, Kathrynn R., Barry J. Babin, and Angeline G. Close (2015), "All the Same to Me: Outcomes of Aesthetic Labor Performed by Frontline Service Providers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 670-693.

ITEMS:1 1. The employees here all look very much alike. 2. The employees here share the same ‘look.’ 3. The employees here share the same overall appearance.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was merely described by Pounders, Babin, and Close (2015, p. 688) as being five-point scales in Study 1 and seven-point scales in Study 2. (The number of points was not stated for the Study 3.) The statements appear to be Likert-type. Further, one of the items (#1) was used in a pre-test and explicitly described as Likert (p. 674). Given this, it is likely that the extreme verbal anchors of the response scale used with the three items were strongly disagree / strongly agree or something very similar.

536

SKEPTICISM OF THE PRODUCT CLAIM Seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a consumer’s skepticism about improvement claims being made about a product by the company. A two- and threeitem version are discussed.

ORIGIN: Shu and Carlson (2014) used a two item version of the scale in Experiment 2 and a three item version in Experiment 4. In both experiments, participants were presented with information about claims made by a company about a product. In Experiment 4, participants were also told of an additional new claim being made. The source of the scale was not stated and appears to have been created by the authors for the experiment.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Shu and Carlson (2014) were .75 and .72 for Experiments 2 and 4, respectively.

VALIDITY: Although Shu and Carlson (2014) did not discuss the validity of the two versions of the scale, they did conduct factor analyses in both experiments that showed the items loaded with each other on the same construct rather than with items on other constructs being measured.

REFERENCES: Shu, Suzanne B. and Kurt A. Carlson (2014), "When Three Charms but Four Alarms: Identifying the Optimal Number of Claims in Persuasion Settings," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 127-139.

ITEMS:1 1. The additional claim is making me skeptical. 2. The _____ can’t possibly be as great as the company makes it out to be. 3. The improvement claims are just a ploy to get me to buy.

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

537

SMOKING-RELATED BELIEFS (NEGATIVE) Six, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure several negative beliefs a person has about smoking. The items refer not only to the direct effects that the behavior may have on the smoker but also to the indirect effects that the smoke may have on children.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Andrews et al. (2014) in Studies 1 and 2. Although the authors did not identify Andrews et al. (2004) as a source, it is clear that they drew some items and key phrases from a measure several of them had used in earlier work.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .93 and .76 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively by Andrews et al. (2014).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Andrews et al. (2014).

REFERENCES: Andrews, J. Craig, Richard G. Netemeyer, Scot Burton, Paul D. Moberg, and Ann Christiansen (2004), “Understanding Adolescent Intentions to Smoke: An Examination of Relationships Among Social Influence, Prior Trial Behavior, and Anti-tobacco Campaign Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 110-123. Andrews, J. Craig, Richard G. Netemeyer, Jeremy Kees, and Scot Burton (2014), "How Graphic Visual Health Warnings Affect Young Smokers' Thoughts of Quitting," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 165-183.

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

Smoking is addictive. Smoking causes lung cancer. Secondhand smoke harms children. Nicotine is physically addictive. Smoking increases a person’s risk of getting lung cancer. Secondhand smoke is dangerous to children.

538

SOCIABILITY How popular and friendly a person appears to be is measured using three semantic differentials. As used by Fisher and Ma (2014), the judgement is made regarding someone else rather than oneself.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Fisher and Ma (2014) in a pretest as well as four main studies. The scale was used in these studies with respect to photos of children who were described as suffering in some way. The authors cited Griffin and Langlois (2006) as the source. This scale was used by the latter to measure one of three dimensions of the social competence of others.

RELIABILITY: The alphas ranged from .73 (Study 2) to .90 (Study 1) in the studies by Fisher and Ma (2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Fisher and Ma (2014).

REFERENCES: Fisher, Robert J. and Yu Ma (2014), "The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436-450. Griffin, Angela M., and Judith H. Langlois (2006), “Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or Is Ugly Bad?” Social Cognition, 24 (2), 187–206.

ITEMS:1 1. unpopular / popular 2. unfriendly / friendly 3. has trouble making friends easily / is able to make friends easily

-------------1. The scale stem used by Fisher and Ma (2014) with these items was not described. A seven-point response format was used in Studies 1 to 4 while a five-point version was used in the pretest conducted before the main studies.

539

SOCIAL ATTRACTION The degree to which a person expresses a willingness to be friendly and develop a relationship with a particular person is measured with six, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Puntoni, Hooge, and Verbeke (2015) used the scale in Study 2. The items were slight adaptations of the six statements with highest loadings on the social attraction dimension of the Interpersonal Attraction instrument by McCroskey and McCain (1974).

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was .768 (Hooge 2016).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed in the article by Puntoni, Hooge, and Verbeke (2015). From information provided by Hooge (2016), the scale was unidimensional based on the results of a Scree Plot and Principal Axis Factoring.

COMMENTS: The data appear to have been collected by Puntoni, Hooge, and Verbeke (2015) in Europe, most likely the Netherlands. The language in which the scale was presented to participants was not stated. The items shown below are exactly as provided by Hooge (2016).

REFERENCES: Hooge, Ilona de (2016), personal correspondence. McCroskey, James C. and Thomas A. McCain (1974), “The Measurement of Interpersonal Attraction,” Speech Monographs, 41 (3), 261–266. Puntoni, Stefano, Ilona E. de Hooge, and Willem J. M. I. Verbeke (2015), "AdvertisingInduced Embarrassment," Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 71-79.

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

This person could be a friend of mine. I would like to have a friendly chat with this person. It would be difficult to have meet and talk with this person. (r) This person just wouldn’t fit into my circle of friends. (r) We could never establish a personal friendship with each other. (r) 540

6. This person would be pleasant to be with.

-------------1. The scale stem and items were provided by Hooge (2016). She indicated the extreme anchors of the response scale were Completely Disagree (1) and Completely Agree (7).

541

SOCIAL ATTRACTION VIA TWITTER Eight, seven-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person’s desire to establish a relationship and communicate with a particular person on Twitter. The scale may make most sense to use when the specified person is a celebrity.

ORIGIN: Jin and Phua (2014) developed the scale for use in Experiments 1 and 2. They referred to the construct as intention to build an online friendship with the celebrity. Half of the items were adapted from the social dimension of McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) interpersonal attraction instrument. The other four items were developed by Jin and Phua (2014) to measure intention to build a Twitter-based friendship.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .94 and .93 as used in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Jin and Phua (2014). Of concern is the scale’s dimensionality given that the two sets of four items measure slightly different aspects of social attraction, as admitted by the authors. It is urged that the dimensionality of the items be examined closely before the scale is used in theory testing.

REFERENCES: Jin, Seung-A Annie and Joe Phua (2014), "Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 181-195. McCroskey, James C. and Thomas A. McCain (1974), “The Measurement of Interpersonal Attraction,” Speech Monographs, 41 (3), 261–266.

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

I think _____ could be my Twitter Friend. _____ would fit into my circle of online friends. I think _____ and I could establish an online friendship. I would like to have a friendly online chat with _____. I would like to follow _____ on Twitter. I would like _____ to follow me on Twitter. I would like to retweet _____’s tweets. 542

8. I would like _____ to retweet my tweets.

-------------1. The blanks in items should be filled with the name of a person. In Experiment 1, Jin and Phua (2014) filled the space with “David Kerr” referring to a fictional celebrity they created for purposes of the study. The name used in Experiment 2 was “Victoria Kerr.”

543

SOCIAL COMPARISON (APPEARANCE) The scale uses three, ten-point questions to measure the degree to which a person thought about how he/she looked compared to a particular person with whom he/she interacted.

ORIGIN: Wan and Wyer (2015) used the scale shown below in Study 5 (n = 112 female undergraduates). The authors created the scale by drawing concepts from a measure by Richins (1991).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .86 (Wan and Wyer 2015, p. 590).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Wan and Wyer (2015).

REFERENCES: Richins, L. Marsha (1991), “Social Comparison and Idealized Images of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 71–83. Wan, Lisa C. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2015), "Consumer Reactions to Attractive Service Providers: Approach or Avoid?" Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 578-595.

ITEMS:1 When you thought about interacting with _____, to what extent did you:2 1. think about how well or how badly you look compared to _____? 2. compare your appearance with _____? 3. pay attention to _____’s physical attractiveness?

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (10). The blanks should be filled with the name or description of the focal person the respondent interacted with or was thinking of interacting with. For example, when the scale was used in the experiment by Wan and Wyer (2015), the phrase in the blank was “the salesperson.” 2. As phrased currently, the scale stem is hypothetical. It would be simple to rephrase it slightly so that it asks respondents about something that already happened, e.g., During your interaction with . . . .

544

SOCIAL DISTANCE WITH THE MENTALLY ILL The degree to which a person is willing to engage in close, social behaviors with respect to a person (unspecified) who has a mental illness is measured with five, nine-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yeh and Jewell (2015) in two studies. Data for the studies came from undergraduate students attending a large Midwestern university in the United States. The authors created the scale by adapting concepts and phrases from a measure of social distance by Bogardus (1925).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale used by Yeh and Jewell (2015) in Studies 1 and 2 were .90 (n = 273) and .86 (n = 211), respectively.

VALIDITY: Yeh and Jewell (2015) did not address the scale’s validity per se. However, they did note that the items composing the scale were factor analyzed in each study and only one factor emerged. In both studies, the one factor explained the majority of the variance and average item loadings were high.

REFERENCES: Bogardus, Emory S. (1925), “Measuring Social Distance,” Journal of Applied Sociology, 9 (2), 299–308. Yeh, Marie A. and Robert D. Jewell (2015), "The Myth/Fact Message Frame and Persuasion in Advertising: Enhancing Attitudes Toward the Mentally Ill," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 161-172.

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

I I I I I

would would would would would

date someone with a mental illness. be roommates with someone with a mental illness. marry someone with a mental illness. share a house with someone with a mental illness. have children with someone with a mental illness.

-------------1. The extreme anchors used on the response scale were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (9).

545

SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION The extent to which a person feels connected to and part of a specified group of people is measured with twelve, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Dalton and Huang (2014) used the scale in several experiments and pretests. They borrowed a scale from Cameron (2004) and adapted it for use with college students in Hong Kong. The results of Cameron’s (2014) research led him to concluding that a tripartite model of social identity fit the data significantly better than one- or twodimensional alternatives. He referred to the three dimensions as centrality, in-group affect, and in-group ties. Dalton and Huang (2014) did not distinguish among these dimensions in their work.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the version of the scale used by Dalton and Huang (2014) ranged from .77 (pretest 1) to .85 (Experiment 3).

VALIDITY: Dalton and Huang (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: The propriety of combining the scores of the three dimensions is in question. While Cameron (2004) provided evidence in support of the tripartite model, he did not appear to examine if those dimensions loaded on a higher order factor. If strong evidence is found that they do load on a higher order factor then it is appropriate to sum all 12 items. On the other hand, if the dimensions are merely correlated but do not load on the same higher order factor then scores on all of the items should not be added but, instead, individual subscale scores should be calculated.

REFERENCES: Cameron, James (2004), “A Three Factor Model of Social Identity,” Self and Identity, 3 (3), 239–262. Dalton, Amy N. and Li Huang (2014), "Motivated Forgetting in Response to Social Identity Threat," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1017-1038.

546

ITEMS:1 1. I have a lot in common with other __________. 2. I feel strong ties to other __________. 3. I find it difficult to form a bond with other __________. (r) 4. I don’t feel a sense of being ‘‘connected’’ with other __________. (r) 5. I often think about the fact that I am a(n) __________. 6. Overall, being a(n) __________ has very little to do with how I feel about myself. (r) 7. In general, being a(n) __________ is an important part of my self-image. 8. The fact that I am a(n) __________ rarely enters my mind. (r) 9. In general, I’m glad to be a(n) __________. 10. I often regret that I am a(n) __________. (r) 11. I don’t feel good about being a(n) __________. (r) 12. Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as a(n) __________.

-------------1. The name of the social group should be placed in the blanks, e.g., owners of this brand, students at this university, shoppers at this store. The items measuring the three dimensions are: #1 to #4 for In-group Ties; #5 to #8 for Centrality, and #9 to #12 for In-group Affect.

547

SOCIAL PRESENTATION CONCERN Using three, 10 point questions, this scale measures the degree to which a person thought about how he/she was being evaluated by a particular person with whom he/she had interacted. In this case, “evaluation” is meant more in the sense of being “sized-up” or judged rather than formal testing or professional diagnosis.

ORIGIN: Wan and Wyer (2015) used the scale shown below in Study 5 (n = 112 female undergraduates). The authors created the scale by drawing concepts from some measures used by Leary et al. (1994).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .83 (Wan and Wyer 2015, p. 590).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Wan and Wyer (2015).

REFERENCES: Leary, Mark R., John B. Nezlek, Deborah Downs, Julie Radford-Davenport, Jeffrey Martin, and Anne McMullen (1994), “Self-Presentation in Everyday Interactions: Effects of Target Familiarity and Gender Composition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 664–673. Wan, Lisa C. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2015), "Consumer Reactions to Attractive Service Providers: Approach or Avoid?" Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 578-595.

ITEMS:1 When you thought about interacting with _____, to what extent did you:2 1. think about how _____ would evaluate you? 2. imagine how _____ would perceive you? 3. feel nervous?

-------------1. The extreme anchors of the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (10). The blanks should be filled with the name or description of the focal person the respondent interacted with or was thinking of interacting with. For example, when the scale was used in the experiment by Wan and Wyer (2015), the phrase in the blank was “the salesperson.” 2. As phrased currently, the scale stem is hypothetical. It would be simple to rephrase it slightly so that it asks respondents about something that already happened, e.g., During your interaction with . . . .?”

548

SOCIAL SUPPORT The adequacy of help and emotional support one receives from others is measured in this seven-point Likert-type scale.

ORIGIN: Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014) used the full version of the scale in a pretest for Experiment 1 with 66 undergraduate students attending the University of Minnesota. The scale was constructed by Zimet et al. (1988) and is called the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. It has three subscales: family, friends, and significant other. Cronbach’s alphas for those subscales were .87, .85, and .91, respectively, as reported by Zimet et al. (1988, p. 36). The temporal stabilities (2-3 months test-retest) with 275 participants were .85 (family), .75 (friends) and .72 (significant others). The alpha for the complete scale was .88 and its temporal stability was .85. Ruvio, Somer, and Rindfleisch (2014) only used the items from the family and friends subscales. Participants were from an online panel in the U.S. maintained by Qualtrics. There were 855 respondents and the demographics of the sample closely matched that of the U.S. adult population.

RELIABILITY: Alphas were .92 and .91 for the versions of the scale used by Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014) and Ruvio, Somer, and Rindfleisch (2014), respectively.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Lasaleta, Sedikides, and Vohs (2014). But, since they used the scale as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, it provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity. Likewise, Ruvio, Somer, and Rindfleisch (2014) did not explicitly discuss the scale’s validity. They did, however, imply that their use of CFA with the variables in their model indicated each scale was unidimensional.

COMMENTS: The clear evidence from the work by Zimet et al. (1988) is that the social support construct is multidimensional. Indeed, they stressed that their factor analysis showed there were three separate dimensions: family, friends, and significant others. Yet, the analysis by Ruvio, Somer, and Rindfleisch (2014) apparently showed unidimensionality of the family and the friends subscales. The apparent conflict between these observations 549

may be resolved if the subscales are first order factors of a higher order factor. It is not known if any study has examined that issue yet.

REFERENCES: Lasaleta, Jannine D., Constantine Sedikides, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2014), "Nostalgia Weakens the Desire for Money," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 713-729. Ruvio, Ayalla, Eli Somer, and Aric Rindfleisch (2014), "When Bad Gets Worse: The Amplifying Effect of Materialism on Traumatic Stress and Maladaptive Consumption," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 90-101. Zimet, Gregory D., Nancy W. Dahlem, Sara G. Zimet, and Gordon K. Farley (1988), “The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 52 (1), 30–41.

ITEMS:1 1. My family really tries to help me. 2. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family. 3. I can talk about my problems with my family. 4. My family is willing to help me make decisions. 5. My friends really try to help me. 6. I can count on my friends when things go wrong. 7. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. 8. I can talk about my problems with my friends. 9. There is a special person who is around when I am in need. 10. There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. 11. I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me. 12. There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings.

-------------1. Based on a reading of the items and the factor analysis provided by Zimet et al. (1988, p. 36), #1 to #4 (above) compose the family subscale, #5 to #8 compose the friends subscale, and the final set of four compose the significant other subscale.

550

SPECIAL TREATMENT ENTITLEMENT The degree to which a customer believes that he/she has earned special treatment from someone or some organization for an unspecified reason is measured with seven-point, Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014) used the scale in three of the five studies discussed in their article. The scale’s source was not stated. It is likely to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .92, .96, and .88 for Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Reczek, Haws, and Summers 2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014).

REFERENCES: Reczek, Rebecca Walker, Kelly L. Haws, and Christopher A. Summers (2014), "Lucky Loyalty: The Effect of Consumer Effort on Predictions of Randomly Determined Marketing Outcomes," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1065-1078.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

I I I I

have earned special treatment from __________. feel like I deserve special treatment from __________. am entitled to preferential treatment from __________. deserve preferential treatment from __________.

-------------1. The name of the focal entity (person, business, government) should be placed in the blanks. For Studies 2 and 4, the phrase “this store” was used by Reczek, Haws, and Summers (2014). In Study 3, the blanks were filled with “Amazon Mechanical Turk” and only items #2, #3, and #4 were used.

551

SPECIAL TREATMENT ENTITLEMENT FROM EMPLOYEES The scale has three statements that measure the extent to which a person believes him/herself to be a valuable customer of retail establishment and, thereby, deserving of special treatment from the employees.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2, 3, and 4 discussed in their article. The authors referred to the construct as customer entitlement. The authors created the scale for use in their studies by drawing some concepts and phrases from a measure of the same construct by Boyd and Helms (2005).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .77, .75, and .76 in Studies 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models fit the data well. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to the special treatment scale, the AVEs were .54 (Study 2), .50 (Study 3), and .53 (Study 4).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Boyd, Henry C. III and Janet E. Helms (2005), “Consumer Entitlement Theory and Measurement,” Psychology & Marketing, 22 (3), 271–286. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. I deserve for employees of this _____ to go out of their ways to help me. 2. I deserve special treatment from the employees of this _____. 3. As a valuable customer, I have earned the right to the best level of service available from this _____.

-------------1. The focal type of facility should be stated in the blanks, e.g., store, restaurant, fitness center. Also, Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of five-point Likert-type items.

552

SPENDING AVERSION A consumer’s reluctance to spend a particular amount of money “right now” is measured with three, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Soster, Gershoff, and Bearden (2014) used the scale in a pilot study with 169 adults recruited from MTurk. Although not stated explicitly, the scale appears to have been developed by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .84 (Soster, Gershoff, and Bearden 2014, p. 659).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Soster, Gershoff, and Bearden (2014).

REFERENCES: Soster, Robin L., Andrew D. Gershoff, and William O. Bearden (2014), "The Bottom Dollar Effect: The Influence of Spending to Zero on Pain of Payment and Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 656-677.

ITEMS:1 1. I will think carefully about whether I want to spend this _____. 2. I ought to save this _____ and not spend it. 3. Spending this _____ right now is reasonable. (r)

-------------1. An amount of money should be stated in the blanks, e.g., $10.

553

SPONSOR/SPONSEE CONGRUENCE The scale is composed of four, seven-point items that measure a person’s belief that a specified entity (person, cause, organization) being sponsored for some unstated reason is similar in its goals and image to the specified sponsor.

ORIGIN: Pappu and Cornwell (2014) used the scale in Experiments 2 and 3 with reference to wellknown fast-food chains sponsoring charities. As for the source of the measure, the authors borrowed two items from Gwinner and Eaton (1999) and two from Speed and Thompson (2000).

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability reported by Pappu and Cornwell (2014) for the scale in both experiments was .95.

VALIDITY: CFA was used after each experiment to examine the data and the authors found support for the scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. Its AVEs were .84 and .82 for Experiments 2 and 3, respectively.

REFERENCES: Gwinner, Kevin P. and John Eaton (1999), “Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47-57. Pappu, Ravi and T. Bettina Cornwell (2014), "Corporate Sponsorship as an Image Platform: Understanding the Roles of Relationship Fit and Sponsor–Sponsee Similarity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (5), 490-510. Speed, Richard and Peter Thompson (2000), “Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

_____ and _____ stand for similar things. _____ and _____have very similar goals. The image of _____ and the image of _____ are very similar. The ideas I associate with _____ are very similar to the ideas I associate with _____.

554

-------------1. As used by Pappu and Cornwell (2014), the name of the sponsor was placed in the first blank of each item while the name of the sponsee was placed in the second. Besides indicating that all of their response scales had seven points, the verbal anchors were not described. Likert-type anchors would make sense, e.g., strongly disagree / strongly agree.

555

STATUS (SOCIAL) A person’s feeling of uniqueness and status (though not necessarily superiority) is measured in the scale with three, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: McFerran and Argo (2014) created the scale by drawing some phrasing and concepts from a measure of superiority by Drèze and Nunes (2009). The former used the scale in Studies 2 to 5 discussed in their article.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale reported by McFerran and Argo (2014) ranged from .85 (Study 3) to .93 (Study 2).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by McFerran and Argo (2014). It is helpful to note, however, that a factor analysis was used in Study 4 on four scales, including the measure of status. The items were described as loading on the appropriate factors.

REFERENCES: Drèze, Xavier, and Joseph C. Nunes (2009), “Feeling Superior: The Impact of Loyalty Program Structure on Consumers’ Perceptions of Status,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (April), 980–985. McFerran, Brent and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Entourage Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 871-884.

ITEMS: 1. How special did you feel? not at all special / very special 2. How unique did you feel? not at all unique / very unique 3. What degree of status did you feel? low / high

556

STORE ATMOSPHERE The pleasantness and appropriateness of a store’s internal environment is measured with five, seven-point Likert-type items. The items refer to the atmosphere in general or to tangibles such as lighting and music but not to layout per se or to people.

ORIGIN: Dagger and Danaher (2014) used the scale in Study 1. The items appear to have been created based on phrases and concepts found in past measures of the same or similar constructs, e.g., Wakefield and Baker (1998); Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 (Dagger and Danaher 2014, p. 78).

VALIDITY: All of the scales used in Study 1 were examined in a CFA. Not only did the measurement model have a good fit but evidence was found in support of each scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE of the store atmosphere measure was .76.

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie, Dhruv Grewal, and A. Parasuraman (1994), “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (4), 328-339. Dagger, Tracey S. and Peter J. Danaher (2014), "Comparing the Effect of Store Remodeling on New and Existing Customers," Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 62-80. Wakefield, Kirk L. and Julie Baker (1998), “Excitement at the Mall: Determinants and Effects on Shopping Response,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (4), 515-539.

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

The atmosphere at this store is pleasing. This store has an appealing atmosphere. The level of noise at this store is appropriate for this setting. The lighting in this store is appropriate for this setting. The music played in this store was appropriate.

557

STORE DESIGN (ATTRACTIVENESS) Five short phrases with a seven-point Likert-type response format are used to measure how nice and pleasant looking a store is where an order was placed.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lund and Marinova (2014) to measure what they called servicescape quality design perceptions. Following Bitner (1992) and Baker et al. (2002), the authors viewed a “servicescape” as the physical aspects of the service delivery environment. Apart from drawing ideas from the conceptualization of “servicescapes” by Baker et al. (2002), the scale seems to be original to Lund and Marinova (2014). Analysis was based on data gathered from 290 customers from 5 stores in a pizza restaurant chain in a midwestern U.S. city.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s internal consistency (calculated as a composite reliability) was reported to be .94 (Lund and Marinova 2014, p. 109).

VALIDITY: Lund and Marinova (2014) used CFA to assess the psychometric quality of the latent constructs in the model they were testing. The measurement model had a good fit and evidence was found for the scale’s discriminant validity with respect to a related scale intended to measure “costs” associated with ordering from a store. The AVE for the attractiveness measure was .77 (p. 109).

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal, and Glenn B. Voss (2002), “The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (April), 120-141. Bitner, Mary Jo (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 57–72. Lund, Donald J. and Detelina Marinova (2014), "Managing Revenue Across Retail Channels: The Interplay of Service Performance and Direct Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 99-118.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Thinking about the appearance of the store you ordered from, please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following descriptions. 558

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Attractive signage Nice color scheme Welcoming lobby Attractive facilities Pleasant atmosphere

-------------1. Responses were measured with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). “don’t know” option was also provided in case a participant did not have any experience with the on-site servicescape.

559

A

STORE DESIGN (INTERIOR LAYOUT) The degree to which a person likes a store’s interior is measured with six, seven-point Likert-type items. The emphasis is on visual attractiveness and layout.

ORIGIN: Dagger and Danaher (2014) used the scale in Study 1. The items appear to have been created based on phrases and concepts found in past measures of the same or similar constructs, e.g., Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994); Dabholkar, Thorpe, and Rentz (1996).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 (Dagger and Danaher 2014, p. 78).

VALIDITY: All of the scales used in Study 1 were examined in a CFA. Not only did the measurement model have a good fit but evidence was found in support of each scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE of the interior layout measure was .76.

COMMENTS: Two of the items refer to furniture. If that is not relevant to a particular application of the scale, something appropriate should replace it and then the scale should be reassessed.

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie, Dhruv Grewal, and A. Parasuraman (1994), “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (4), 328-339. Dabholkar, Pratibha, Dayle I. Thorpe, and Joseph O. Rentz (1996), “A Measure of Service Quality for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (Winter), 3–16. Dagger, Tracey S. and Peter J. Danaher (2014), "Comparing the Effect of Store Remodeling on New and Existing Customers," Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 62-80.

ITEMS: 1. The furniture at this store is comfortable. 2. I like the interior decorating (e.g., style of furniture) at this store. 560

3. 4. 5. 6.

I like the layout of this store. The store is kept clean. The store looks attractive. The interior of the store was appealing.

561

STORE DESIGN (ORDERING COSTS) With five short phrases and a seven-point Likert-type response format, the scale measures the extent to which a customer believes a store where an order was placed appears to be convenient to use based on such things as low time and effort ordering costs.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Lund and Marinova (2014) to measure what they called servicescape time/effort cost perceptions. Following Bitner (1992) and Baker et al. (2002), the authors viewed a “servicescape” as the physical aspects of the service delivery environment. Apart from drawing ideas from the conceptualization of “servicescapes” by Baker et al. (2002), the scale seems to be original to Lund and Marinova (2014). Analysis was based on data gathered from 290 customers from 5 stores in a pizza restaurant chain in a midwestern U.S. city.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s internal consistency (calculated as a composite reliability) was reported to be .94 (Lund and Marinova 2014, p. 109).

VALIDITY: Lund and Marinova (2014) used CFA to assess the psychometric quality of the latent constructs in the model they were testing. The measurement model had a good fit and evidence was found for the scale’s discriminant validity with respect to a related scale intended to measure the attractiveness of a store’s design. The AVE for the ordering costs scale was .77 (p. 109).

COMMENTS: The phrasing of the instructions used by Lund and Marinova (2014) puts emphasis on the visual appearance of the store. Such an emphasis may make most sense when participants have not actually experienced ordering in the focal store but rather only seen photos or a computer simulation. If appropriate, the phrase “the appearance of” can probably be removed without harm to the scale’s psychometric quality.

REFERENCES: Baker, Julie, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal, and Glenn B. Voss (2002), “The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (April), 120-141. 562

Bitner, Mary Jo (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 57–72. Lund, Donald J. and Detelina Marinova (2014), "Managing Revenue Across Retail Channels: The Interplay of Service Performance and Direct Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 99-118.

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Thinking about the appearance of the store you ordered from, please rate your agreement or disagreement with the following descriptions. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Convenient location Easy to order Free of clutter Short wait time Extremely clean

-------------1. Responses were measured with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). “don’t know” option was also provided in case a participant did not have any experience with the on-site servicescape.

563

A

SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS The extent to which a person is superstitious is measured based his/her belief in three phenomena that, if genuine, would violate basic limiting principles of science.

ORIGIN: Newman and Dhar (2014) used the scale in Experiment 3 with 120 adults recruited from an online panel. The authors indicated that they used scale items found in an unpublished manuscript by Tobacyk (1988). Over time, the paranormal belief scale has been updated. The most recent iteration appears to the 26 item version that represents seven subscales (Tobacyk 2004). Only one of the three items used by Newman and Dhar (2014) is among those 26 items.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale used by Newman and Dhar (2014, p. 380) was .72.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Newman and Dhar (2014).

COMMENTS: Although two of the items below are not explicitly in the newest version of the paranormal belief scale (Tobacyk 2004), they are similar to ones in it. Additionally, the concepts expressed in the three items represent different dimensions covered in the full scale. Given that and the low internal consistency reported by Newman and Dhar (2014), the unidimensionality of the three item scale is in question and should be examined.

REFERENCES: Newman, George E. and Ravi Dhar (2014), "Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 371-386. Tobacyk, Jerome J. (1988), “A Revised Paranormal Belief Scale,” unpublished manuscript, Louisiana Tech University. Tobacyk, Jerome J. (2004), “A Revised Paranormal Belief Scale,” The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23, 94-98.

564

ITEMS:1 1. I believe that some objects such as Black cats, or numbers (like ‘13’) can bring bad luck. 2. Some people have an unexplained ability to predict the future. 3. In some circumstances, a person’s thoughts can cause an object to move or influence the outcome of an event just by thinking about it.

-------------1. The response format used with these items was not described by Newman and Dhar (2014). They used nine-point response scales for their other measures. Further, a Likert-type format (strongly disagree/strongly agree) appears to be appropriate for use with the items. Indeed, those are the extreme verbal anchors that have been used with the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (Tobacyk 2004, p. 96.)

565

SUPPORT FOR LOWERING THE MINIMUM DRINKING AGE The scale has three, seven-point items that measure a person’s willingness to engage in behaviors that support the lowering of the minimum age to legally consumer alcoholic drinks.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Kupor and Tormala (2015) in Study 5. Data for the experiment was gathered from 201 people recruited from Amazon’s MTurk. The source of the scale was not stated; it appears to be original to the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale was .88 (Kupor and Tormala 2015, p. 310).

VALIDITY: Kupor and Tormala (2015) did not address the scale’s validity. However, they did indicate a factor analysis was conducted of the items that provided support for the scale’s unidimensionality.

REFERENCES: Kupor, Daniella M. and Zakary L. Tormala (2015), "Persuasion, Interrupted: The Effect of Momentary Interruptions on Message Processing and Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 300-315.

ITEMS:1 1. How willing would you be to sign a petition in favor of lowering the minimum drinking age?2 2. How willing would you be to let us add your name to a list of people in favor of lowering the minimum drinking age?3 3. Would you vote for or against lowering the minimum drinking age?4 (r)

-------------1 Paraphrases rather the exact items were provided in the article. The questions shown above were created based on the paraphrases and may not be exactly as the participants saw them. 2. The extreme anchors on the response scale used with this item were Not at all willing (1) and Completely willing (7). 3. The extreme anchors on the response scale used with this item were Not at all willing (1) and Completely willing (7). 4. The extreme anchors on the response scale used with this item were Definitely vote for (1) and Definitely vote against (7).

566

SWITCHING COSTS (BENEFITS LOST) Composed of four, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the extent to which a consumer believes he/she has received certain benefits from a provider over time and would lose them if changing providers.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Nagengast et al. (2014) in Study 2 and called “lost performance costs.” It was borrowed from Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) who developed measures for six facets of switching costs. Items for measuring the facets were generated, reviewed, and purified in an initial quantitative study, then were examined further using CFA in a second study. Evidence was found in support of the scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. The data analyzed in Study 2 by Nagengast et al. (2014) came from a final sample of 276 customers of a European bank.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale when used by Nagengast et al. (2014) was .91.

VALIDITY: Nagengast et al. (2014) conducted a CFA on Study 2 data and found evidence in support of convergent and discriminant validities for all of their scales. With respect to the benefits lost scale, its AVE was .78.

REFERENCES: Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty (2002), “Why Customers Stay: Measuring the Underlying Dimensions of Services Switching Costs and Managing their Differential Strategic Outcomes,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (6), 441–450. Nagengast, Liane, Heiner Evanschitzky, Markus Blut, and Thomas Rudolph (2014), "New Insights in the Moderating Effect of Switching Costs on the Satisfaction-Repurchase Behavior Link," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 408-427.

ITEMS:1 1. This provider gives me particular privileges that I would not receive elsewhere. 2. By continuing to use the same provider, I receive certain benefits that I would not receive if I switched to a new one. 3. There are certain benefits that I would not retain if I were to switch providers. 567

4. I would lose preferential treatment if changed providers.

-------------1. This is the version of the scale used by Nagengast et al. (2014). The main difference between it and the one used by Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) is the latter used the phrase “hairstylist/barber” instead of the more general term “provider.”

568

SWITCHING COSTS (INVESTMENT) Using five, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the extent to which a consumer believes he/she has spent a lot of time and effort on a relationship with a current provider.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Nagengast et al. (2014) in Study 2 and called “sunk costs.” It was borrowed from Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) who developed measures for six facets of switching costs. Items for measuring the facets were generated, reviewed, and purified in an initial quantitative study, then were examined further using CFA in a second study. Evidence was found in support of each scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The data analyzed in Study 2 by Nagengast et al. (2014) came from a final sample of 276 customers of a European bank.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale when used by Nagengast et al. (2014) was .88.

VALIDITY: Nagengast et al. (2014) conducted a CFA on Study 2 data and found evidence in support of the convergent and discriminant validities for all of their scales. With respect to the investment costs scale, its AVE was .69.

REFERENCES: Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty (2002), “Why Customers Stay: Measuring the Underlying Dimensions of Services Switching Costs and Managing their Differential Strategic Outcomes,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (6), 441–450. Nagengast, Liane, Heiner Evanschitzky, Markus Blut, and Thomas Rudolph (2014), "New Insights in the Moderating Effect of Switching Costs on the Satisfaction-Repurchase Behavior Link," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 408-427.

ITEMS:1 1. A lot of energy, time, and effort have gone into building and maintaining the relationship with this provider. 2. Overall, I have invested a lot in the relationship with this provider. 3. All things considered, I have put a lot into previous dealings with this provider. 569

4. I have spent a lot of time and money at this provider. 5. I have not invested much in the relationship with this provider. (r)

-------------1. This is the version of the scale used by Nagengast et al. (2014). The only difference between it and the one used by Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) is the latter used the phrase “hairstylist/barber” instead of the more general term “provider.”

570

SWITCHING COSTS (LEARNING) The scale has four, five-point Likert-type items and measures how much a consumer believes that if he/she were to change service providers then new policies would have to be learned.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Nagengast et al. (2014) in Study 2 and called “post-switching behavioral and cognitive costs.” It was borrowed from Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) who developed measures for six facets of switching costs. Items for measuring the facets were generated, reviewed, and purified in an initial quantitative study, then were examined further using CFA in a second study. Evidence was found in support of each scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. The data analyzed in Study 2 by Nagengast et al. (2014) came from a final sample of 276 customers of a European bank.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale when used by Nagengast et al. (2014) was .93.

VALIDITY: Nagengast et al. (2014) conducted a CFA on Study 2 data and found evidence in support of convergent and discriminant validities for all of their scales. With respect to the learning costs scale, its AVE was .84.

REFERENCES: Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty (2002), “Why Customers Stay: Measuring the Underlying Dimensions of Services Switching Costs and Managing their Differential Strategic Outcomes,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (6), 441–450. Nagengast, Liane, Heiner Evanschitzky, Markus Blut, and Thomas Rudolph (2014), "New Insights in the Moderating Effect of Switching Costs on the Satisfaction-Repurchase Behavior Link," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 408-427.

ITEMS:1 1. If I were to switch providers, I would have to learn how things work at a new one. 2. I would be unfamiliar with the policies of a new provider. 3. If I changed providers, I would have to learn how the “system works” at a new one. 571

4. Changing providers would mean that I would have learned about the policies of a new one.

-------------1. This is the version of the scale used by Nagengast et al. (2014). The only difference between it and the original by Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) is the latter used the phrase “hairstylist/barber” instead of the more general term “provider.”

572

SWITCHING COSTS (UNCERTAINTY) The likelihood of receiving lower service quality if one switches from one provider to another is measured with three, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale used by Nagengast et al. (2014) in Study 2 was borrowed from Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002). The latter developed measures for six facets of switching costs. Items for measuring the facets were generated, reviewed, and purified in an initial quantitative study, then were examined further using CFA in a second study. Evidence was found in support of the each scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. The data analyzed in Study 2 by Nagengast et al. (2014) came from a final sample of 276 customers of a European bank.

RELIABILITY: The alpha reported for the scale when used by Nagengast et al. (2014) was .84.

VALIDITY: Nagengast et al. (2014) conducted a CFA on Study 2 data and found evidence in support of convergent and discriminant validities for all of their scales. With respect to the uncertainty costs scale, the AVE was .76.

REFERENCES: Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E. Beatty (2002), “Why Customers Stay: Measuring the Underlying Dimensions of Services Switching Costs and Managing their Differential Strategic Outcomes,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (6), 441–450. Nagengast, Liane, Heiner Evanschitzky, Markus Blut, and Thomas Rudolph (2014), "New Insights in the Moderating Effect of Switching Costs on the Satisfaction-Repurchase Behavior Link," Journal of Retailing, 90 (3), 408-427.

ITEMS:1 1. I am not sure what the level of service would be if I switched to a new provider. 2. If I were to change providers, the service I might receive at the new place could be worse than the service I now receive. 3. The service from another provider could be worse than the service I now receive.

573

-------------1. This is the version of the scale used by Nagengast et al. (2014). The only difference between it and the original by Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002) is the latter used the phrase “hairstylist/barber” instead of the more general term “provider.”

574

SWITCHING INTENTION The likelihood that a person will stop visiting one establishment of a type (e.g., bar, club) and begin regularly visiting another such establishment in the near future is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) in Studies 1 (n = 196) and 2 (n = 907). The authors drew inspiration for the scale from items used by Bansal, Taylor, and St. James (2005).

RELIABILITY: Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) reported the attenuated reliability for the scale to be .86 in Study 1. (Although the scale was used in Study 2, its reliability was not reported.)

VALIDITY: CFA was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) to test the psychometric quality of this scale and the others in Study 1. The model had a good fit to the data. Tests provided support for claims of convergent and discriminant validities. The AVE for this scale in particular was .67. (No information about the scale’s validity based on Study 2 data was provided.)

COMMENTS: Although the scale was used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) with reference to a bar or club, the items seem like they could be used with a wide variety of retail or nonretail places which people could regularly visit if desired.

REFERENCES: Bansal, Harvir S., Shirley F. Taylor, and Yannik St. James (2005), “'Migrating' to New Service Providers: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers' Switching Behaviors,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (1), 96-115. Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), "Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Places," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-220.

575

ITEMS:1 1. I am likely to switch and regularly visit another _____. 2. I might be convinced to regularly visit another _____ under the right conditions. 3. There is no chance that I will switch and regularly visit a different _____ in the near future (r).

-------------1. A generic name for the focal place should be placed in the blanks. The generic place names used by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) were “bar” and “club.”

576

SYMBOLIC EMBEDDEDNESS (CONTENTMENT) Using three items, the scale measures the degree to which a product is believed to have a sense of tranquility and well-being that it received in the production process.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a) used the scale in Study 4. Analysis appears to have been based on a final sample of 263 participants from a U.S. online sample. The source of the scale itself was not identified but it seems to have been the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .97 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b, p. 11).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that CFA and two different tests were used to provide evidence of the discriminant of this scale (contentment) with respect to a measure of the embeddedness of love in a product (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015a, p. 106).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015a), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110. Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015b), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), web appendix.

ITEMS:1 1. The think the production process imbued the product with a lot of contentment. 2. The product contains contentment. 3. I think the product is full of contentment.

-------------1. Items for this scale were provided in a web appendix by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015b). The response format used with the items was not described but is assumed to have been the same as used with a very similar scale which was described as having strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

577

SYMBOLIC EMBEDDEDNESS (HAPPINESS) This three item scale measures the degree to which a person thinks a product is characterized by happiness that was implanted in it by the production process.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a) used the scale in Study 4. Analysis appears to have been based on a final sample of 263 participants from a U.S. online sample. The source of the scale itself was not identified but it seems to have been the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .96 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b, p. 11).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that CFA and two different tests were used to provide evidence of the discriminant validity of this scale (happiness) with respect to another scale meant to measure the embeddedness of love in a product (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015a, p. 106).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015a), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110. Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015b), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), web appendix.

ITEMS:1 1. The think the production process imbued the product with a lot of happiness. 2. The product contains happiness. 3. I think the product is full of happiness.

-------------1. Items for this scale were provided in a web appendix by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015b). The response format used with the items was not described but is assumed to have been the same as used with a very similar scale which was described as having strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

578

SYMBOLIC EMBEDDEDNESS (LOVE) The scale has three items and measures the degree to which a person thinks the production process for a product gave it a sense of love. Two slightly different versions of the scale are provided in this review. They are similar in the statements but differ in their response formats. One is a Likert-type scale that is useful for measuring one product/brand while the other is for comparing two products/brands.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) used the comparative version of the scale in Study 3 and the single product version in Study 4. In both cases, data were collected from a U.S. online sample. The source of the scale itself was not identified but it appears to have been created by the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .97 and .94 for the versions used in Study 3 and Study 4, respectively (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, pp. 105, 106).

VALIDITY: Using CFA and two different tests, evidence of discriminant validity was found for both versions of the scale (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, pp. 105, 106).

COMMENTS: A somewhat different measure of this construct was used by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) in Study 2. Because the scales use slightly different items to measure close to the same thing, the reviews share the same name.

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110.

ITEMS:1 1. The production process imbued the products with a lot of love. 2. The products contain love. 3. I think the products are full of love.

579

-------------1. In Study 3, the response scale had six points and the extreme end points were labeled as “more like _____.” The names of the alternative brands should be placed in the blanks to indicate the characteristic is more true of one brand verses the other. For Study 4, “product” was used rather than “products” and the response scale had strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

580

SYMBOLIC EMBEDDEDNESS (LOVE) A consumer’s belief that a product or set of products connote warmth and passion in some way is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items. The product, the producer, and the manner in which “love” is conveyed are not specified in the items themselves.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) used the scale in Study 2 of the four discussed in their article. Analysis was apparently conducted with data collected from a final sample of 434 members of an Austrian consumer panel. Based on what was stated in the web appendix to the article, the scale and the rest of the study were phrased in German. The source of the scale itself was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was .87 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, p. 103).

VALIDITY: The discriminant validity of all construct measures was examined using CFA (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, p. 103). Two different tests provided evidence in support of each scale’s discriminant validity.

COMMENTS: Two somewhat different measures of this construct were used by Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) in Studies 3 and 4. See the review with the same name as this one for more information about the other scale.

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110.

ITEMS:1 The product(s) can figuratively be described as: 1. warm (warmhearted). 2. full of love. 581

3. full of passion.

-------------1. The response scale used with these items had Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

582

SYMBOLIC EMBEDDEDNESS (PRIDE) Using three items, this scale measures the degree to which a person thinks a product has a pride-like quality that was implanted in it during the production process.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015a) used the scale in Study 4. Analysis appears to have been based on a final sample of 263 participants from a U.S. online sample. The source of the scale itself was not identified but it seems to have been the authors.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b, p. 11).

VALIDITY: Although not perfectly clear, it appears that CFA and two different tests were used to provide evidence of the discriminant validity between this scale (pride) and another scale meant to measure the embeddedness of love in a product (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015a, p. 106).

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015a), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110. Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015b), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), web appendix.

ITEMS:1 1. The think the production process imbued the product with a lot of pride. 2. The product contains pride. 3. I think the product is full of pride.

-------------1. Items for this scale were provided in a web appendix (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015b). The response format used with the items was not described but is assumed to have been the same as used with a very similar scale which was described as having strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

583

TASK DIFFICULTY How easy and enjoyable a person believes a task to be is measured with three, ninepoint bi-polar adjectives.

ORIGIN: Soster, Gershoff, and Bearden (2014) used the scale in Studies 2 and 3, with data being gathered in both cases from non-student adults who were recruited from MTurk. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 in Study 2 and .79 in Study 3. The difference in alphas may be due to the unusual way the coefficient was calculated in Study 2. The three items were completed three times, once for each of three tasks. Then, for some reason, the authors averaged all nine responses to create scores and to calculate Cronbach’s alpha. This likely caused alpha to be higher than it would have been if calculated for each task separately. For Study 3, participants only completed the items once and alpha was based on that data.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Soster, Gershoff, and Bearden (2014). However, the scale was used as a manipulation check in Study 3. To the extent that the manipulation was successful, it provides some limited evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Soster, Robin L., Andrew D. Gershoff, and William O. Bearden (2014), "The Bottom Dollar Effect: The Influence of Spending to Zero on Pain of Payment and Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 656-677.

ITEMS:1 1. difficult / easy 2. frustrating / enjoyable 3. annoying / fun

-------------1. In the instructions to participants, the focal task to be evaluated should be clearly identified.

584

TASK ENJOYMENT The scale measures how much a person liked a task and thought it was interesting. Two versions have been used, one with seven items and another with four.

ORIGIN: To measure task enjoyment, Chen and Sengupta (2014) adapted items from a subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory by Ryan et al. (1991). In Study 1 (n = 80) by Chen and Sengupta (2014), the scale was composed of seven items while a four-item version was used in Study 3 (n = 257). In both studies, data were collected from undergraduates attending the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha as use in Study 1 by Chen and Sengupta (2014) was .90. No reliability information for the version used in Study 3 was provided.

VALIDITY: Chen and Sengupta (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Chen, Fangyuan and Jaideep Sengupta (2014), "Forced to Be Bad: The Positive Impact of Low-Autonomy Vice Consumption on Consumer Vitality," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1089-1107. Ryan, Richard M., Richard Koestner, and Edward L. Deci (1991), “Ego-Involved Persistence: When Free-Choice Behavior Is Not Intrinsically Motivated,” Motivation and Emotion, 15 (3), 185–205.

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

I enjoyed doing the _____ task very much. The _____ task was fun to do. I thought the _____ task was a boring activity. (r) The _____ task did not hold my attention at all. (r) I would describe this _____ task as very interesting. I thought the _____ task was quite enjoyable. While I was doing the _____ task, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.

-------------1. A word or phrase that identifies the task in which the participants engaged should be placed in the blanks. For example, In Study 1 by Chen and Sengupta (2014), the phrase “food-sampling” was used while in Study 3, the word “shopping” was used.

585

All seven items were used in Study 1 while items #1-#3, and #7 composed the short version for Study 3. The response format was not described by the authors but, based on other measures they used, it appears to have been a seven-point scale with something like not at all / very much as verbal anchors.

586

TASTE EVALUATION (GENERAL) The tastiness and healthiness of a specified food is measured in this scale with four, fourpoint semantic differentials. The scale is general in the sense that it appears like it could be used with a wide variety of foods and beverages.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Wyllie, Baxter, and Kulczynski (2015) by drawing some terms from a measure by Hota, Chumpitaz, and Cousin (2010). The scale was used by the former in Study 1 (n = 190) with respect to fruit and in Study 2 (n = 300) with respect to lollipops. In both cases, data were gathered from children in Australia.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported by Wyllie, Baxter, and Kulczynski (2015, pp. 143, 146) for the scale were .903 (Study 1) and .810 (Study 2).

VALIDITY: Wyllie, Baxter, and Kulczynski (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Hota, Monali, Ruben C. Chumpitaz, and Antoine Cousin (2010), “Can Public Service Advertising Change Children’s Nutrition Habits? The Impact of Relevance and Familiarity,” Journal of Advertising Research, 50 (4), 460–477. Wyllie, Jessica, Stacey Baxter, and Alicia Kulczynski (2015), "Healthy Kids: Examining the Effect of Message Framing and Polarity on Children's Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 140-150.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Bad / Good Dislike / Like Not tasty / Tasty Not enjoyable / Enjoyable

-------------1. Participants responded to the items after watching a Public Service Announcement that stressed the healthiness of eating fruit (Study 1) or the unhealthiness of lollipops (Study 2). Following Hota, Chumpitaz, and Cousin (2010), a four-point response format was used by Wyllie, Baxter, and Kulczynski (2015) with the items because of their belief it would be easier for children to use.

587

TEMPORAL PROXIMITY The degree to which a person believes that an event will occur in the distant future rather than very soon is measured with three, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015) in Study 1 with a final sample of 204 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The authors borrowed the scale from Chandran and Menon (2004). In the latter’s usage, the alpha was .89.

RELIABILITY: Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015) reported the scale’s alpha to be .93.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015). However, since it was used as a manipulation check and the manipulation was successful, there was some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Chandran, Sucharita and Geeta Menon (2004), “When a Day Means More than a Year: Effects of Temporal Framing on Judgments of Health Risk,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 375–389. Pounders, Kathrynn R., Seungae Lee, and Mike Mackert (2015), "Matching Temporal Frame, Self-View, and Message Frame Valence: Improving Persuasiveness in Health Communications," Journal of Advertising, 44 (4), 388-402.

ITEMS:1 1. Now / Later 2. Today / Sometime over the year 3. Near future / Distant future

-------------1. The scale stem, instructions, or setting must be used to focus participants on an event that has not occurred yet. After seeing a public service announcement, Pounders, Lee, and Mackert (2015, p. 391) prompted participants to finish the statement “The ad you viewed focused on the risk of heart disease . . . .“

588

TIME AVAILABILITY With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s belief that he/she has a lot of time to do what is needed. If all of the items are reverse-scored, the scale could be viewed as a measure of time pressure.

ORIGIN: Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015) used the scale in four of the five studies reported in their article. They appear to have created the scale by drawing three of the items from Rudd et al. (2012).

RELIABILITY: Alphas for the scale were .89, .85, .82, and .89 in Studies 2 (n = 258), 3 (n = 52), 4 (n = 110), and 5 (n = 215), respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015).

REFERENCES: Etkin, Jordan, Ioannis Evangelidis, and Jennifer Aaker (2015), "Pressed for Time? Goal Conflict Shapes How Time Is Perceived, Spent, and Valued," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 394-406. Rudd, Melanie, Kathleen Vohs, and Jennifer Aaker (2012), “Awe Expands People’s Perception of Time, Alters Decision Making, and Enhances Well-Being,” Psychological Science, 23 (10), 1130–1136.

ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

I have a lot of available time. I have a lot of time in which I can get things done. Time is slipping away. (r) I am pressed for time. (r)

589

TIME AVAILABILITY The scale uses five, seven-point items to measure how much a person feels at a particular moment that he/she is unrushed and that time is in abundance.

ORIGIN: Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015) used the scale in Study 1 of the five studies reported in their article. They referred to the scale as subjective time perceptions. The authors created the measure by drawing concepts and terms from scales by Rudd et al. (2012) as well as Kasser and Sheldon (2009).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .89 (Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker 2015, p. 397).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Etkin, Evangelidis, and Aaker (2015).

REFERENCES: Berger, Jordan Etkin (2016), personal correspondence. Etkin, Jordan, Ioannis Evangelidis, and Jennifer Aaker (2015), "Pressed for Time? Goal Conflict Shapes How Time Is Perceived, Spent, and Valued," Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 394-406. Kasser, Tim and Kennon M. Sheldon (2009), “Time Affluence as a Path Toward Personal Happiness and Ethical Business Practice: Empirical Evidence from Four Studies,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (Supplement 2), 243–255. Rudd, Melanie, Kathleen Vohs, and Jennifer Aaker (2012), “Awe Expands People’s Perception of Time, Alters Decision Making, and Enhances Well-Being,” Psychological Science, 23 (10), 1130–1136.

ITEMS:1 To what extent does it currently (right now) feel that . . . 1. 2. 3. 4.

time is expanded? time is boundless? time is constricted? (r) you are in a rush/hurry? (r) 5. you don't have enough time? (r) 590

-------------1. The exact phrasing of the items and the scale stem were provided by Berger (2016). The extreme verbal anchors of the response scale were not at all (1) and very much (7).

591

TIME BENEFICIALNESS How much a person views time in a certain situation as being a beneficial entity or a maleficent force is measured with three, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: May and Monga (2014) used the scale in Studies 3, 4, and 5. The source of the scale was not identified. It was probably developed by the authors specifically for their studies.

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by May and Monga (2014) were .94 (Study 3) and .91 (Studies 4 and 5).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by May and Monga (2014).

COMMENTS: For the scale to make sense given the phrasing of the scale stem, some directions or the context need to clearly focus participants’ attention on what “this time” refers to.

REFERENCES: May, Frank and Ashwani Monga (2014), "When Time Has a Will of Its Own, the Powerless Don’t Have the Will to Wait: Anthropomorphism of Time Can Decrease Patience," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 924-942.

ITEMS: Did this time seem as: 1. a negative force working against you or a positive force working for you?1 2. a force that causes pain or causes pleasure?2 3. a bad force or a good force?3

-------------1. The anchors used with this item were working against me (-4), working neither for me nor against me (0), and working for me (+4). 2. The anchors used with this item were pain (-4), neither pain nor pleasure (0), and pleasure (+4). 3. The anchors used with this item were bad (-4), neither bad nor good (0), and good (+4).

592

TIME PRESSURE FROM EMPLOYEES Using three, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a customer felt pressure from the employees of a retail establishment to quickly make a decision and finish activity there.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Ashley and Noble (2014) in Studies 2 and 3 of the four discussed in their article. Two of the items were drawn from a scale used by Kohli (1998) to measure the pressure felt by a buying center member to make a decision quickly.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alphas were .93 and .88 in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement models for the studies and the conclusion was that the models fit well. For all reflective scales in the models, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to time pressure, the AVEs were .81 (Study 2) and .66 (Study 3).

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. Kohli, Ajay (1989), ‘‘Determinants of Influence in Organizational Buying: A Contingency Approach,’’ Journal of Marketing, 53 (July), 50-65. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. I felt my decision-making process was rushed. 2. I felt the employees wanted me to finish __________ quickly.2 3. I felt pressured to reach a decision quickly.

-------------1. Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of a five-point Likert-type response format (strongly disagree = 1 and strongly disagree =5). 2. The type of activity in which the participant was engaging should be stated in the blank. The phrase used by Ashley and Noble (2014, p. 91) was “my dining experience.”

593

TRANSFORMATIONAL RELATIONSHIP EVENT With four, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures the degree to which a person expresses surprise in the behavior of the other party of a relationship in a particular situation. The circumstances surrounding the event in which the behavior occurred are not stated in the items themselves but should be made clear to respondents in the context of the study or the instructions.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Harmeling et al. (2015) in Study 2 with 228 participants recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel. Participants were randomly assigned to negative and positive relational disconfirmation experimental conditions. The authors developed the scale in a series of steps which began with definition of the construct and generating potential scale items using feedback from 22 in-depth interviews with industry experts (Harmeling et al. 2015, web appendix B). The following steps and their results led to a final set of four items and provided evidence of the scale’s reliability and validity, as discussed further below.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were .92 and .95, for the negative and positive conditions, respectively (Harmeling et al. 2015, p. 48).

VALIDITY: The CFA used by Harmeling et al. (2015) showed an acceptable fit of the model to the data. Evidence was provided of this scale’s discriminant validity with the others in the model. The scale’s AVEs were .74 and .83 for the negative and positive conditions in Study 2, respectively (Harmeling et al. 2015, p. 48).

COMMENTS: The scale was also used in Study 3 by Harmeling et al. (2015) in a business-to-business context. Due to that, the phrasing of the items was slightly different from what is shown below in order to have the proper syntax.

REFERENCES: Harmeling, Colleen M., Robert W. Palmatier, Mark B. Houston, Mark J. Arnold, and Stephen A. Samaha (2015), "Transformational Relationship Events," Journal of Marketing, 79 (5), 39-62. 594

ITEMS:1 Instructions: Considering your relationship with _____, please indicate how you viewed _____‘s behavior. 1. 2. 3. 4.

I did not expect this from my relationship with _____. _____‘s behavior was very unexpected. I did not think _____ would do something like this. This event was outside of what I would have expected from the norms of our relationship.

-------------1. The name of the person, group, or company in the focal relationship with the respondent should be stated in the blanks. The extreme anchors used by Harmeling et al. (2015, p. 51) for the response scale were strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

595

TREATMENT SEEKING LIKELIHOOD A person’s expressed likelihood of engaging in behaviors that involve prevention or treatment of a health condition is measured with four, seven-point questions. The particular health condition is not stated in the questions and should be provided in the instructions or the context of the study.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Yoon (2015) in three studies. Each study had to do with a situation in which the person might feel shame. For example, being tested for a Human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted disease, was the focus in Study 1. Although Yoon (2015) indicated that she had adapted a scale by Passyn and Sujan (2006), a comparison indicates it has more in common with a scale by Samper and Schwartz (2013).

RELIABILITY: Although the scale was used by Yoon (2015) in all three studies described in the article, the exact reliability of the scale was only reported for Study 1 (alpha = .89).

VALIDITY: Yoon (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: Passyn, Kirsten and Mita Sujan (2006), “Self-Accountability Emotions and Fear Appeals: Motivating Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 583-589. 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. Yoon, Hye Jin (2015), "Humor Effects in Shame-Inducing Health Issue Advertising: The Moderating Effects of Fear of Negative Evaluation," Journal of Advertising, 44 (2), 126139.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

How How How How

likely likely likely likely

are are are are

you you you you

to to to to

get tested? seek prevention or treatment? talk to your doctor? learn more about the prevention and treatment? 596

-------------1. The extreme verbal anchors used on the response scale with these questions were not at all likely and very much likely.

597

TRUST (INTERPERSONAL) A person’s general level of trust across a variety of people and situations is measured with 25, five-point Likert-type items. To be clear, the scale does not measure one’s trust of a particular person or those playing a specific role but rather the tendency to trust others and be optimistic about their intentions.

ORIGIN: The scale used by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) was developed by Rotter (1967). In his major study with data collected from 547 college students, the scale’s split-half reliability was .76. As for temporal stability, the seven month test-retest correlation with 24 participants was .56. In another case, the test-retest correlation (around three months) was .68 for 42 participants. Some evidence of the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity was provided. Of some concern is that scale scores were correlated (r = .29) with scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe (1960). Although the association was statistically significant, Rotter viewed it to be “relatively small” (p. 656).

RELIABILITY: In the studies by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015), the alphas ranged from .74 (Experiment 1, n = 56) to .86 (Experiment 2, n = 240).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed in the analyses reported by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015).

COMMENTS: As used by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015), the mean scale scores ranged from 65.43 (Experiment 2) to 68.18 (Experiment 3).

REFERENCES: Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe (1960), “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (August), 349354. Rotter, Julian B. (1967), “A New Scale for Measurement of Interpersonal Trust,” Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651–655. Touré-Tillery, Maferima and Ann L. McGill (2015), "Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers," Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 94-110. 598

ITEMS:1 1. Hypocrisy is on the increase in our society. (r) 2. In dealing with strangers one is better off to be cautious until they have provided evidence that they are trustworthy. (r) 3. This country has a dark future unless we can attract better people into politics. (r) 4. Fear and social disgrace or punishment rather than conscience prevents most people from breaking the law. (r) 5. Using the honor system of not having a teacher present during exams would probably result in increased cheating. (r) 6. Parents usually can be relied on to keep their promises. 7. The United Nations will never be an effective force in keeping world peace. (r) 8. The judiciary is a place where we can all get unbiased treatment. 9. Most people would be horrified if they knew how much news that the public hears and sees is distorted. (r) 10. It is safe to believe that in spite of what people say most people are primarily interested in their own welfare. (r) 11. Even though we have reports in newspapers, radio, and TV, it is hard get objective accounts of public events. (r) 12. The future seems very promising. 13. If we really knew what was going on in international politics, the public would have reason to be more frightened than they now seem to be. (r) 14. Most elected officials are really sincere in their campaign promises. 15. Many major national sports contests are fixed in one way or another. (r) 16. Most experts can be relied upon to tell the truth about the limits of their knowledge. 17. Most parents can be relied upon to carry out their threats of punishments. 18. Most people can be counted on to do what they say they will do. 19. In these competitive times one has to be alert or someone-is likely to take advantage of you. (r) 20. Most idealists are sincere and usually practice what they preach. 21. Most salesmen are honest in describing their products. 22. Most students in school would not cheat even if they were sure of getting away with it. 23. Most repairmen will not overcharge even if they think you are ignorant of their specialty. 24. A large share of accident claims filed against insurance companies are phony. (r) 25. Most people answer public opinion polls honestly.

-------------1. Both Rotter (1967) as well as Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) used a five point response format with strongly disagree/strongly agree being the extreme verbal anchors.

599

TRUST IN FEELINGS How much a person relies on his/her feelings in making decisions across situations is measured with seven, seven-point items.

ORIGIN: Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015) used the scale in Study 4. Data were gathered from 257 undergraduate students. The scale was developed by Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012). Those authors generated several items measuring trust in feelings and several others measuring trust in things other than feelings (parents, teachers, friends). A factor analysis showed the feelings items loaded together and separately from the nonfeeling items that loaded on the same factor. For some reason, however, when the feelings items were combined into a scale, the internal consistency was rather low (Cronbach’s alpha = .60). The explanation given was that the low reliability could be due to the scale statements referring to a variety of different situations and trust tending to vary somewhat across those situations.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .77 when used by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015, p. 509).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski (2015).

COMMENTS: The number of items in the scale as described by Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012, p. 724) is six. Salerno (2016) confirms that upon requesting the scale from Avnet, there were seven items related to feelings and five related to something else. This probably means an error crypt into the description provided in Avnet, Pham, and Stephen (2012).

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. Salerno, Anthony (2016), personal correspondence. Salerno, Anthony, Juliano Laran, and Chris Janiszewski (2015), "Pride and Regulatory Behavior: The Influence of Appraisal Information and Self-Regulatory Goals," Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (3), 499-514.

600

ITEMS:1 Instructions: We would like to ask you a few questions about the way you make decisions in life. Please select the number that you think best describes your way of making decisions. 1. When choosing a roommate, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about this roommate? 2. When buying a new car, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about this car? 3. When dating a new person, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about this new date? 4. When buying a new novel, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about this new novel? 5. When choosing a school, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about this school? 6. When voting for president, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about the candidates? 7. When deciding on a job, to what extent do you rely on, that is believe and trust what your feelings tell you about this job?

-------------1. The items and scale stem were provided by Salerno (2016). The extreme anchors for the response scale were not trust at all (1) and trust very much (7).

601

TRUST IN THE ORGANIZATION’S TREATMENT OF MEMBERS Using six, five-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s belief that an organization to which he/she belongs is competent and caring about its members.

ORIGIN: Marinova and Singh (2014) created the scale by following the tri-partite view of trust advanced by Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002). Specifically, Marinova and Singh (2014) employed two items for each of the following dimensions of trust: competence, benevolence, and problem solving. Analyses by Marinova and Singh (2014) were apparently based on data from 1,298 usable responses from members of a zoological society of a major metropolitan city in the United States.

RELIABILITY: The composite reliability reported for the scale by Marinova and Singh (2014) was .95.

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Marinova and Singh (2014) concluded that their measurement model, which included this scale and several others, fit the data well. Further, tests provided evidence in support of the scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. This scale’s AVE was .75.

REFERENCES: Marinova, Detelina and Jagdip Singh (2014), "Consumer Decision to Upgrade or Downgrade a Service Membership," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (6), 596-618. Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh, and Barry Sabol (2002), "Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges," Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 15-37.

ITEMS:1 The __________: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

competently handles most inquiries from members like myself. efficiently responds to most questions and requests for information. cares about the needs/wants of its members. can be relied upon to provide valued member benefits. goes out of the way to address member concerns. is flexible in resolving member complaints.

602

-------------1. The name of the organization should be placed in the blank of the scale stem. Responses were measured with five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

603

TRUST IN THE THIRD-PARTY LABEL The level of trust a person has in a third party label on a package and the party sponsoring it that attests to an aspect of the product’s quality is measured using six, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) used the scale in a study with a sample of students in a class at a university in the southwestern United States (n = 233). They referred to the scale as eco-label trust because their study focused on “green” advertising. The measure is a translation of a scale created by Moussa and Touzani (2008). The translation was performed by Atkinson who is bi-lingual (2015). The article by Moussa and Touzani (2008) provided a variety of evidence in support of the scale’s psychometric quality (reliability, unidimensionality, validity).

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the English version of the scale used by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014, p. 37) was .86.

VALIDITY: No information about the translated scale’s validity was provided by Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014).

COMMENTS: Although Atkinson and Rosenthal (2014) used the scale as part of a study of “green” advertising, note how the items (below) do not refer to any particular third party, cause, or product attribute. The context is provided by providing respondents with the proper instructions. Given that, it appears the scale is amenable for use with a variety of third party labels. As always, proper pretesting of its psychometric quality is urged before the measure is used to test theory.

REFERENCES: Atkinson, Lucy (2015), personal correspondence. Atkinson, Lucy and Sonny Rosenthal (2014), "Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust," Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 33-45. Moussa, Salim, and Mourad Touzani (2008), “The Perceived Credibility of Quality Labels: A Scale Validation with Refinement,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32 (5), 526–533. 604

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

I can trust what the label says. This label is from a recognized organization or experts. This label is honest. The organization that posted this label is honest. The organization conducted rigorous tests before issuing this label. This label inspires confidence in me.

-------------1. The items were provided by Atkinson (2015). The translation is her own from the original French version of the scale by Moussa and Touzani (2008, p. 533).

605

TRUSTWORTHINESS (GENERAL) Using four, seven-point semantic differentials, the scale measures the honesty and ethicality of something. The scale is general in the sense that it appears that it can be applied to a particular person or a group of people. While it might be used to evaluate the trustworthiness of non-human entities (ads, organizations), it seems most suited for people.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) in Experiment 2 with analysis based on 240 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The items were taken from a measure of trustworthiness by McCroskey and Teven (1999). The scale was one of several measures used by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) to determine if anthropomorphized “messengers” were viewed differently than a human messenger.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 (Touré-Tillery and McGill 2015, p. 101).

VALIDITY: Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: McCroskey, James C. and Jason J. Teven (1999), “Goodwill: A Reexamination of the Construct and Its Measurement,” Communication Monographs, 66 (1), 90–103. Touré-Tillery, Maferima and Ann L. McGill (2015), "Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers," Journal of Marketing, 79 (4), 94-110.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

dishonest / honest unethical / ethical phony / genuine untrustworthy / trustworthy

-------------1. The instructions used with these items were not stated by Touré-Tillery and McGill (2015). The authors appear to have asked participants to use these items and those from some other scales to evaluate the credibility of the “messenger” in the print ad they were exposed to.

606

UNIQUENESS OF THE DESIGN Three, seven-point Likert-type items measure how different the design of an object is viewed as being from the norm.

ORIGIN: Warren and Campbell (2014) created the scale and used it in the Study 1 pretest (n = 51). They called the scale divergence and had participants use it to rate two water bottles. This was done so that one set of subjects in the main study would see a water bottle that was perceived as normal while another group would see a bottle that was significantly different from the norm.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .94 (Warren 2015).

VALIDITY: As confirmed by (Warren 2015), the scale was created quickly for the pretest and there was no effort to validate it.

COMMENTS: Warren and Campbell (2014) used the scale with reference to a package design, particularly its shape and color. The scale seems like it could be used with other objects as well. However, pretesting is urged to determination the scale’s the appropriateness if use with objects other than packages, especially if desired for rating the uniqueness of people.

REFERENCES: Warren, Caleb (2015), personal correspondence. Warren, Caleb and Margaret C. Campbell (2014), "What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived Coolness," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 543563.

ITEMS:1 1. The design is different from the norm. 2. The design is unique. 3. The design shows independence. 607

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with the response scale were: strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree (Warren 2015).

608

USEFULNESS OF THE SHOPPING AID The degree to which a consumer believes that a specific object, person, or service improves his/her accomplishment of shopping-related activity is measured with four, seven-point, Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in an experimental lab study reported by Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015). The study was conducted at a German university with data from a final sample of 252 students. The items for the scale were adapted by the authors from a scale by Tam and Ho (2006) who, in turn, drew phrases from measures of usefulness by Davis (e.g., 1989).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .91 Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015, p. 398). The authors also reported that the scale’s composite reliability was .748 for the group in which retailer trustworthiness was manipulated to be “more” and the composite reliability was .772 for the group in which trustworthiness was manipulated to be “less.”

VALIDITY: Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) used CFA to examine their measures. Evidence was provided in support of each multi-item scale’s convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the usefulness construct, the scale’s AVEs were .715 in the “more trusted retailer” group and .746 in the “less trusted retailer” group.

REFERENCES: Bleier, Alexander and Maik Eisenbeiss (2015), "The Importance of Trust for Personalized Online Advertising," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 390-409. Davis, Fred D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, 19 (September), 319-340. Tam, Kar Y. and Shuk Y. Ho (2006), “Understanding the Impact of Web Personalization on User Information Processing and Decision Outcomes,” MIS Quarterly, 30 (4), 865– 890.

ITEMS:1 1. The _____ enables me to accomplish shopping tasks more quickly. 2. The _____ improves my shopping task performance. 3. The _____ enhances my effectiveness in my shopping tasks. 609

4. The _____ makes it easier to do my shopping tasks.

-------------1. The name or description of the focal shopping aid should be placed in the blanks. The extreme anchors for the response scale used by Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015) were Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7).

610

VALUE OF THE TRANSACTION The scale uses four, seven-point items to measure a consumer’s belief that a particular service-related retail business offers good value based on the resources he/she has expended (time, effort, and money).

ORIGIN: Karpen et al. (2015) used the scale in what they referred to as Stage 5 of developing a set of service-dominant orientation scales. The context was automotive retail and data were collected from 412 members of an Australian online panel. The measure of value used by the authors appears to be original to them though they incorporated some concepts found in many previous measures of "perceived value" or "sacrifice." Most particularly, they drew upon a scale by Keh and Sun (2008).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .902 (Karpen et al. 2015, p. 101).

VALIDITY: As part of hypotheses tests in Stage 5, evidence was provided in support of convergent and discriminant validity for all of the scales used in the structural model. The AVE of the value scale was .775 (Karpen et al. 2015, p. 101).

REFERENCES: Karpen, Ingo O., Liliana L. Bove, Bryan A. Lukas, and Michael J. Zyphur (2015), "ServiceDominant Orientation: Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 89-108. Keh, Hean Tat and Jin Sun (2008), “The Complexities of Perceived Risk in Cross-Cultural Services Marketing,” Journal of International Marketing, 16(1), 120–146.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

This This This This

__________ __________ __________ __________

offers offers offers offers

good value for the price I pay. good value for the effort I make. good value for the time I invest. experiences that make me feel good.

-------------1. The blank in each item should be filled with a generic term or phrase for the type of service-related retail business being studied. For example, the phrase “car dealership” was used by Karpen et al. (2015, p. 105). The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not stated. Most likely they were Likert-type in nature, e.g., strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

611

VALUES (BIOSPHERIC) Four, eight-point items measure the importance a person places on protecting the ecosystem and living in harmony with it.

ORIGIN: Van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) used the scale in surveying a Dutch GfK panel which yielded 1,246 usable responses. The scale was developed by Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005) who borrowed two items from Schwartz’s (1992) universal values instrument and added two items. In a set of 12 items measuring three categories of values, the ones intended to measure biospheric values loaded together and highest on the same factor. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .83.

RELIABILITY: When used by van Doorn and Verhoef (2015, p. 442), the scale’s alpha was .88.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by van Doorn and Verhoef (2015).

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. Steg, Linda, Lieke Dreijerink and Wokje Abrahamse (2005), “Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Energy Policies: Testing VBN Theory,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (4), 415–425. van Doorn, Jenny and Peter C. Verhoef (2015), "Drivers of and Barriers to Organic Purchase Behavior," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 436-450.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Respecting the earth: live in harmony with other species Unity with nature: fitting into nature Protecting the environment: preserving nature Preventing pollution: protecting natural sources

-------------1. As used by van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) as well as Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005), the extreme verbal anchors on the response scale were not at all important (0) and of supreme importance (7).

612

VALUES (EGOISTIC) The importance a person places on hard work to attain financial rewards and social power is measured with five, eight-point items.

ORIGIN: Van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) used the scale in surveying a Dutch GfK panel which yielded 1,246 usable responses. The scale was developed by Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005) who, in turn, adapted three scales by Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1998) based on some items from Schwartz’s (1992) universal values instrument. In a set of 12 items measuring three categories of values, the ones Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005) intended to measure egoistic values loaded together and highest on the same factor. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .65.

RELIABILITY: When used by van Doorn and Verhoef (2015, p. 442), the scale’s alpha was .76.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Van Doorn and Verhoef (2015).

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. Steg, Linda, Lieke Dreijerink, and Wokje Abrahamse (2005), “Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Energy Policies: Testing VBN Theory,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (4), 415–425. Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Gregory A. Guagnano (1998), “A Brief Inventory of Values,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58 (6), 984–1001. van Doorn, Jenny and Peter C. Verhoef (2015), "Drivers of and Barriers to Organic Purchase Behavior," Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 436-450.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Social power: control over others, dominance Wealth: material possessions, money Authority: the right to lead or command Influential: having an impact on people and events 613

5. Ambitious: hard-working, ambitious, striving

-------------1. As used by van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) as well as Steg, Dreijerink, and Abrahamse (2005), the extreme verbal anchors on the response scale were not at all important (0) and of supreme importance (7).

614

VARIETY WITHIN THE ASSORTMENT Three, nine-point items are used to measure a person’s judgement of the degree of variation there is among the options in an assortment of some object.

ORIGIN: Townsend and Kahn (2014) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, and 5 reported in the article. They adapted the items from a measure of the same or a very similar construct by Kahn and Wansink (2004).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .81 (Study 1), .78 (Study 2), and .83 (Study 5) (Townsend and Kahn 2014).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Townsend and Kahn (2014).

REFERENCES: Kahn, Barbara E. and Brian Wansink (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (March), 519-533. Townsend, Claudia and Barbara E. Kahn (2014), "The “Visual Preference Heuristic: The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 993-1015.

ITEMS:1 1. This assortment of _____ offers a lot of variety. 2. This assortment of _____ gives me at least one option I like. 3. How much variety do you think there is in this assortment?

-------------1. The verbal anchors were not described by Townsend and Kahn (2014). However, based on the version by Kahn and Wansink (2004), they were probably strongly disagree/strongly agree for the first two items and very little variety/very much variety for item #3. The name of the focal object should be stated in the blanks of items #1 and #2.

615

VISIBILITY (SOCIAL) Eight, nine-point Likert-type items are used in the scale to measure a person’s feeling of standing out from the crowd and being the center of attention.

ORIGIN: McFerran and Argo (2014) used the scale in Study 4 of the five discussed in their article. The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale reported by McFerran and Argo (2014, p. 877) was .93.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by McFerran and Argo (2014). It is helpful to note, however, that a factor analysis was used in Study 4 on four scales, including the measure of visibility. The items were described as loading on the appropriate factors.

REFERENCES: McFerran, Brent and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Entourage Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 871-884.

ITEMS: Right now, I feel . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

noticeable visible conspicuous evident like the center of attention like others are looking at me like I stand out like others have their eyes on me

616

VISUAL COMPLEXITY Five items are used to measure how ambiguous and chaotic a visual stimulus with multiple parts appears to be.

ORIGIN: Orth and Crouch (2014) used the scale in the three studies described in their article. Pieters, Wedel, and Batra (2010) were cited with reference to the scale but that appears to have referred to the latter’s discussion of the construct since they did not have a scale anything like the one shown below. Given that, it is assumed that Orth and Crouch (2014) created the scale for their studies.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .90, .75, and .88 in Studies 1 (n = 268), 2 (n = 351), and 3 (n = 117), respectively (Orth and Crouch 2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Orth and Crouch (2014).

REFERENCES: Orth, Ulrich R. and Roberta C. Crouch (2014), "Is Beauty in the Aisles of the Retailer? Package Processing in Visually Complex Contexts," Journal of Retailing, 90 (4), 524-537. Pieters, Rik, Michel Wedel, and Rajeev Batra (2010), “The Stopping Power of Advertising: Measures and Effects of Visual Complexity,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 48–60.

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

Overall, how complex does this _____ appear to you?2 How ambiguous is the boundary of each object in this _____?3 How many different objects do there seem to be?4 To what degree do there seem to be parts of the scene that are invisible?5 To what degree is the scene either chaotic or organized?6

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with a generic name for what the participants saw such as a photo, a website, a store. The response formats used with these items were not described by Orth and Crouch (2014). They appear to have been seven-point scales with verbal anchors as speculated below. 2. The extreme verbal anchors may have been something like not complex at all / very complex. 3. The extreme verbal anchors may have been something like not ambiguous at all / very ambiguous. 4. The extreme verbal anchors may have been something like very few objects / many objects. 5. The extreme verbal anchors may have been something like not at all / very high degree. 6. The extreme verbal anchors may have been something like very chaotic / very organized.

617

VISUAL PROCESSING FLUENCY (GENERAL) The scale has three items and measures how easily a person reports being able to visualize an object and describe it later.

ORIGIN: Orth and Crouch (2014) used the scale in the three studies described in their article. Landwehr, Labroo, and Herrmann (2011) were cited with reference to the scale but that appears to have referred to the latter’s discussion of the construct since they did not have a scale anything like the one shown below. Given that, it is assumed that Orth and Crouch (2014) created the scale for their studies.

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale were .88, .90, and .90 in Studies 1 (n = 268), 2 (n = 351), and 3 (n = 117), respectively (Orth and Crouch 2014).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Orth and Crouch (2014).

REFERENCES: Landwehr, Jan R., Aparna A. Labroo, and Andreas Herrmann (2011), “Gut Liking for the Ordinary: Incorporating Design Fluency Improves Automobile Sales Forecasts,” Marketing Science, 30 (3), 416–429. Orth, Ulrich R. and Roberta C. Crouch (2014), "Is Beauty in the Aisles of the Retailer? Package Processing in Visually Complex Contexts," Journal of Retailing, 90 (4), 524-537.

ITEMS:1 1. How easy is it for you to visually process the _____? 2. With your eyes closed, how easy is it for you to visualize the _____? 3. How easy would you find it to describe this _____ later?

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with a generic name for the object that participants saw, e.g., product, package, ad. The response format used with these items was not described by Orth and Crouch (2014). It appears to have been a seven-point scale and the extreme verbal anchors were probably something like very difficult / very easy.

618

VISUAL PROCESSING FLUENCY (PRODUCT CUSTOMIZATION) Three questions with seven-point semantic differential response scales are employed to measure how well a person reports being able to imagine a product he/she is customizing.

ORIGIN: Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) used the scale in Studies 4 to 8 and referred to it as a measure of “mental stimulation.” The authors described the scale as an adaptation of a measure used by Escalas (2004) but an examination of that scale does not indicate close similarity between the two. Instead, there is more phrasing in common with items in scales by Ellen and Bone (1991) as well as Smith, Chen, and Yang (2008).

RELIABILITY: The alphas for the scale in five studies by Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann (2014) ranged from .70 (Study 6) to .93 (Study 4).

VALIDITY: Several tests were conducted in Studies 4 to 8 of the scale’s discriminant validity with respect to another scale in their studies (perceived complexity of the product customization process). In all cases, evidence was found in support of two scales’ distinctiveness.

REFERENCES: Ellen, Pam Scholder and Paula Fitzgerald Bone (1991), “Measuring CommunicationEvoked Imagery Processing,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Soloman, eds. Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research, 806-812. Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Imagine Yourself in the Product: Mental Simulation, Narrative Transportation, and Persuasion,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 37–48. Hildebrand, Christian, Gerald Häubl, and Andreas Herrmann (2014), "Product Customization via Starting Solutions," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 707-725. Smith, Robert E., Jiemiao Chen, and Xiaojing Yang (2008), “The Impact of Advertising Creativity on the Hierarchy of Effects,” Journal of Advertising, 37 (4), 47–61.

619

ITEMS: 1. How easy/difficult was it for you imagine your product during the customization task? imagining was difficult / imagining was easy 2. How many images of the product went through your mind while customizing? few mental images / many mental images 3. How well could you imagine yourself using your customized product? not at all / very well

620

VIVIDNESS (GENERAL) How graphic and intense a stimulus is perceived to be is measured in this scale with four, seven-point semantic differentials.

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Andrews et al. (2014) in Studies 1 and 2 with respect to warning labels for cigarette packages. Due to the context, they referred to the scale as perceived graphicness of the warning. The scale was borrowed from previous work by some of the same authors (Kees et al. 2010). In that study, the scale’s internal consistency was .87 in a pilot test and .95 in the main study.

RELIABILITY: As used by Andrews et al. (2014) in Studies 1 and 2, the alphas for the scale were .95 and .94, respectively.

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not addressed by Andrews et al. (2014).

REFERENCES: Andrews, J. Craig, Richard G. Netemeyer, Jeremy Kees, and Scot Burton (2014), "How Graphic Visual Health Warnings Affect Young Smokers' Thoughts of Quitting," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 165-183. Kees, Jeremy, Scot Burton, J. Craig Andrews, and John Kozup (2010), “Understanding How Graphic Pictorial Warnings Work on Cigarette Packaging,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29 (Fall), 265–276.

ITEMS:1 1. 2. 3. 4.

not graphic at all / very graphic not vivid at all / extremely vivid very weak / very powerful not intense at all / very intense

-------------1. The scale stem used with these items in the studies by Andrews et al. (2014) was “I think the warning information on the package is . . . .”

621

VULNERABILITY (HEALTH) The degree to which a person believes he/she will contract a certain health condition and is worried about it is measured with four, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: Lisjak and Lee (2014) used the scale in Study 2 with respect to kidney disease and in Study 3 with respect to chlamydia. The scale appears to have been created by the authors based on ideas received from a review of vulnerability measures by McCaul et al. (1996).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .94 in Study 2 and .75 in Study 3 (Lisjak and Lee 2014, pp. 60, 62).

VALIDITY: Although Lisjak and Lee (2014) did not address the scale’s validity per se, they did mention that participants in Study 3 who received a high-risk message reported more vulnerability than those in the low-risk message condition. This provides some evidence of the scale’s predictive validity.

REFERENCES: Lisjak, Monika and Angela Y. Lee (2014), "The Bright Side of Impulse: Depletion Heightens Self-Protective Behavior in the Face of Danger," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 55-70. McCaul, Kevin D., Dawn M. Schroeder, and Patricia A. Reid (1996), “Breast Cancer Worry and Screening: Some Prospective Data,” Health Psychology, 15 (November), 430–433.

ITEMS:1 What is the extent to which you: 1. believe you are at risk for __________? 2. believe that you are likely to contract __________? 3. are concerned that you may have __________? 4. worry that you may have __________?

-------------1. The name of the medical condition should be stated in the blanks. The anchors for the response scale used with these items were not at all (1) and very much (9). The items were paraphrased in the article by Lisjak and Lee (2014, p. 60) and are phrased here as they might have been stated in the survey instrument.

622

WATER CONSERVATION INTENTION Six, seven-point items are used to measure a person’s expressed likelihood of engaging in behaviors with the purpose of using less water.

ORIGIN: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) used the scale in a follow-up to their Study 3. Analysis was based on data from 97 undergraduate students. The scale was created by the authors (White 2015) and is strongly based on phrasings from other intention measures used by the lead author in previous research (White and Peloza 2009; White and Simpson 2013).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .803 (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014, p. 441).

VALIDITY: White, Simpson, and Argo (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

REFERENCES: White, Katherine (2015), personal correspondence. White, Katherine and John Peloza (2009), "Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support," Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 109-124. White, Katherine and Bonnie Simpson (2013), "When Do (and Don't) Normative Appeals Influence Sustainable Consumer Behaviors?" Journal of Marketing, 77 (2), 78-95. White, Katherine, Bonnie Simpson, and Jennifer J. Argo (2014), "The Motivating Role of Dissociative Out-Groups in Encouraging Positive Consumer Behaviors," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 433-447.

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

How likely are you to conserve water? Highly Unlikely / Highly Likely How inclined are you to conserve water? Not Very Inclined / Highly Inclined How willing are you to conserve water? Not Very Willing / Very Willing To what degree do you intend to conserve water? Not at all / Very much so How likely will you be to turn off the tap when you brush your teeth? Not at all / Very much so 623

6. How likely will you be to shorten the length of your showers? Not at all / Very much so

-------------1. The anchors for the response scale items were provided by White (2015).

624

WEARINESS Four items with a seven-point response format are used to measure how much a person has been burdened by something that has happened to the point that it depletes his/her ability to deal with it.

ORIGIN: Chae and Zhu (2014) used the scale in Study 4 and referred to it as “a depletion index.” The source of the scale was not stated.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .87 (Chae and Zhu 2014, p. 1207).

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not discussed by Chae and Zhu (2014).

REFERENCES: Chae, Boyoun (Grace) and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2014), "Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1203-1218.

ITEMS:1 Using the items below, please indicate how you feel right now.2 1. 2. 3. 4.

burned out frustrated overworked weary

-------------1. The anchors used for measuring responses to the items were not at all (1) and extremely (7). 2. The exact phrasing of the scale stem was not provided by Chae and Zhu (2014). This is a one possibility.

625

WEBSITE’S USER-GENERATED CONTENT The belief that a large amount of a website’s content is created by its users and substantially contributes to its value is measured with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) used the scale in Study 3 and created it for that purpose. It was presented to participants in German having been developed from the English version shown below using the back-translation method. As with all of the other scales in the study, this scale was pretested several ways.

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .89 (Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene 2014, p. 72).

VALIDITY: Although Schumann, Wangenheim, and Groene (2014) did not address broad aspects of the scale’s validity, they did examine the discriminant validity of all their scales using data from the pretest as well as Study 3. In both cases, the authors concluded that all of their scales showed adequate evidence of discriminant validity. Further, the AVE for the scale was good (.74).

REFERENCES: Schumann, Jan H., Florian von Wangenheim, and Nicole Groene (2014), "Targeted Online Advertising: Using Reciprocity Appeals to Increase Acceptance Among Users of Free Web Services," Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 59-75.

ITEMS: 1. The content of this website is created to a large extent by its users. 2. The users of this website contribute significantly to the value I derive from the website. 3. This website profits a lot from the contributions of its users.

626

WILLINGNESS TO PAY A PRICE PREMIUM A consumer’s readiness and likelihood of spending more for a particular brand or version of a product than the alternatives is measured using three, nine-point items.

ORIGIN: Newman and Dhar (2014) used the scale in Experiment 1 with 253 adults recruited from an online panel. The source of the scale was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .82 (Newman and Dhar 2014, p. 375).

VALIDITY: The scale’s validity was not discussed by Newman and Dhar (2014).

REFERENCES: Newman, George E. and Ravi Dhar (2014), "Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production," Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 371-386.

ITEMS:1 1. Would you be willing to pay a premium in order to own __________? would not pay a premium / would pay a premium 2. How much would you be willing to pay for __________ relative to the average __________? substantially less / substantially more 3. How likely would you be to purchase __________? not at all / very likely

-------------1. The brand name or description of the focal product should be placed in the blanks except the second one of item #2. Newman and Dhar (2014) used the phrase “this particular pair of jeans” and participants knew it was a certain type of Levi’s ® jeans described to them. In the second blank of #2, a name or description of the alternative(s) should be placed.

627

WILLINGNESS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT AS A GIFT Three, seven-point Likert-type items measure a consumer’s openness to the idea of purchasing a product by a company as a gift in a hypothetical situation. The product, the company, and for whom the gift is intended are not specified in the items themselves and must be provided elsewhere.

ORIGIN: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) used the scale in Study 2 of the four discussed in their article. Analysis was apparently conducted with data collected from a final sample of 434 members of an Austrian consumer panel. Based on what was stated in the web appendix to the article, the scale and the rest of the study was phrased in German. The source of the scale itself was not identified.

RELIABILITY: The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was .84 (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, p. 103).

VALIDITY: The discriminant validity of all construct measures was examined using CFA (Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015, p. 103). Two different tests provided evidence in support of each scale’s discriminant validity.

COMMENTS: Fuchs, Schreier, and van Osselaer (2015) viewed the scale as measuring purchase intention but the scale is not called that here. No explicit purchase intent is expressed in the items but merely expressing a willingness to purchase the product in a hypothetical situation.

REFERENCES: Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015), "The Handmade Effect: What's Love Got to Do with It?" Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 98-110.

ITEMS:1 Would you buy a product of this firm as a gift for the intended gift recipient? 1. For this occasion, I would buy this product as a gift. 2. It is unlikely that I would buy a product of this firm as a gift. (r) 628

3. I would feel good about buying a product of this firm as a gift.

-------------1. For item #1 to make sense, the “occasion” referred to must be understood by participants based on information provided in the questionnaire or what occurs in the experiment. The response scale used with the items had Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly agree (7) as extreme anchors.

629

WILLINGNESS TO PURCHASE THE ADVERTISED BRAND The scale is composed of three, seven-point items that measure how willing a person would be to purchase a particular advertised brand if it was available in his/her local area at the listed price.

ORIGIN: Coulter and Grewal (2014) used the scale in Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5. The authors referred to the scale as purchase intention and used it with reference to fictitious brands. While in a loose sense, the construct being measured may be called purchase intention, the name is not used here because the items refer to hypothetical behavior rather than an explicit plan to purchase. It appears that the authors created the scale by drawing inspiration from phrases used in previous measures, particularly a measure called willingness to buy by Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale in the four studies were high, ranging from .88 to .91.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Coulter and Grewal (2014).

REFERENCES: Coulter, Keith S. and Dhruv Grewal (2014), "Name-Letters and Birthday-Numbers: Implicit Egotism Effects in Pricing," Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 102-120. 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), 307-319.

ITEMS: 1. What is the likelihood that you would buy the advertised brand if it were for sale in the local area?1 2. Rate the probability that you would buy the brand if it were for sale in the local area.2 3. How likely do you feel you would be to buy the advertised item at the listed price?3

-------------1. The verbal anchors used with this question were definitely would not and definitely would.

630

2. The verbal anchors used with this statement were definitely will not and definitely will. 3. The verbal anchors used with this question were very unlikely and very likely.

631

WILLINGNESS TO PURCHASE THE COMPANY'S PRODUCTS A consumer’s attitude about trying and buying products of a company the next time they are needed is measured with three statements.

ORIGIN: The scale was created by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015) and used in Study 1. The field experiment was conducted with a convenience quota sample in Italy (n = 263). An English version of the questionnaire was back-translated and refined before use in Italian. The authors are the source of the scale and drew some inspiration from a scale by Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991).

RELIABILITY: The alpha for the scale was .92 (Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi 2015, p. 459).

VALIDITY: Using LISREL and CFA, the Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015) concluded that their measurement model had a good fit. They also found evidence of their measures’ convergent and discriminant validities. With respect to the measurement of willingness to purchase, the AVE was .80.

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), 307-319. Grappi, Silvia, Simona Romani, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2015), "Consumer Stakeholder Responses to Reshoring Strategies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 453-471.

ITEMS:1 1. It’s very likely that I will buy products of this company. 2. I will purchase products of this company the next time I need a product. 3. I will definitely try products of this company.

-------------1. The response scale used with these items was not stated by Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2015). It appears to have been a seven-point Likert-type scale which means the verbal anchors were likely to have been the Italian equivalent of strongly disagree / strongly agree.

632

WILLINGNESS TO SHARE THE PRODUCT REVIEW VIA TWITTER The scale is composed of four, seven-point Likert-type items that measure a person’s interest and willingness to spread information about a particular product review to his/her Twitter followers. Another aspect mentioned in two of the items is the name of the person, potentially a celebrity, who endorsed the product.

ORIGIN: Jin and Phua (2014) developed the scale for the study and used it in Experiment 1. They referred to the construct as intention to spread eWOM.

RELIABILITY: Internal consistency was calculated for two product reviews. Alphas were .94 for a brand of water and .89 for a brand of vodka.

VALIDITY: Although the details were not provided, the researchers used CFA and concluded that the aspects of validity that were analyzed were stable across two sample.

REFERENCES: Jin, Seung-A Annie and Joe Phua (2014), "Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities," Journal of Advertising, 43 (2), 181-195.

ITEMS:1 1. I am interested in sharing this product review with my Twitter friends. 2. I am interested in sharing my experience with this product’s advertisement with my Twitter friends. 3. I am willing to spread _____ product review via my Twitter page. 4. I am willing to retweet _____ product review tweets.

-------------1. The blanks in items #3 and #4 can be filled with the name of a celebrity or another person. Jin and Phua (2014) filled the space with “David Kerr’s,” referring to the fictional celebrity they created for purposes of the study. It is also possible to fill the blanks with the word “the” if the person who endorsed the product or wrote the review is not relevant. The verbal anchors used with the items were not explicitly stated but were described to as Likert-type suggesting that the extreme verbal anchors were strongly disagree /strongly agree or something similar.

633

WORD-OF-MOUTH (NEGATIVE) The extent to which a customer complained to friends, family, and others about a particular shopping experience is measured with three, five-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in Study 4 by Ashley and Noble (2014). The authors created the scale for use in the study by borrowing concepts from a scale by McColl-Kennedy et al. (2009).

RELIABILITY: The scale’s alpha was .88 in Study 4 (Ashley and Noble 2014, p. 80).

VALIDITY: CFA was employed by Ashley and Noble (2014) to assess the measurement model used in Study 4 and the conclusion was that it fit the data well. For all reflective scales in the model, there was evidence of discriminant validity. With respect to negative word-ofmouth, the AVE was .71.

REFERENCES: Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), "It's Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 7492. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Paul G. Patterson, Amy K. Smith, and Michael K. Brady (2009), "Customer Rage Episodes: Emotions, Expressions and Behaviors," Journal of Retailing, 85 (2), 222-237. Noble, Stephanie M. (2015), personal correspondence.

ITEMS:1 1. I complained to others about the employees. 2. I complained to other people about my shopping experience in the store. 3. I said negative things to friends or relatives (not living at home) about my shopping experience.

-------------1. Noble (2015) confirmed that the scale was composed of a five-point Likert-type response format.

634

WORD-OF-MOUTH INTENTION (POSITIVE) The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure a person’s intention to recommend something to others such as a service provider, retailer, website, or brand.

ORIGIN: The scale was used in the main study reported by Hutter and Hoffmann (2014). The authors created the scale by drawing terms and concepts from previous measures by Boulding et al. (1993) and Derbaix and Vanhamme (2003).

RELIABILITY: The alpha as well as the composite reliability were both reported to be .93 for the scale (Hutter and Hoffmann 2014, p. 101).

VALIDITY: A CFA was used by Hutter and Hoffmann (2014) to assess their measurement model and the results indicated the fit was good. Further, evidence was found for the discriminant validity of the attention scale with respect to the other scales in the model. The AVE for this positive word-of-mouth intention scale was .81.

REFERENCES: Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), “A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 7–27. Derbaix, Christian and Joëlle Vanhamme (2003), “Inducing Word-of-mouth by Eliciting Surprise—A Pilot Investigation,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 (1), 99–116. Hutter, Katharina and Stefan Hoffmann (2014), "Surprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers," Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 93-110.

ITEMS:1 1. I will recommend the __________ to my friends. 2. It is likely that I will tell my friends about the __________. 3. I will tell other persons about the __________.

-------------1. The blanks should be filled with the focal object. Hutter and Hoffmann (2014) used the phrase “this store.”

635

WORD-OF-MOUTH INTENTION FOR THE SPORTS TEAM With three, seven-point Likert-type items, the scale measures a person’s willingness to encourage others to attend the games of a particular sports team.

ORIGIN: Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) used the scale in surveys associated with a team franchise of the National Basketball Association (NBA) located in the Southeastern United States. Data were gathered via online surveys prior to three consecutive seasons: 2009-2010 (n = 943), 2010-2011 (n = 632), and 2011-2012 (n = 833). The researchers created the scale by drawing ideas and phrases from a measure by Gremler and Gwinner (2000).

RELIABILITY: Composite reliabilities calculated for the scale were .93 (2009 and 2011 seasons) and .92 (2010 season).

VALIDITY: Using CFA, Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) found that there was an acceptable fit of their hypothesized measurement models to the data for each of the three data sets. Evidence was found in support of each scales’ convergent and discriminant validities. In particular, the AVEs for the word-of-mouth scale were .81 (2009 season), .80 (2010 season), and .82 (2011 season).

REFERENCES: Gremler, Dwayne D. and Kevin P. Gwinner (2000), "Customer-Employee Rapport in Service Relationships," Journal of Service Research, 3 (August), 82-104. Lacey, Russell, Pamela A. Kennett-Hensel, and Chris Manolis (2015), "Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Motivator or Hygiene Factor? Insights into its Bivalent Nature," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 315-332.

ITEMS:1 1. I am willing to encourage others to attend this _____ team’s games. 2. When the topic of sports comes up in conversation, I am willing to go out of my way to recommend attending this _____ team’s games to others. 3. I am willing to highly recommend attending this _____ team’s games to my friends and family.

636

-------------1. The league’s name should be placed in the blanks. Lacey, Kennett-Hensel, and Manolis (2015) used “NBA,” a well-known acronym in the United States for the National Basketball Association. Alternatively, the blanks could be filled with a generic name for the type of sport being studied, e.g., basketball, football, baseball. It is also possible that the items could make sense if the blanks were deleted so long as the instructions or context made it clear which team was to be evaluated.

637

WORD-OF-MOUTH LIKELIHOOD (GENERAL) The subjective probability that a person will tell others about something is measured with three, seven-point semantic differentials. The measure is “general” both in terms of what is being talked about as well as the favorability of the responder’s opinion (positive vs. negative).

ORIGIN: The scale was used by Zhang, Feick, and Mittal (2014) in Studies 1, 2, and 3. They said they had adapted the items from Frenzen and Nakamoto (1993) but that article only referred to a one item measure. It may be best to view Zhang, Feick, and Mittal (2014) as creating the scale based on inspiration from the work of Frenzen and Nakamoto (1993).

RELIABILITY: The alphas reported for the scale by Zhang, Feick, and Mittal (2014) were .95 (Studies 1 and 3) and .92 (Study 2).

VALIDITY: Zhang, Feick, and Mittal (2014) did not discuss the scale’s validity.

COMMENTS: Although Zhang, Feick, and Mittal (2014) used the scale with respect to a negative product experience, the items themselves are amenable for use in a variety of contexts if paired with the proper instructions, manipulation, and/or scale stem.

REFERENCES: Frenzen, Jonathan, and Kent Nakamoto (1993), “Structure, Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 360–375. Zhang, Yinlong, Lawrence Feick, and Vikas Mittal (2014), "How Males and Females Differ in Their Likelihood of Transmitting Negative Word of Mouth," Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1097-1108.

ITEMS: To what extent do you think that you will tell or not tell _____ about your recent consumption experience?1 638

1. certain not to tell / certain to tell 2. very unlikely to tell / very likely to tell 3. probably will not tell / probably will tell

-------------1. This is the scale stem used by Zhang, Feick, and Mittal (2014). A name or description of the person or group with whom the respondent will share information should be placed in the blank.

639

ZERO-SUM BELIEFS The degree to which a person believes that, in general, one person’s good outcomes come at the expense of another person is measured with six, 10-point Likert-type items.

ORIGIN: Huang et al. (2015) used the scale with 129 participants. The measure was created by Crocker and Canevello (2008). They indicated that the scale was internally consistent (Cronbach’s alpha = .77) and the items loaded on one factor in an EFA.

RELIABILITY: As used by Huang et al. (2015), the alpha calculated for the scale was .69.

VALIDITY: The validity of the scale was not addressed by Huang et al. (2015).

COMMENTS: The scale’s reliability is somewhat low. Potential users should take care in using it to test theory until the scale’s psychometric quality can be examined further and, if necessary, improved.

REFERENCES: Crocker, Jennifer, and Amy Canevello (2008), “Creating and Undermining Social Support in Communal Relationships: The Role of Compassionate and Self-Image Goals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (3), 555–575. Huang, Szu-chi (2016), personal correspondence. Huang, Szu-chi, Susan M. Broniarczyk, Ying Zhang, and Mariam Beruchashvili (2015), "From Close to Distant: The Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships in Shared Goal Pursuit," Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1252-1266.

ITEMS:1 1. One person's success depends on another person's failure. 2. In order to succeed in this world, it is sometimes necessary to step on others along the way. 3. My successes don't mean much if most other people succeed at the same task. 4. An accomplishment is only really meaningful if it is rare. 5. To give to others usually requires a sacrifice on the part of the giver. 640

6. I believe that people are basically self-interested.

-------------1. The full list of items was provided by Huang (2016) and she indicated that the extreme verbal anchors for the response scale were strongly disagree/strongly agree.

641

642

Subject Index ........... Acceptance: 3, 162, 280, 345 Accomplishment: 494, 499, 640 Activity: 28, 57, 62 Adoption: 55, 433-443 Advertising: 5-10, 22, 3537, 42, 44-48, 57-68, 234, 238, 430, 446, 454, 630 Advice: (see Recommendation) Aesthetics: 388, 557 Affect: 142, 313, 328, 336, 353, 455 Affordability: 118, 273, 529 Altruism: 12, 80-82, 330,

Appropriateness: 89, 96, 215, 242, 337 Arousal: 24, 25, 217 Assertiveness: 151, 341 Association: 355, 377,

Believability: (see Credibility) Benefits: 5, 54-56, 443, 537, 567 Benevolence: 12, 155156, 259, 462 (see

545, 554 Assortment: 107, 154,

also Altruism)

165, 471, 525, 615

Brand: 7, 46-50, 75-79,

Atmospherics: 427, 557-

109-110, 118-131, 192, 223, 370, 422,

559 Attachment: 29-31, 127,

524, 627, 630 Budgeting: 198, 326, 529

351-355 Attention: 33-37, 227,

Celebrity: 37, 75, 137 Certainty: 38-40, 416

325, 616 Attitude: 38-40 Attractiveness: 58, 474, 544, 558-561

Change: 230, 268, 350, 452 Charity: 135, 170, 193-

Attributions: 13-15

197, 253, 254, 411-

342 (see also

Authenticity: 109-111

412, 449

Benevolence)

Authority: 190, 613

Anthropomorphism: 1315, 263, 592

Autonomy: 112, 174 Availability: 589-591, 630

Children: 239, 345-348, 458 Choice: 119, 219, 386,

Anxiety: 17-19, 233, 280

Avoidance: 187, 346, 553

Appearance: 263, 280,

Awareness: 213, 461

Clarity: 71, 616

Behavioral: 326, 408-410,

Clothing: 326, 411, 422

486, 536, 544 Appreciation: 21, 245

405, 471, 480

Cognition: 13, 331, 457

456 Beliefs: 457, 538, 564 643

Comfortable: 19, 328, 347 Commitment: 120, 142, 243, 460

Consequences: 277, 469,

Dominance: 164, 190-

473 Conservation: 412, 623 Control: 27, 164, 180,

Communication: 512, 542

187, 192, 230, 369,

Community: 144, 172,

492

411 Company: 80-82, 146148, 170-172, 378, 480, 519, 628, 632 Compatibility: 161, 260 Comparison: 77, 126, 239, 261, 458, 544 Competence: 151, 206, 602 Competition: 25, 103, 183, 247 Complaining: 92-94, 153, 634

Disposal: 222, 315 192, 341, 369 Donate: 193-197, 254, 412 Drink: 51, 398, 566

Co-production: 166-168, 481, 506, 626 Convenience: 165, 443,

Dynamic: 57, 62, 323 Eating: 187, 257-258 Effectiveness: 22, 195, 394-397, 609

526, 562 Cooperation: 3, 140, 259,

Efficiency: 529-531, 609 Effort: 166, 407, 497

502 Costs: 435, 562, 567-574

E-mail: 200-206

Credibility: 70, 372, 537

Employees: 29, 140, 159-

Culture: 175, 546

161, 212, 289-290,

Customization: 68, 448,

322, 429, 465, 502, 536, 552, 593

483, 619 Decision-making: 198, 313, 529, 593, 600

Embarrassment: 17, 242, 249

Complexity: 54, 617

Deception: 44, 116, 508

Components: 383-387

Dependency: 351, 441

318, 336, 600

Concern: 82, 155-156,

Design: 388-393, 558-

Empathy: 208-210

208, 248, 342, 380, 469

Emotions: 132, 208, 238,

Engagement: 35, 215-

563, 607 Desirability: 89, 180, 183

219, 325

Confidence: 38, 214, 341

Devotion: 185, 455

Enjoyment: 168, 585-587

Conflict: 135, 158

Differentiation: 59, 334,

Environmentalism: 42-43,

Confusion: 6, 71, 202, 234 Congruence: 6, 150, 159161, 261, 275, 554

84, 220-223, 237, 265,

392, 607 Difficulty: 234, 407, 437, 535, 584, 618

411, 612 Equity: 229, 365

Discomfort: 17, 19, 328

Esteem: 246, 495

Disconfirmation: 189, 594

Ethics: 343, 508, 606

644

Ethnicity: 175, 225, 546

Frequency: 240, 284

Honesty: 598, 605-606

Evaluation: 231, 238,

Friendly: 220, 342, 517,

Hostility: 322, 465

399-404, 423, 548 Excitement: 24, 57 Exclusivity: 129, 556, Exercise: 284, 293 Expectations: 8, 79, 177,

Hotel: 82, 212, 319

539 Friends: 138, 155, 490, 540-543, 549, 635 Frustration: 246, 465,

Humor: 92, 228 Identification: 137, 142, 163, 175, 225, 265, 359, 546

533, 625

189, 262, 418, 451,

Fun: 25, 219, 584

Image: 37, 248, 446, 554

551-552, 594

Future: 46, 87, 177, 230,

Importance: 54, 119,

Expensive: 84, 118, 419, 435 Experiences: 33, 132,

257, 291, 297, 373,

588 Games: 101, 304-307,

383, 421, 451, 454455, 516

636

240, 256, 344, 493-

Gender: 239, 258, 458

Improvement: 496, 500

494, 524

Gift: 89, 178, 241, 242,

Impulsive: 198, 271-274

Expertise: 228, 293 Failure: 254, 512, 533, 640 Fairness: 114, 229, 308, 375 Family: 549 (see also Children & Parents) Fans: 101, 137, 304-307 Features: 5, 448

Influence: 363, 368, 613

628 Goals: 243, 461, 499 Groups: 162-163, 246248, 260, 487-489

Information: 61, 279, 378, 413, 467-468 Installation: 55, 435-442

Guilt: 249-254

Integrity: 206, 329

Happiness: 197, 255-256,

Intelligence: 202, 230, 282

259, 578 Harmful: 277, 322, 495,

Intensity: 66, 267, 318, 522, 621

522, 538 Health: 28, 85, 257-258,

Intention: 152, 284-288,

Fear: 231-233

277, 285, 475, 538,

315, 319, 444, 527,

Financial: 236, 313, 439,

545, 596, 622

575, 623, 635, 638

Feedback: 21, 381

613 Fluency: 71, 618-620 Food: 85, 339-340, 417, 423, 475 Freedom: 112, 174, 405

Hedonic: 532, 534 Helpfulness: 80, 144, 156, 279, 462, 467-

Interaction: 19, 429, 506, 542, 548 Interesting: 7, 48, 291, 585

468, 549 Home: 55, 435-442 645

International: 146-148, 412

Media: 53, 153 (see also Social Media)

Packaging: 104, 222-223, 604

Intoxication: 51, 566

Medical: 287, 596

Parents: 324, 345-348

Intrusive: 289-290, 430

Meaningful: (see

Parity: 125, 193

Involvement: 225, 291-

Relevance)

307, 444, 506 Irritation: 44, 202, 289290, 430 Justice: 114, 308-309, 375 Justification: 178, 337 Knowledge: 228, 293, 310-312, 504

Members: 265, 602

Peacefulness: 132, 577

Message: 36, 200-204

Perception: 33, 234, 267,

Money: 182, 236, 270,

275, 617-621 Performance: 246, 390,

326, 553 Morality: 12, 53, 329-

469, 487 Personal: 68, 150

330, 343 Motivation: 215, 237, 243, 409, 449, 496

Leadership: 180, 363

Needs: 270, 331-334, 477, 485, 510

Legal: 73, 566

Negotiation: 335, 484

Lifestyle: 112, 285

Nervousness: 19, 233,

Likeability: 43, 50, 89-90,

356, 463

Memory: 228, 361

Labels: 84, 104, 604 Learning: 282, 504, 571

Patronage: 319, 349,

Personality: 144, 180, 190, 210, 262, 268, 331, 350 Persuasion: 22, 40, 363 Place: 31, 164, 351-361, 425 Planning: 273, 529

548 Newness: 338, 362

Pleasure: 134, 255, 300

Norms: 174, 337, 594

Policies: 73, 571

Novelty: 275, 338, 532

Popularity: 362, 539

Loss: 183, 204, 567

Nutrition: 85, 33-340

Power: 182, 335, 363-369

Love: 185, 317-318, 474,

Obligation: 172, 237,

Preference: 77, 126, 356,

376, 587 Location: 146-149, 351, 425

579-582 Loyalty: 120-123, 319321, 460 Manufacturer: 237 (see also Company & Production) Materialism: 182, 324

370

449, 487 Opportunities: 87, 134

Presentation: 227, 446

Optimism: 87, 262, 598

Prevention: 187, 285-

Organic: 339-340, 417 Orientation: 144, 449, 478, 502-513, 531-532 Ownership: 131, 310, 500 646

287, 449, 596 Price: 103, 118, 372-377, 484, 611, 627 Pride: 127, 488, 583

Privacy: 10, 309, 378382, 413 Product: 5, 43, 55, 96,

Regulation (self): 492,

Salespeople: 335, 477478

497-499 Relationships (people):

Satisfaction: 21, 94, 98,

107, 111, 150, 154,

29-31, 116, 138, 162-

101, 106, 189, 236,

165-168, 220-222,

163, 185, 408-410,

349, 480-484, 611

271, 298-302, 310,

429, 451-452, 478,

Saving: 326, 553

323, 338, 362, 368,

490, 512, 540, 545,

Scarcity: 485, 589-591

383-406, 416, 419-

569, 594

Selection: 165, 298, 405,

421, 433-443, 481483, 500, 537, 615, 619, 632-633 Production: 407, 577-583

Relevance: 8, 63, 200, 241, 256, 454 Religion: 329-330, 455-

468, 471 Self: 227, 245, 486, 496 Self-concept: 359, 488492, 494

457

Protection: 485, 612

Resources: 236, 485

Sensitivity: 238, 486

Proximity (temporal):

Respect: 343, 495, 551

Services: 229, 425, 428,

Responsibility: 250-251,

460, 502-521, 552,

140, 289, 588 Punishment: 414, 465 Purchase: 122, 135, 178, 253, 271-274, 295, 300, 324, 415-419, 432, 529, 627-632 Quality: 84, 109-109, 177, 377, 399-404, 420-428, 519-521 Read: 70, 456

462, 487, 514 Responsiveness: 212,

Severity: 277, 333, 522 Sex: 53, 134, 473-474

381, 413 Restaurant: 319, 358,

Sharing: 524, 633 Shopping: 321, 520, 525-

361, 423 Restriction: 73, 187, 623 Retailer: 31, 99, 349, 372, 429, 432, 526,

535, 609, 634 Shopping orientation: 295, 373 Signal: 84, 302, 604

575

Reality: 432, 457, 564

Rewards: 178, 418, 551

Reasoning: 313, 331

Risk: 204, 433, 469-473,

Recommendation: 463,

573

Similarity: 125, 138, 159, 260-261, 536 Skepticism: 158, 537

622 Roles: 452, 494

Skills: 27, 293, 310

Recycling: 222, 411, 444

Rules: 174, 337

Social: 245, 355, 363,

Regret: 158, 249-253,

Safety: 10, 339, 475

517, 635-637

414, 448

Sales: 295, 376 647

546

Social media: 92-94, 542, 633 Sociability: 317, 343, 344, 408, 539 Sports: 27, 28, 101, 304307, 636

Trust: 70, 99, 206, 317, 598-606 Typicality: 358, 384 Uncertainty: 158, 298, 461, 573 Understanding: 6, 71,

Stability: 268, 350, 493

104-106, 210, 263,

Status: 129-131, 151,

477, 510

182, 365, 556 Stimulation: 24, 217, 394-397 Store: 98, 103, 290, 321, 370, 427-428, 463, 527, 534, 557-563

Unique: 59, 334, 358, 556, 607 Unusual: 59, 65, 275 Usage: 50, 297, 443, 626 Usefulness: 42, 61, 63, 96, 104, 279, 467-468

Strategy: 323, 449

Value: 89, 516, 611

Strength: 40, 214, 366

Values: 79, 114, 150,

Stress: 289, 625

270, 365, 415, 612,

Success: 182-184, 488,

613, 640

496, 640 Superiority: 77, 247, 366, 556 Support: 170, 288, 333, 549, 566 Switch: 123, 567-576 Symbolism: 79, 129, 392, 577-583 Task: 325, 497, 584-586 Taste: 398, 587

Variety: 493, 615 Venturesomeness: 271274, 532 Visual: 58, 66, 267, 616621 Web (internet): 3, 106108, 297, 308-309, 380, 626 Willingness: 54, 134, 527, 540, 545, 627-633

Tension: 328, 625

Win: 183, 247

Time: 15, 140, 289, 588-

Word-of-Mouth: 633-639

593

Worry: 231, 247, 622 648

About the Author ........... Dr. Gordon C. Bruner II (Professor Emeritus, Southern Illinois University) received a B.B.A. and a M.S. in marketing from Texas A&M University. His Ph.D. is from the University of North Texas, with a major in marketing and a minor in music. It was during his doctoral work that he learned about scales, worked with them as he assisted his professors in their research, and eventually created scales of his own that were critical to his dissertation. After several years of developing scales as part of his empirical research activities as a professor, Dr. Bruner realized the difficulty marketing researchers had in finding scales that had already been developed. Thus began the development of the first Marketing Scales Handbook at Southern Illinois University in the late 1980s with Dr. Paul Hensel. When that volume was published in 1992, it was the first book in the field of marketing to provide reviews of scales. Eventually, Dr. Bruner became the sole author of the series. The handbooks are now used by thousands of researchers in academia and industry around the world. Although the earliest volumes in the series are no longer available in print, the reviews of scales they contained having to do with consumer research can be found in revised form in the repository at MarketingScales.com. Indeed, the database is the largest collection of psychometrics that have been used in published marketing research, well over 3,700 at this time. During his years in academia, Dr. Bruner’s primary empirical research streams were consumer problem recognition and technology acceptance. His research has been published in the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Retailing, Psychology & Marketing, the Journal of Business Research, as well as many other journals. Throughout his teaching career, his specialties were strategic promotion and consumer behavior. Dr. Bruner has retired now from academia but remains active in reviewing scales as well as being a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. Additionally, he is an amateur musician, loving to write and record his own songs. Last, but not least, he is a devout Christian, an adherent of the faith though not the religion. 649

650