1. Measuring Attitudes, Perceptions, and Preferences
Chapter 14

2. Methods for Assessing Attitude
Observation of Behavior A
Indirect Techniques
Performance of Objective Tasks
Self-Report Techniques
Physiological Reactions
SLIDE 14-1

3. Self-Report Measures
A method of assessing attitudes in which individuals are asked directly for their beliefs about or feelings toward an object or class of objects.
SLIDE 14-2

4. General Categories of Self-Report Rating Scales
Graphic rating scales
Itemized rating scales
Comparative rating scales
SLIDE 14-3

5. Example of Graphic Rating Scale
Please evaluate each of the following attributes of compact disc players according to how important the attribute is to you personally by placing an “X” at the position on the horizontal line that most accurately reflects your feelings.
Attribute Not Important Important
Sound Quality
Physical Size
Brand Name
Durability
SLIDE 14-4

6. Example of Itemized Rating Scale
Please evaluate each of the following attributes of compact disc players according to how important the attribute is to you personally by checking the appropriate box.
Not Somewhat Fairly Extremely Important Important Important Important
Sound Quality
Physical Size
Brand Name
Durability
SLIDE 14-5

7. Comparative Rating Scale
Please divide 100 points between the following attributes of compact disc players according to the relative importance of each attribute to you.
Sound Quality
Physical Size
Brand Name
Durability
points
SLIDE 14-6

8. Summated Ratings (Likert) Scale
A self-report technique for attitude measurement in which the subjects are asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each of a number of statements. A individual’s attitude score is the total obtained by summing (or averaging) over the items in the scale.
SLIDE 14-7

9. Example of Summated-Ratings Scale
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
The celebrity endorser is trustworthy.
The celebrity endorser is unattractive.
The celebrity endorser is an expert on the product.
The celebrity endorser is not knowledgeable about the product.
SLIDE 14-8

10. Semantic-Differential Scale
A self-report technique for attitude measurement in which respondents are asked to check which cell between a set of bipolar adjectives or phrases best describes their feelings toward the object.
SLIDE 14-9

11. Example of Semantic-Differential Scale
CELEBRITY ENDORSER
Knowledgeable
Not :
Not Expert
Expert
Attractive
Unattractive
Trustworthy
SLIDE 14-10

12. Snake Diagram Celebrity Endorser A Celebrity Endorser B Trustworthy
Not
Trustworthy o x x o
Attractive
Unattractive x o
Expert
Not Expert
Not
Knowledgeable x o
Knowledgeable
SLIDE 14-11

13. Other Considerations in Designing Scales
Reverse Scaling
Number of Items in a Scale
Number of Scale Positions
Including a “Don’t Know” Category
Determining Which Type of Scale to Use
SLIDE 14-12

14. Interpreting Rating Scales: Raw Scores vs. Norms
A service provider received an average score of 5.13 on a 1-7 service quality scale, where 1 = “much less than I expected” and 7 = “much more than I expected.”
Is this score good or bad?
SLIDE 14-13

15. Interpreting Rating Scales: Raw Scores vs. Norms
Would your answer change if you knew that 75% of similar service providers posted higher scores than 5.13?
It is very difficult to interpret a rating scale score using only the score itself and the scale on which it was obtained to provide meaning. A comparative standard, or norm, is needed.
SLIDE 14-14

16. Interpreting Rating Scales: Raw Scores vs. Norms
Population-based norms
Time-based norms
SLIDE 14-15

17. Multidimensional Scaling
An approach to measurement in which people’s perceptions of the similarity of objects and their preferences among the objects are measured, and these relationships are plotted in a multidimensional space.
SLIDE 14-16

18. Multidimensional Scaling Example
high A G
Approximate market share B C F D
low E
newest
Age of chemical technology
oldest
Source: Wayne S. DeSarbo, Juyoung Kim, S. Chan Choi, and Melinda Spaulding, “A Gravity-Based Multidimensional Scaling Model for Deriving Spatial Structures Underlying Consumer Preference/Choice Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (June 2002), pp
SLIDE 14-17

19. Conjoint Analysis
A technique in which respondents’ utilities or valuations of attributes are inferred from the preference they express for various combinations of these attributes. Sometimes called “trade-off” analysis.
SLIDE 14-18