Separating Brand-Choice Involvement From Product

Involvement Via Consumer Involvement Profiles

Banwari Mittal, Northern Kentucky University
Myung-Soo Lee, State University of New York at Buffalo
ABSTRACT - Laurent and Kapferer (1985) proposed a four-faceted Consumer Involvement Profile as a way of
operationalizing consumers' involvement in products. Two gaps in that profile are addressed in this research: (a)
expansion of Laurent and Kapferer's "illustrative" scale items into full scales, and (b) operationalization of the four
facets separately at the product- and brand-choice levels. Using confirmatory factor analytic procedures, the
convergent and discriminant validity for the proposed scales is shown to be supported, and directions for future
research are suggested.
[ to cite ]:

Banwari Mittal and Myung-Soo Lee (1988) ,"Separating Brand-Choice Involvement From Product Involvement
Via Consumer Involvement Profiles", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 15, eds. Micheal J.
Houston, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 43-49.
[ direct url ]:

http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6792/volumes/v15/NA-15

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 15, 1988 Pages 43-49

SEPARATING BRAND-CHOICE INVOLVEMENT FROM PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT VIA CONSUMER

INVOLVEMENT PROFILES

Banwari Mittal, Northern Kentucky University

Myung-Soo Lee, State University of New York at Buffalo

ABSTRACT -

Laurent and Kapferer (1985) proposed a four-faceted Consumer Involvement Profile as a way of operationalizing
consumers' involvement in products. Two gaps in that profile are addressed in this research: (a) expansion of
Laurent and Kapferer's "illustrative" scale items into full scales, and (b) operationalization of the four facets
separately at the product- and brand-choice levels.

Using confirmatory factor analytic procedures, the convergent and discriminant validity for the proposed scales is
shown to be supported, and directions for future research are suggested.

INTRODUCTION

One of the welcome, recent developments in research on consumer involvement (which for a long time was an
elusive concept) is the appearance of empirical scales to measure that concept. One such scale was developed
by Laurent and Kapferer (1985). These authors suggest a four-faceted involvement scale and present data which
show that different facets have differing implications for specific consumer behaviors. While we find this scale
appealing, we believe that Laurent and Kapferer do not address the question of whether their facets reflect
product-class involvement or brand-choice involvement or both. Our analysis will show that two of the facets
reflect product-involvement, and two reflect brand-decision involvement. The purpose of this research is to
propose (and empirically test) the measures of each of the four facets separately for product and brand-choice
involvement. Because these two "forms" of involvement are distinct but not unrelated (Bloch 1983), our data will
allow examination of relationships among the facets both within and across the two forms.

This paper is organized as follows. First, the contents of Laurent and Kapferer's scale are discussed with a view
to identifying the form (product- or brand-choice) of involvement each facet measures. Next, parallel measures
for each facet are developed for each of the two forms. Third, empirical data, collected for beer, are analyzed to
demonstrate the structure of the measures, and also the relationship of each measured facet to selected criterion
variables. Finally, implications of our findings for future theoretical and applied research are outlined.
 THEORY

Product- and Brand-Choice Involvement

A number of involvement researchers have distinguished product involvement from brand choice involvement
(Bloch 1983, Bloch and Richins 1983, Zaichkowsky 1985, 1986). Product involvement is the degree of interest of
a consumer in a product category on an on-going basis. Brand-choice involvement is the motivation of a
consumer to make the right choice. As Bloch and Richins (1983) point out the two are not identical. For example,
a consumer is seldom involved in the washing machine on an enduring basis, but he/she is likely to be very
involved in making the brand selection.

Houston and Rothschild (1977) make a distinction between enduring- and situational-involvement and view the
former as a mean level of involvement across situations, while the latter (i.e., situational involvement) provides
temporary, situation-bound deviations from the mean level. It is possible, then, that for a consumer, and for a
given product, the enduring involvement is low, but brand-choice involvement (which is a form of situational
involvement) is high. Thus it would seem useful to distinguish *e two forms of involvement and operationalize
Laurent and Kapferer's profile separately at the two levels.

Laurent and Kapferer's Involvement Profile

Laurent and Kapferer (1985) propose 4 facets, namely, (1) the importance of the product, (2) perceived risk
associated with the product purchase, which in turn has two subfacets: (a) perceived importance of negative
consequences from a poor choice, and (b) the perceived probability of making such a mistake; (3) the symbolic
or"sign" value, and (4) the hedonic value of the product. In the factor analysis of their data, they found that the
perceived product importance and perceived importance of negative consequences of a mispurchase loaded on
a single factor which they termed "imporisk." Risk probability formed a separate factor, while sign value and
-pleasure value each provided one additional factor. These four factors are then deemed by Laurent and
Kapferer as constituting the consumer involvement profile.

The question is, which involvement does this profile tapCproduct-category involvement or brand-choice
involvement? Because Laurent and Kapferer base their framework, in large part, on Houston and Rothschild's
paradigm (a paradigm that incorporates both forms of involvement), Laurent and Kapferer's consumer
involvement profile (CIP) contains measures both of product category and brand-choice involvement. Houston
and Rothschild separately identify the two forms, but Laurent and Kapferer do not. This is a task addressed
below.

To discern the form of involvement (product- or brand-choice-) being tapped by the four facets, both the
description and the corresponding measurement items for each are reviewed below. Laurent and Kapferer
present only illustrative items; therefore, an assumption was made that other items were conceptually identical.
That is, if the illustrative item reflects product-category(brand-choice) involvement, the omitted items also reflect
product-category- (brand-choice-) involvement.

To recapitulate, two of the four facets (perceived importance, and hedonic value) are conceived by Laurent and
Kapferer at the product level, and one facet, namely, perceived risk is conceived at the brand-choice level. The
fourth facetCsign valueCis defined at an all inclusive level so that it can refer to product- or to brand-choice
involvement; however, it seems to have been measured only at the brand-choice level.

Developing Separate Measures for Product- and Brand-Choice Involvement

Of interest here is the development of measures of each of the four facets for product involvement and,
separately, for brand-choice involvement, based on Laurent and Kapferer's illustrative measures. Because
Laurent and Kapferer have not presented the complete measurement instrument, the proposed
operationalizations may also serve to fill this gap.

Hypotheses
To establish the separation of facets across the two forms of involvement, we propose to conduct tests of trait
validity and discriminant validity just as Laurent and Kapferer (1985) did. For trait validity, items purported to
measure a construct should measure a single dimension, and for discriminant validity the two scales should not
correlate highly (Campbell 1960). Our hypothesis is: Each of the four facets are separate constructs across
product involvement and brand choice involvement. This hypothesis entails four subhypotheses:

H1. Perceived importance of the product is a separate construct from perceived importance of brand choice.

H2. Perceived sign value of the product is a separate construct from the perceived sign value of the brand

H3. Hedonic value of the product is a separate construct from the hedonic value of she brand.

H4. Perceived risk of the product is a separate construct from the perceived risk in brand - choice.

Because Laurent and Kapferer found perceived importance and perceived risk to constitute a single factor, we
propose to also test the discriminant validity of these two facets. As hypothesized by Laurent and Kapferer, these
two facets have "face validity" as two constructs rather than one. It is in the nature of exploratory factor analysis
that scale items measuring two correlated factors might sometimes load on a single factor (more discussion
later). We shall instead be using confirmatory factor analytic procedures to test the following hypotheses:

H5. Perceived importance of the product is a separate construct from perceived risk from the product.

H6. Perceived importance of the brand choice is a separate construct from perceived risk in brand choice.

H7. Perceived importance of the product is a separate construct from perceived risk of brand choice.

The reason for testing the last hypothesis is that Laurent and Kapferer had operational: zed perceived
importance at the product level but risk at brand choice level and it is these operationalizations which in their
analysis yielded a single factor.

In addition, our empirical study will also examine the relationship of the various facets with selected consumer
behavior variables. Laurent and Kapferer (1985) have shown that such consumer behavior variables as 'looking
at advertising' or 'the decision making process' are differentially related to their four facets. Our interest here is in
testing whether the selected behaviors correlate with a facet differentially across the brand level versus the
product level.

METHOD

We measured the "Consumer Involvement Profiles" for beer for student consumers. Beer was chosen due to its
relevance to our respondents. It was also intuitively judged to provide potential for the varied occurrence of each
of the facets. For example, not all consumers would see beer as providing a sign value but many would; Similarly,
the pleasure of drinking beer would be realized for some consumers from any beer whatsoever, and by others
only from specific brands of beer.

Of the 100 undergraduate and graduate business students who answered the questionnaire, 22 were "never'
drinkers. Consistent with Laurent and Kapferer's respondent screening strategy, all reported results are based on
the 78 beer drinkers. Readers may note, however, that the support to be reported for the hypotheses was not
materially affected when the analyses were rerun with all 100 respondents.

Measures. Measures of each of the 4 facets operationalized differently for product and brand-choice levels are
shown in Table 1. These operationalizations resulted from an extension of Laurent and Kapferer's illustrative
items, and our own intuitive translation of the facets. In addition, 6 selected aspects of consumer behavior were
also measured: (1) use frequency: I drink beer (never - 1, occasionally - 2, often - 3, regularly - 4, very frequently
- 5); (2) perceived brand differences: Beer brands are all very similar - 1 / all very different- 7; (3) Brand
comparison: I have done extensive (1) / I have not done any (7) brand comparisons; (4) Brand commitment: If
your favorite brand of beer is not available in the store, you will: 1 - go to another store, 2- buy another favorite
brand, 3 - buy whatever is available; (5) Interest in product article: If there is an article about beer, I would be
interested in reading it: Strongly disagree -1, Strongly agree - 7, and (6) Attention to advertising: I often pay
attention to advertising: Strongly disagree - 1, Strongly agree - 7. (Brand comparison and Brand commitment
scales were reverse-scored.)

ANALYSIS

Exploratory factor analysis The elicited measures of the consumer involvement profile were subjected to an
exploratory factor analytical procedure. As Bagozzi (1983) and Burnkrant and Page (1984) have pointed out, the
exploratory factor analysis can mislead with respect to dimensionality. High measurement errors can inflate item
correlation estimates, which in turn can lead to merging of items that measure distinct though correlated
constructs (Bagozzi 1983). Therefore, the exploratory factor analysis results are presented merely as a first step.
Later, we will use confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypotheses.

TABLE 1

OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE FOUR FACETS OF INVOLVEMENT AT THE PRODUCT- AND BRAND

CHOICE LEVELS

An oblique solution is presented in Table 1. Six factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 were extracted with a total
explained variance of 70.1 %. The "cleanest" factors were those for sign value at product and brand-choice levels
(Factors 5 and 4, respectively), and for product risk (Factor 3). Among the other, not-so-clean factors, Factor 2
can be interpreted to represent Brand-risk. Factor 1 is a product-importance factor but it also received significant
loadings from brand- importance and brand hedonic scales. One could view it as a "general" product factor. The
last factor, Factor 6, can be viewed as a "general" brand-level factor. As might be expected, there were many
cross-over factor-item loadings.

Tests of the Hypotheses via Confirmatory Factor Analysis

For each of the four facets, two models (A and B) are constructed. Model A treats a given facet across the two
forms of involvement as one and the same construct. Model B treats that facet as two separate constructs, one
for each form of involvement. See Figure 1 for the "importance" facet. Two statistics are examined. First, the chi-
square values and their significances are examined for absolute fit of the model to the data. Second,
improvement in chi-square value is examined across Models A and B. The difference in the chi-square values
between the two models also has a chi-square distribution and it should be significant for the difference in the
degrees of freedom between the two models.

Hypothesis 1. Perceived importance differs across the product and brand choice. The results of the two factor
and one-factor model are presented in Figure 1. The chi-square value for the one factor model is 5251 (degree of
freedom=9, P,.0011, indicating a poor fit. This statistic for the two-factor model is 9.55 (d.f.=10, p=.481), indicating
a good fit. Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) and Root mean square (RMS) values also indicate the two-
factor model fits much better than the one-factor model. Chi-square difference of 42.96 for a difference of 1 in
degrees of freedom is highly significant at p <.05. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The inter-factor correlation
of .691 does imply that the two constructs are well-correlated.

At this point, we must note that the two models similar to those shown in Figure l for the "importance" facet were
also constructed for all other facets. Due to space limitations, the schematic diagrams (such as those in Figure 1)
are not included here; only the chi-square fit statistics are presented below. An earlier, longer version of the
paper, obtainable from authors, furnishes complete details.

Hypothesis 2. Perceived sign value differs across product and brand choice. The-one factor motel does no fit (chi
square=63.65, d.f.=20, p=.001), ant the two-factor model barely approaches significance (chi-square 32.34,
t.f.21, p=.054). However, the chi-square difference of 31.31 between the two models is significant (d.f.+l, p,.05),
indication the superiority of the two-factor model. The correlation between the two factors is a modest.395. Thus,
Hypothesis 2 is supported.

TABLE 2
 ITEM CORRELATIONS

FIGURE 1

MODELING PRODUCT- AND BRAND-CHOICE IMPORTANCE AS ONE VERSUS TWO CONSTRUCTS

Hypothesis 3. Hedonic value differs across the product and brand choice. The one factor model is significant
although not highly: chi-square=9.8 1, d.f.-5, p=.081 (Note: "p" values above .05 indicate significant). Two-factor
models has a good a solute fit (p=.980) Also, the chi square difference is significant (difference_8.68, d.f. 1, p,.05)
indicating the superiority of the two-factor model. Thus Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Hypothesis 4. Perceived risk in product is separate from Perceived risk in Brand Choice. In Table 1, under the
"perceived risk" facet for the "brand-choice level" items 2 and 5 were meant to measure "risk consequences."
(Item 12 and 20 measure risk-probability, and will not be further dealt with here.) These two items with the two
items (items 23 and 25) of product level perceived risk were employed in the two factor versus one factor models.

Neither model fitted the data well. (The fit was bad enough that most of the statistics could not be estimated.) The
correlation matrix was examined to detect the possible causes. items 2 and 5 are correlated (r = -.496) and items
23 and 25 are correlated (r = -0504); however, neither of the two correlations is very high. The cross factor
correlations of items 2 and 5 on the one hand and, of 23 and 25 on the other are extremely low. For discriminate
validity, these latter correlations must be and are lower than those in the convergence triangles (see Table 2).
This shows that brand-choice-risk and product-choice-risk are discriminated (Campbell and Fiske 1959). Lack of
any relation whatsoever (as opposed to low correlation) might have blocked the model estimate in the LISREL
Procedure. The failure to obtain very high correlations between the two-items of either factor is also a cause for
concern, but, in Table 2 the separation of the two factors itself is reasonably supported. Thus, the support for
Hypothesis 4 is a qualified one in the LISREL estimation gave a poor fit, but the cross-factor item correlations
were very low.

Hypotheses 5 thru 7. To conserve space, only the salient aspects of the analyses are briefly summarized below
for these 3 hypotheses.

H5: Product Importance and Product Risk. The two-factor model fitted (chi-square 6.53, d.f.=6, p=.366) whereas
the one- factor model did not (chi-square=29.11, d.f.=5, p < .0001).

H6: Brand-choice Importance and Brand-choice Risk. The one factor model was not significant (chi-
square=16.86, d.f.=5, p=.005). Although the two-factor. model also did not have a significant chi-square value
(p=.027), the chi-square difference statistic showed the two-factor model to be superior to the one-factor model.
However, the two factors were highly correlated (r=.883).

H7: Product Importance and Brand Risk. The two factor model was significant (though not highly) with chi-square
value of 11.18 (d.f.=6, p=.083), while the one-factor model was not significant (chi-square=28.12, d.f.=5,
p=.0001). The chi-square difference test showed the two-factor model to be superior to the one-factor model.

For both the product and the brand level, the other two facets, namely, "hedonic" and "sign" were proven
separate constructs, and each was also proven to be separate from importance and risk constructs. That is, for
each pair, a two factor rather than a one factor model was supported.

Reliabilities

The coefficient alpha of internal reliability for each facet was as follows: perceived product importance, .839;
perceived brand-choice importance, .880; product level sign value, .856; brand level sign value, 0.711; product
level hedonic value, .779; These are considered good reliabilities. The three remaining facets comprised of two
items each correlated modestly: brand level hedonic value (items 17 and 22), .561; product risk (items 23 and 25)
0.677; and perceived brand risk (items 2 and 5), .661.

Relationship of the 8 Facets with Other Consumer Behavior Variables

Six variables related to the respondents' behaviors with respect to beer were also measured (See Method section
for measures) and it was of interest to examine their correlations with each of the 8 facets of the involvement
profile. Regression analyses were not employed for two reasons. One, significant multicollinearity among facets
can render (and in our data it did) otherwise significant predictors insignificant. Secondly, because respondents
have been engaging (to a greater or lesser degree) in these behaviors already, predictor/criterion distinction
between these behaviors on the one hand and the facets of involvement on the other may no longer hold.
Illustratively, perceived brand differences could have once led to a feeling of brand-choice involvement; that
involvement could have in turn led to paying attention to advertising, which may have fed back to an
enhancement in perceived brand differences. Therefore, examining simple correlations was considered more
appropriate than regression analyses.

Table 3 presents the correlations. It is immediately apparent that the brand-choice level and product level facets
differ in their correlations with the 6 behavioral elements. Notable patterns are:

i) Product level risk is unrelated to any of the variables. This is because regardless of frequency of drinking,
everyone seemed to at least moderately agree that drinking beer could be harmful and disagree that nothing
could go wrong by drinking beer (Mean=4.80 S.D.=1.43, on a 7-point scale). We read this to mean not that
people suspected harm, but rather that they could not deny the possibility of some harm.

ii) Frequency of drinking beer is related more to product level involvement than to brand level involvement. This
seems reasonable.

iii) Perceived brand differences is related more to brand choice level involvement. This result seems logical.

iv) Brand commitment is related more to the brand level than to the product level of the first and fourth facets.
This is logical. However, the pattern of correlations with the other two facets is not explicable.

v) Brand comparison seemed related about equally well to both levels of involvement. Although we would have
expected brand level involvement to show higher influence, the equally strong influence of product level
involvement is not difficult to accept (even if on a posthoc basis).

vi) Interest in reading an article about beer was related more with product level involvement than with brand level
involvement. This would be expected if an article about beer can be assumed to contain information about the
product per-se than about brands.

vii) Attention to advertising was only moderately related to any of the facets, but it was related about equally well
with brand level and product level involvement facets.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Laurent and Kapferer's consumer involvement profile is seen here as an important device to map consumers'
relationships with products. However, those authors did not distinguish between product-class- and brand-choice
involvement. Rather inadvertently, they conceived and measured two of the four facets at product level and the
other two at the brand level.

We sought to make this distinction for each of the four facets. Moreover, because Laurent and Kapferer did not
present the entire scale, to expand their illustrative item list towards a full scale was also considered a benefit of
this research. The items we developed had good internal reliabilities for perceived importance of brand choice,
sign value of the product, sign value of the brand, and hedonic value from the product. The three other facets
(perceived product risk, perceived brand risk, and hedonic value at the brand level) had modest reliabilities.

TABLE 3

CORRELATLONS OF SELECTED CONSUMER BEHAVIOR VARIABLES WITH VARIOUS FACETS OF THE

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT PROFILE (N=78)
While the exploratory factor analysis provided unclear factor solutions (which may be expected), the more
elegant confirmatory factor procedures confirmed the separation of each facet at the product- and brand-choice
levels. For perceived importance, and likewise for sign value, the support was unequivocal for the two-factor
rather than one-factor model (brand-choice level and product-level involvements being modeled respectively as
two constructs or as a single construct). Similar was the case for the hedonic aspect. For perceived risk, the
support for the hypothesized two factor model was a qualified one. The one-factor and two-factor models were
comparable (i.e., neither was superior to the other), but the cross-factor item correlations supported the
discrimination between the two factors. The less than desired levels of model fit may have been due to: (a) less
than perfect measures for risk at both the levels; (b) the product beer not perhaps being seen as risky, and (c)
possible vagueness about the meaning of product risk. Nonetheless, there was support for each facet being
different across the product- and brand-choice levels.

Some consumer behaviors were about equally related to a given facet at either level of involvement, while some
other facets were differentially related. For example, perceived brand differences and brand commitment were
related more with brand- level than with product-level involvement And, interest in reading about the product was
related more with product level than with brand level involvement. These results are logical, and they would have
remained undiscovered if the facets of the profile were not separately measured at brand-choice and product
levels.

Our results are obviously limited by the use of only a single product and convenience sampling and also due to
the smallness of the sample size. In addition to overcoming these tactical limitations, an important task for future
research is the further theoretical and empirical explication of each facet. The distinction between the brand level
and product level involvement is intuitively apparent for three of the four facets, namely, perceived importance,
perceived risk, and sign value. For example, all essential items (e.g., salt, facial tissue) could be important at the
product level but not necessarily at the brand level. Also, some not-so-essential products such as airline travel
could be important at the product level but not at the brand choice level. Then, some products could be risky at
the product level (e.g., some medical procedures) but not any more risky at the brand-level (choice of surgeon).
And for many established products (e.g., appliances) brand-choice is risky but products themselves are not
perceived to be risky. Finally, sign value can be associated with the product itself rather than with the brand when
the product is new, or a luxury or both (e.g., cellular phone, video cameras, or diamonds).

The case of the hedonic facet is less clear. If one finds a brand hedonic, the product would seem to become
hedonic inevitably. If the product is hedonic, repeated use may result into the preferred or usual brand being
perceived as more hedonic than other brands. The two concepts may be difficult to separate empirically, or the
relationship may be asymmetrical. The relationships among all facets (within and across product/brand-choice
levels), and of each facet with other consumer behavior variables definitely need more a priori hypothesis
development and empirical testing. The present research is a step in that direction.

REFERENCES

Bagozzi, R. P. (1983), "A holistic methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation," Operations
Research, 31, 128- 176.

Bloch, P. H. (1983), "Involvement Beyond the Purchase Process: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Investigation,"
in A. A. Mitchell (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, IX, 413-417.

Bloch, Peter H. and Richins, March, (1983), "A Theoretical Model for the Studying Product Importance
Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, 47, 69-81

Burnkrant, R. E. and Page, T. 1. (1984), "A Modification of the Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss self-consciousness
scales," Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 629-637.

Campbell, D. T. (1960), "Recommendations for APA Test Standards Regarding Construct, Trait and Discriminant
Validity," American Psychologist, 15, 546-53.
Campbell, D. T. and D. W. Fiske (1959), "Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod
Matrix," Psychological Bulletin, 56 (March), 81-105.

Houston, M. I. and M. L. Rothschild (1977), "A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement," WP No. 11-
7746, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Joreskog, K. G. and D. Sorbom (1986) LISREL VI, User's Guide, Chicago: National Educational Resources.

Laurent, G. and Jean-Noel Kapferer (1985), "Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles," Journal of Marketing
Research, 22, 41-53.

Rothschild, M. L. (1984), "Perspectives on Involvement: Current Problems and Future Directions," in T. C. Kinner
(ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, XI, 196-198.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct" Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
The Emotional Affect of Product Involvement
Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky, Simon Fraser University
ABSTRACT - Several products proposed to have varying degrees of emotion and involvement were measured
and classified using the PII. Products were generally classified as expected with the exception of personal
computers, which were perceived by the sample to have an emotional aspect. Some differences in product
perception were found between males and females.
[ to cite ]:

Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky (1987) ,"The Emotional Affect of Product Involvement", in NA - Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer
Research, Pages: 32-35.
[ direct url ]:

http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6630/volumes/v14/NA-14

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, 1987 Pages 32-35

THE EMOTIONAL AFFECT OF PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT

Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky, Simon Fraser University

[The author wishes to thank Jon Greenseid for his careful computation Of the data collected for this study.
Constructive criticisms received from Gary Nauser Of S.F.U. and the faculty at Penn State University were
gratefully received and incorporated into this paper. The initial idea for this paper came from an anonymous JCR
reviewer of the 1985 scale development article.]

[Mailing address: Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia,
Canada V5A 1S6.]

ABSTRACT -

Several products proposed to have varying degrees of emotion and involvement were measured and classified
using the PII. Products were generally classified as expected with the exception of personal computers, which
were perceived by the sample to have an emotional aspect. Some differences in product perception were found
between males and females.

INTRODUCTION

Some current work on involvement manipulates the construct in terms of a cognitive/rational thought or in terms
of an emotional or affective reaction to the stimulus in question (e.g., Park and Young, 1983, 1986). This view is
appealing given the thrust of interest on emotional states in advertising. However, the method used to measure
that affective level of' involvement needs to be refined in order to facilitate research on the topic. It is the purpose
of this paper to provide discussion and present some exploratory empirical work on measuring the emotional
component Of involvement perceived in Product categories.

BACKGROUND

When developing the Personal Involvement Inventory (Zaichkowsky, 1985), an investigation of the dimensionality
and interpretation Of the 20-item scale was carried out for each product category. Although one major factor
always emerged, the individual item loadings on that factor varied across products. For certain products, several
of the 20 items correlated and loaded more heavily on the residual factor that accounted for a minor percent Of
the variation. These items were boring-interesting, unexciting-exciting, mundane-fascinating and appealing-
unappealing and on a face validity judgment seemed to represent the emotional or arousing side of involvement.
For other products, these same items did load highly on the first major factor. An example of the factor loadings
for the product categories of bubble bath and headache remedies displayed in Table 1 exemplifies this pattern. At
this point I thought it might be possible to describe the involvement state Of the subjects to the product, in terms
of an emotional or cognitive relationship via the weights of the item loadings. For example, bubble bath might be
described as an emotional or affective product, while headache remedies sight be described as a cognitive or
rational product, depending upon the loading Of the affective word-pairs. Yet for other products this classification
in terms Of an emotional or rational type product may be inappropriate since no such pattern emerged (e.g.,
35mm cameras). Both types of items were used equally by the subjects to describe their involvement level with
the object. So although the PII was developed to measure involvement as high or low, the question of whether it
could be used in a more complex manner arose.

TABLE 1

FACTOR LOADINGS FOR BUBBLE BATH AND HEADACHE REMEDIES

RELATED THEORETICAL WORK AND FRAMEWORK FOR TESTING THE EMOTIONAL SIDE OF
INVOLVEMENT

In a 1980 Journal of Advertising Research article, Vaughn outlined a theoretical perspective for viewing product
categories which added a second dimension orthogonal to the notion of high and low involvement. The second
dimension was one of thinking versus feeling. This model departs from the traditional model which implies that
high involvement products require a thinking or cognitive orientation first, whereas low involvement products are
more suited to an affective or non-informational appeal (Engel and Blackwell, 1982). The expansion of
involvement along an orthogonal continuum from thinking to feeling allows a more complex approach which
perhaps takes into account the excitement that accompanies certain purchases. Specifically, Vaughn (1980)
proposed the following classification scheme for products:

FIGURE 1

FOOTE, CONE AND BELDING PRODUCT CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

The first quadrant is high involvement/thinking and implies a large need for information because of the
importance of the product and thinking issues related to it. In the second quadrant the product decision is
involving, but specific information is less important than an attitude or holistic feeling toward the product. The third
quadrant is low involvement/thinking and product decisions in this area are hypothesized to require minimal
thought and a tendency to form buying habits for convenience. The fourth quadrant is the low
involvement/affective and is reserved for those products that satisfy personal tastes (Vaughn, 1980).

The implication for advertisers is that the different quadrants require different types of advertising appeals. This
notion is intuitively appealing because it allows for the emotional aspects frequently associated with certain
products to be acknowledged and incorporated into the advertising strategy. Advertising copy for products
perceived as informative, such as cars or new products, should focus on specific information. Advertising copy for
habit formation products, such as food or household items, need only brand name reminder information. Affective
products such as cosmetics or jewelry need emotional arousal in their advertising message, while self
satisfaction products such as cigarette or liquor are thought to require ads which grab the receivers attention.
While I could find no empirical support for these propositions, it is likely that research is now being carried out to
gather data on the question.

A very recent paper by Vaughn (1986) has tested out the product categorization scheme using three items to
measure involvement: (1) very important/unimportant decision; (2) lot/little to lose if you choose the wrong brand;
and (3) decision requires lot/little thought. The think/feel dimension was measured by two questions for think: (1)
decision is/is not mainly logical or objective and (2) decision is/is not based mainly on functional facts; and three
questions for feel: (1) decision is/is not based on a lot of feeling, (2) decision does/does not express one's
personality, and (3) decision is/is not based on looks, taste, touch, smell or sound. Using these measures, Foote,
Cone and Belding have classified product categories, brands and consumers into the four quadrants.
This paper also tests out Vaughn s product classification scheme but uses the Personal Involvement Inventory to
do so. The thinking versus feeling dimension is replaced and measured by the amount of emotion found in the
involvement measure. The emotional or affective side of involvement is represented by the factor loading of the
word pair unexciting-exciting. The adjective of exciting is representative os the arousing aspect of emotion
(Russell, 1983). The other word pairs of fascinating-boring or appealing-unappealing, which seemed to correlate
with exciting on the PII, are not part of Russell's identified emotional adjectives and hence were not used. An
independent judgement of the 20 PII items into emotional or rational categories proved unreliable across
subjects. Hence this study measured involvement and then determined the emphasis placed on the emotional
aspect perceived in the product through the word-pair unexciting-exciting to try and reconstruct Vaughn's (1980)
classification scheme.

METHOD

Stimulus

Two product categories from each quadrant were selected for study. The high involvement/thinking category was
represented by automobiles and personal computers. The high involvement/feeling category was represented by
the product categories of diamond ring and cologne. The low involvement/thinking category was represented by
ground beef and paper towels. The low involvement/feeling category was represented by the product categories
of chocolate and cigarettes.

Subjects

A total of 230 subjects rated each product category. One hundred fifty three subJects were undergraduate
business students, 90 females and 64 males, [The sex of three respondents was unknown due to missing data.]
of which the median age was 21. Seventy-three were graduate business students; 33 male and 40 female, of
which the median age 28.

Measuring Instrument

The Personal Involvement- Inventory (PII) (Zaichkowsky, 1985) consists of 20 bi-polar adjectives which represent
the involvement construct. Each item is rated on a seven point bi-polar scale. Adding up the responses from the
20 adjectives gives a possible low score of 20 and a possible high score of 140. Based on the average score
obtained for the product, the product judged can be classified as either relatively high or low involving as
perceived by the subjects. The derived mean for products is 90. Therefore product scores above 90 are
considered relatively high involving product categories and scores below 90 are considered to represent
relatively low involving product categories as perceived by the subjects.

By factor analyzing the 20 scale items, the weight given to the emotional component of involvement was
determined by the factor loadings of the exciting item. These loadings should be between 0 and 1. An average
loading below .5 would indicate a relatively low level of emotion and a loading between .5 and 1 would indicate a
higher level of emotional involvement.

Procedure

Subjects were administered the Personal Involvement Inventory during the beginning of class time. Each subject
rated all eight products and the order of product rating was randomized to control for fatigue and order effects.
The total time taken to rate the products was about 10 minutes.

RESULTS

The involvement levels of the eight product categories were tabulated over the total sample, as well as by sex
and age group. These results are presented in Table 2 and the general pattern is in agreement with Vaughn
(1980). Automobiles were perceived to be the most involving product category PII=131, while cigarettes were
perceived to be the least involving product category PII=49. The other products thought to be low involving had
average PII levels as follows: paper towels 83; ground beef 85; and chocolate 82. The high involvement product
categories received the following PII scores: personal computer 108; cologne 99 and diamond ring 95.

Similar involvement scores were obtained across graduate and undergraduate subjects. The only significant
difference between graduate and undergraduate students was in the involvement of diamond rings, with
undergraduates being significantly more involved (H=99) than graduate students (H=86). More variation was
observed between males and females within the product categories. For example, males rated their involvement
with personal computers 112 while females rated personal computers 104 on the PII. Hales rated diamond rings
81, whereas the females' average PII score was 105. This indicated males are more involved with computers
than females and females are more involved with diamond rings than males.

TABLE 2

MEAN PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT LEVEL BY PRODUCT AND SUBJECT GROUP

Testing for the emotional loading was carried out by factor analyzing the 20 adjective pairs for each product. A
varimax (orthogonal) rotation was used to pull the groupings or adjective pairs as far apart as possible. She
factor loadings for unexciting-exciting for each Product are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3

FACTOR LOADINGS OF UNEXCITING-EXCITING ACROSS PRODUCTS FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE

These factor loadings are as expected, except for the product category of personal computers, with average
exciting loadings of .81. However, as predicted, autos (.17), paper towels (.17) and ground beef (.24) were all low
in emotion, while cologne (.79), diamond ring (.79) and chocolate (.67) were all relatively high on the emotional
loading.

Next, these two aspects of involvement, the PII score and the factor loading for exciting, were plotted in a two
dimensional space. She first PII dimension is plotted from 20 to 140 with the average level of Product
involvement Judged at 90 (Zaichkowsky, 1985). The second dimension is the average emotion factor score and
is plotted from O to 1 with mean .5. The plots for the females N = 130 and males N = 97 are in Figures 2 and 3.
From these plots we can see that automobiles, personal computers, paper towels, ground beer and cigarettes
wore similarly perceived over both male and female subJects. The product category of diamond ring shifted from
high involvement for females to low involvement for males. Cologne which was a high involvement affective
product for women shifted to the low emotion side of involvement for men. Chocolate which was predicted to be a
law involvement affective product shifted to the thinking or habitual space for women. Perhaps women perceive
chocolate more in terms of the calories it represents rather than the sensual taste.

FIGURE 2

PLOT OF LOW VS. HIGH AND EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT LEVELS-FEMALES

FIGURE 3

PLOT OF LOW VS. HIGH AND EMOTIONAL INVOVLEME LEVELS - MALES

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The FCB model (Vaughn, 1980) for product classification was used as a framework for testing the use of the PII
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). The results generally support the proposed product classification scheme. The consistent
misclassification was in the product category of personal computers where they apparently were seen to have a
great emotional or affective component in its perception. It may be that personal computers are viewed as an
exciting, fascinating product category by the average student subject.

An important aspect to this paper is the variability among the males and females in their emotional perception of
some product categories. Perhaps advertising chocolate to females should take on an informative role of calorie
content. Can a calorie reduced chocolate bar be on the horizon? From these components Of level of involvement
and amount of emotion, some clustering Of product users to brands of the product might be interesting.

THE NEXT STEP

The analyses presented in this paper represents a little science and some creativity. Psychometricians may
cringe at the thought of taking a unidimensional measure and then pulling apart one item to determine the
breadth of part of the scale. This whole exercise has led me to another rethinking of how to view and measure
involvement, if indeed we agree that there is an emotional side to the construct. The nest step in scale
development is actually one backward to some of the original items for involvement which were eliminated after
early rounds Of data analyses. A wider range or stimuli needs to be Judged against an unreduced scale and then
the items should be reduced back to a smaller number. There are two main reasons for this further development
process. First, from consumer demand and a practical point Of view, it seems researchers want to use the scale
many times at one sitting and, worried about subject fatigue, are ad hoc reducing the PII on their own. Fever
items might increase the ability to administer the PII many times to the same subjects in conjunction with lengthy
questionnaires. However, the decision Of which items to delete should be based on the same careful empirical
work which developed the scale in the first place. Secondly, keeping with our theory of an emotional side to
involvement, the reduced PII should have a consistently identifiable emotion component.

REFERENCES

Engel, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behavior, 4th edition, New York: The Dryden Press.

Park, C. Whan and S. Mark Young (1983), Types and Levels of Involvement and Brand Attitude Formation, in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. Y, eds., Richard Bagozzi and Alice Tybout, Ann Arbor Association for
Consumer Research, 320-324.

Park, C. Whan and S. Mark Young (1986), "Consumer Response to Television Commercials; The Impact or
Involvement and Background Music on Brand Attitude Formation, Journal of Marketing Research, 2
3( FebruarY ), 11-24.

Russell, James A (1983), "Pancultural Aspects of the Human Conceptual Organization of Emotions", Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 6, 1281-1288.

Vaughn, Richard (1980), "How Advertising Works: A Planning Model", Journal of Advertising Research, 20
( October ), 27-33.

Vaughn, Richard (1986), "How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited", Journal of Advertising Research,
February/March, 57-66.

Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct", Journal of Consumer Research,
12(December). 341-352.
Issue Involvement As a Moderator of the Effects on
Attitude of Advertising Content and Context
Richard E. Petty, University of Missouri-Columbia
John T. Cacioppo, University of Iowa
ABSTRACT - Two persuasion experiments were conducted manipulating the personal relevance of the message,
the quality of the arguments employed, and the characteristics of the message source. The results suggested
that message content factors are more influential than source characteristics under high involvement conditions.
The reverse tends to occur under low involvement.
[ to cite ]:

Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo (1981) ,"Issue Involvement As a Moderator of the Effects on Attitude of
Advertising Content and Context", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, eds. Kent B. Monroe,
Ann Abor, MI : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 20-24.
[ direct url ]:

http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/9252/volumes/v08/NA-08

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 8, 1981 Pages 20-24

ISSUE INVOLVEMENT AS A MODERATOR OF THE EFFECTS ON ATTITUDE OF ADVERTISING CONTENT

AND CONTEXT

Richard E. Petty, University of Missouri-Columbia

John T. Cacioppo, University of Iowa

ABSTRACT -

Two persuasion experiments were conducted manipulating the personal relevance of the message, the quality of
the arguments employed, and the characteristics of the message source. The results suggested that message
content factors are more influential than source characteristics under high involvement conditions. The reverse
tends to occur under low involvement.

THE INVOLVEMENT CONCEPT

Persuasion researchers within both social and consumer psychology have recently emphasized the need to
distinguish between high and low involvement situations (cf., Petty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker 1981, Pay 1976).
Although there are many specific definitions of "involvement" within both disciplines, there is considerable
agreement that in high involvement situations, the persuasive message under consideration has a high degree of
personal relevance to the recipient, whereas in low involvement situations, the personal relevance of the
message is rather trivial. In social psychology, this view is best represented by the work of the Sherifs who have
argued that high involvement occurs when the message has "intrinsic importance" (Sherif & Hovland 1961, p.
197) or "personal meaning" (Sherif et al. 1973, p. 311), and in consumer psychology this view is well-represented
by Krugman (1965) who defines involvement as the number of "personal references" or connections that
recipients make between the message and their own lives (p. 355).

Despite the widespread agreement that involvement has something to do with the personal relevance of a
message, there is little agreement on the research operations employed in studying involvement. Some of the
research on involvement conducted by both social (e.g., Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif 1957) and consumer (e.g.,
Newman & Dolich 1979) psychologists has investigated existing groups that differed in the extent to which an
issue or product was personally important, or has employed designs allowing subjects to assign themselves to
high and low involvement groups. These methods, which are correlational in nature, confound involvement with
all other existing differences between the high and low involvement groups. Other social (e.g., Rhine &
Severance 1970) and consumer psychologists (e.g., Lastovicka & Gardner 1979) have defined involvement in
terms of the specific issue or product under consideration. This procedure, of course, confounds involvement with
aspects of the issue or product that are immaterial to their personal relevance. Finally, some researchers have
studied involvement by varying the medium of message presentation. Interestingly, however, some investigators
have argued that television is a more involving medium than is print (Worchel et al. 1975), whereas others have
argued Just the opposite (Krugman 1967). A preferable procedure that keeps recipient, message, and medium
characteristics constant for high and low involvement conditions was introduced by Apsler & Sears (1968) and is
the method employed in the studies to be reported here. In this procedure subjects are randomly assigned to
high and low involvement conditions and receive the same message via the same medium, but high involvement
subjects are led to believe that the issue or product has some personal relevance whereas low involvement
subjects are not.

In addition to the methodological differences that have plagued the involvement concept, another area of
disagreement concerns the effects on persuasion that involvement is expected to have. The Sherifs have argued
that increased involvement is associated with increased resistance to persuasion (cf., Sherif, Sherif & Nebergall
1965). The notion is that on any given issue, highly involved persons exhibit more negative evaluations of a
communication because high involvement is associated with an extended "latitude of rejection." Thus, incoming
messages on high involvement issues are thought to have an enhanced probability of being rejected because
they are more likely to fall within the unacceptable range of a person's implicit attitude continuum. This view has
received considerable acceptance within social psychology (e.g., Eagly & Manis 1966, Greenwald 1980).
Krugman (1965) has proposed an alternative view that has achieved considerable acceptance within consumer
psychology (e.g., Ray 1974, Rothschild 1979). Under this second view, increasing involvement does not
invariably increase resistance to persuasion, but instead shifts the sequence of communication impact. Krugman
argues that under high involvement, a communication affects cognitions, then attitudes, then behavior, whereas
under low involvement a communication affects cognitions, then behavior, and then attitudes. The focal goal of
the present paper is to present and test a third view of how involvement affects persuasion.

INVOLVEMENT AS A DETERMINANT OF CONTENT-BASED PERSUASION

Elsewhere we have proposed that the level of involvement directs the focus of a subject's thoughts about a
persuasive communication (Petty & Cacioppo 1979). Specifically, we have suggested that under high
involvement conditions, the focus of thought is on the content of the persuasive message, whereas under low
involvement conditions, the focus of thought is on non-content cues. Thus, under high involvement, if the
communication presents arguments that are subjectively cogent and compelling, the recipient's thoughts will be
primarily favorable and persuasion will result. If the communication presents arguments that are subjectively
specious and subject to counterargumentation, resistance to persuasion (and perhaps boomerang) will occur.
Thus, contrary to the Sherifs' view, increasing involvement can lead to either enhanced or reduced persuasion
depending upon the quality of the arguments presented in the message.

In contrast to this focus on the content of a message under high involvement conditions, we have suggested that
subjects who are not involved are more likely to focus on such non-content cues as the rewards available for
adopting a certain attitude, the attractiveness, credibility, or power of the communication's source, and the
number of others who advocate a certain position. Focusing on each of the latter aspects of a communication
allows a person to evaluate a message or decide what attitudinal position to adopt without engaging in any
extensive cognitive work relevant to the issue or product under consideration. As Miller et al. (1976) noted: "It
may be irrational to scrutinize the plethora of counter-attitudinal messages received daily. To the extent that one
possesses only a limited amount of information processing time and capacity, such scrutiny would disengage the
thought processes from the exigencies of daily life" (p. 623). Thus, when a person is not highly involved with a
persuasive message (i.e., when the message has no personal consequences), we propose that the person relies
on a short-cut means of evaluation. Although, like Krugman, we are proposing that there are
separate processes governing persuasion under high and low involvement, unlike Krugman we believe that
the sequence of communication impact is the same--cognitions, attitudes, then behaviors. The difference
between the two processes lies in what cognitions are affected--cognitions dealing with issue-relevant
argumentation (high involvement), or cognitions dealing with non-content features of the influence situation (low
involvement).

EMPIRICAL TESTS OF THE INVOLVEMENT CONCEPT

In an initial test of our two-process model of involvement (Petty & Cacioppo 1979), subjects heard a
counterattitudinal message containing either strong or week arguments under conditions of either high or low
involvement. As expected, increasing involvement enhanced the production of counter-arguments to the weak
arguments and increased the production of favorable thoughts to the strong arguments. Consistent with this
finding, increasing involvement increased the persuasiveness of the strong arguments, but decreased the
persuasiveness of the weak arguments. Although the results of this initial study did support the view that subjects
do more thinking about the content of a message under high involvement than under low, it did not directly
address whether subjects are more attentive to content-irrelevant cues under low involvement then under high.

Next, we report two experiments designed to test the full two-process model of involvement. In each study,
subjects were exposed to a persuasive communication. In Experiment 1 (conducted in collaboration with Rachel
Goldman) the message was presented on audio tape and concerned a change in a campus regulation. In
Experiment 2, the message was presented in print form and concerned a new consumer product. The following
variables were manipulated in each study: (a) the personal relevance of the message (high and low involvement),
(b) the quality of the arguments which subjects heard or read in support of the advocated conclusion (strong or
weak arguments), and (c) a characteristic of the source presenting the message (high or low expert source in
Experiment 1, high or low attractive source in Experiment 2). The two-process model of involvement would
expect that under high involvement conditions, persuasion would be affected most by the quality of the message
arguments employed, but that under low involvement conditions, persuasion would be tied most strongly to the
credibility or attractiveness of the message source.

EXPERIMENT 1

One hundred forty-five male and female undergraduates at the University of Missouri participated in order to earn
extra credit in an introductory psychology course. The design was a 2 (Issue involvement: high or low) X 2
(Argument quality: strong or weak) X 2 (Source credibility: high or low) factorial. Subjects were run in groups of 3
to 16 in cubicles designed so that no subject could have visual or verbal contact with any other subject. Upon
arrival at the laboratory, subjects read that they would be rating tapes for their sound quality. After reading these
instructions, subjects heard one of four tapes over headphones. After listening to the appropriate communication,
subjects completed the dependent variable booklets, and were then debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.

Independent Variables

Argument quality. All subjects heard a communication that advocated that seniors be required to pass a
comprehensive exam in their major area as a requirement for graduation. The strong version of the message
provided persuasive evidence (statistics, data, etc.) in support of the exam (e.g. institution of the exams has led
to a reversal in the declining scores on standardized achievement tests at other universities). In contrast, the
weak version of the message relied more on quotations and personal opinion and examples to support its
position (e.g. the author's major advisor took a comprehensive exam and now had a prestigious academic
position). The strong arguments were taken from a pool that had elicited primarily favorable thoughts in a pretest,
and the weak arguments were taken from a pool that had elicited primarily counterarguments.

Issue involvement. Subjects in the high involvement conditions heard the speaker advocate that the
comprehensive exams should begin in the 1979-1980 academic year at their university (in which case they would
all be affected personally by the proposal). In the low involvement conditions, the speaker advocated that the
exams be initiated in the 1989-1990 academic term.

Source credibility. The high credible source was described as a professor of education from Princeton University
who had conducted a study of comprehensive exams nationally. The low credible source was a junior at a local
high school who had prepared a term paper on the topic.
Dependent Variables

After hearing the tape, subjects completed two measures of opinion about the topic. First, subjects rated the
concept "senior comprehensive exams" on four 9-point semantic differential scales (harmful-beneficial, wise-
foolish, good-bad, favorable-unfavorable) that were summed to form a general measure of evaluation. Next,
subjects responded to an 11-point Likert-type scale concerning their extent of agreement with the speaker's
proposal. The responses to these two attitude measures were converted to standard scores and averaged to
form an index of communication acceptance.

Following the key attitude measures, subjects completed some manipulation check measures and other ancillary
questions. Finally they were given 4 minutes to list as many of the arguments provided in the communication as
they could remember. Two judges, blind to the experimental conditions rated each argument listed for accuracy
(p. 92). Similar statements of the same argument were only counted once. Disagreements between judges were
resolved by consulting a third judge.

Results

Analyses on the manipulation check measures indicated that the three independent variables were successfully
varied. Subjects hearing the high credibility speaker rated him as more "qualified" (M = 6.4) than subjects who
were exposed to the low credibility induction (M = 5.8), F(1,137) = 4.86, p < .03. Also, subjects hearing the strong
arguments rated their quality as being significantly higher (M = 8.9) than subjects exposed to the weak
arguments (M = 4.5), F(1,137) = 51.02, p < .001. Finally, subjects in the high involvement condition rated the
likelihood that the University of Missouri would institute comprehensive exams during their stay as higher (M =
5.5) than subjects in the low involvement conditions (M = 2.7), F(1,137) = 5.12, p <.02.

The means for each cell on the measure of communication acceptance are presented in Table 1, A 2 X 2 X 2
analysis of variance on this measure yielded two main effects and two qualifying interactions. A main effect for
credibility, F(1,137) = 6.06, p < .02, Indicated that the high credibility communicator induced more acceptance
(M = .21) than the low credibility communicator (M = -.21). A main effect for argument quality revealed that the
strong arguments produced more agreement with the position advocated (M = .36) than did the weak arguments
(M = -.36), F(1,137) = 20.35, p <.001.

Of most interest are the two interactions, however. An Involvement X Arguments interaction, F(1,137) =
6.05, p < .02, demonstrated that the strong arguments produced significantly more persuasion than the weak
only under conditions of high personal involvement. Also, an Involvement X Credibility interaction, F(1,137) =
3.92, p <.05, revealed" that the high credibility speaker produced significantly more persuasion than the low only
under conditions of low personal involvement.

TABLE 1

EFFECT OF INVOLVEMENT, ARGUMENT QUALITY, AND SOURCE CREDIBILITY ON ATTITUDES TOWARD

COMPREHENSIVE EXAMS

Finally, an analysis of the argument recall scores indicated that subjects were able to recall more of the strong
(M = 4.2) than the weak (M = 3.2) arguments, F(1,137) = 14.93, p <.001, but involvement did not affect argument
recall.

Discussion

The present study provided evidence for the view that the level of issue involvement is one determinant of
whether content or noncontent factors dominate in producing persuasion. When the issue was of high personal
relevance to the subjects, the manipulation of argument quality had a significant impact on attitudes, whereas the
effect of source credibility was small and not significant. Under low involvement conditions, however, the reverse
occurred--source credibility had large effect on persuasion, but argument quality had little impact. This pattern of
results provides strong support for the view that high issue relevance motivates diligent processing of the content
of a message. When the issue is relatively uninvolving, however, subjects appear to be unwilling to engage in the
effortful cognitive work necessary to evaluate the quality of the arguments.

Under low involvement conditions, subjects were content to form their attitude on the basis of who said it, rather
than on the merits of what was said. In the second experiment, a conceptual replication of Experiment 1 was
conducted employing advertising stimuli.

EXPERIMENT 2

Two hundred and forty undergraduates at the University of Missouri participated in s study entitled "Evaluations
of Advertisements," and received extra credit in an introductory psychology course. The design of the study was
a 2 (Product involvement: high or low) X 2 (Message content quality: strong or weak) X 2 (Source attractiveness:
high or low) X 2 (Sex of subject). Fifteen subjects were run in each cell of the design in groups of 4 to 8.

Upon arrival at the laboratory, the subjects were told that they would be examining a variety of advertisements
and providing their impressions of them. Each subject was handed a booklet containing six magazine ads. Five
of the ads were for real but relatively unfamiliar products (e.g. Lux cigarettes, Rolex watches), and one of the ads
was for

a fictitious product (Vilance shampoo). The fictitious ad was fifth in the booklet of six and was prepared
specifically for the present experiment. The subjects were told to turn through the booklet at their own pace and
give a signal to the experimenter when they had finished examining the ads. Following perusal of the ad booklet,
subjects completed a dependent variable booklet, and were then debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.

Independent Variables

Product involvement. Preceding each ad in the booklet was a brief description of the purpose of the ad. All
subjects read the some descriptions for the real ads, but the description for the bogus Vilance shampoo ad
differed for subjects in the high and low involvement conditions. Subjects in the low involvement conditions read:

The product you are about to see is being put out by the Europia Collection based in Vienna, Austria. Their main
interest lies in introducing the product to the rest of Europe. Before launching a new European campaign, they
have distributed their advertising materials to Journalism schools in the U.S. This is in order to determine if the ad
has enough basic appeal to make it worth pursuing. The psychology department is assisting the journalism,
school in this evaluation.

Subjects in the high involvement conditions read a similar description except that they were told that the
company was interested in introducing the product to the United States.

The University of Missouri has been chosen for research purposes. It is for this reason that the product will soon
be introduced in the Columbia area. Since you will soon be able to purchase this product in Columbia, the
company is asking University students to evaluate their proposed advertisement.

Source attractiveness. Four different advertisements for Vilance shampoo were created to vary the source and
message variables. Each ad looked similar in that it presented a male and female in their early 20s giving the
reasons why they liked Vilance shampoo. In the high attractive ads photograph of a couple that previously had
been rated as "extremely attractive" was used, and in the low attractive ads a photograph of a couple that
previously had been rated as "somewhat unattractive" was used. An "extremely unattractive" stimulus was not
used because it did not prove plausible in pilot testing.

Message quality. In the strong argument conditions, the text that accompanied the photograph presented
arguments for the shampoo that previously had been rated as compelling and persuasive (e.g. Vilance contains
minerals that strengthen each hair shaft so it helps prevent split-ends). In the weak argument conditions, the text
presented arguments that previously had been rated as unpersuasive (e.g. Vilance has a down-to-earth brown
color that makes us feel natural).

Dependent Variables
Subjects were asked to answer number of questions about each product for which they had seen an ad. Different
questions about the advertisements were also posed to maintain the cover story. The crucial measure of attitude
toward the product consisted of the sum of subjects' ratings of Vilance shampoo on four 9-point semantic
differential-type scales (good/bad, satisfactory/unsatisfactory, favorable/unfavorable, high quality/low quality).

Results

The means for each cell on the measure of attitude toward Valance shampoo are presented in Table 2. A
2 X 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of variance revealed no main effects nor interactions involving the sex of subject variable
so this will not be discussed further. A main effect for the argument quality manipulation, F(1,223) =
35.41, p <.0001, indicated that the strong arguments produced more favorable attitudes toward the product (M =
6.6) than did the weak arguments (M = 1.3). A main effect for the attractiveness variable, F(1,223) =
8.46, p <.004, showed that the high attractive models induced more acceptance of the product (M = 5.3) than did
the low attractive models (M = 2.7).

Of most interest in the analysis, however, was a significant Involvement X Arguments interaction, F(1,223) =
10.84, p <.001. This interaction revealed that increasing the personal involvement of the advertisement enhanced
the importance of the message content in affecting attitudes. When the relevance of the ad was increased,
subjects responded more favorably to the ad with strong arguments, but less favorably to the ad with weak
arguments. The Involvement X Source interaction was not significant this time though the means were
directionally consistent with the findings of Experiment 1.

TABLE 2

EFFECT OF INVOLVEMENT, ARGUMENT QUALITY, AND SOURCE ATTRACTIVENESS, ON ATTITUDES

TOWARD AN ADVERTISED PRODUCT

Discussion

Experiment 2 replicated the finding from Experiment 1 that involvement (personal relevance) is an important
determinant of the extent to which content-based persuasion will occur. When the advertisement was high in
personal relevance to the subjects, the quality or cogency of the arguments presented in the ad had a much
greater impact on attitudes Coward the advertised product than when the ad was of low relevance. The study did
not find strong support for the view that source factors were more important when the ad was low rather than
high in personal relevance, however. In retrospect, this effect may not have been strong in this study because
how the models looked may have been viewed as a relevant persuasive argument for some subjects! In other
words, for the specific product employed (shampoo), the attractiveness of the models (especially their hair) may
have served as persuasive testimony for the effectiveness of the product.

THE ROLE OF INVOLVEMENT IN PERSUASION

Taken together, the results of the two studies strongly indicate that under high involvement, message content is
the prepotent determinant of the amount of persuasion that occurs. Less strongly, the studies suggest that under
low involvement, non-content factors such as the credibility or attractiveness of the message source are more
important. Thus, the present studies provide some evidence that attitude change is determined by different
factors under high and low involvement conditions.

In another paper (Petty & Cacioppo 1981) we have argued that a persuasive massage can induce attitude
change via one of two routes. Under the first, or central route, thinking about issue-relevant information is the
most direct determinant of the direction and amount of persuasion produced. Attitude changes induced via this
route tend to be relatively permanent and predictive of subsequent behavior. Under the second, or peripheral
route, attitude change is the result of non-content cues in the situation. Changes induced via this route tend to be
relatively temporary and are not highly predictive of subsequent behavior (see review by Cialdini et al., 1981).

According to this framework, involvement is a prime determinant of whether or not an attitude change is induced
via the central or the peripheral route. The experiments reported here as well as the results of other recent
studies are consistent with the view that under low involvement conditions, persuasion may typically be governed
by such peripheral cues as source characteristics, concerns about desirable self-presentation, and/or one's social
role, whereas under high involvement, persuasion may be governed more by message content factors such as
the number, quality, and/or accuracy of the message arguments presented (cf., Cacioppo & Petty 1980, Chaiken
1980, Cialdini et al. 1976).

The level of involvement is not the only determinant of the route to persuasion, however. In addition to having the
necessary motivation to think about issue-relevant argumentation, the message recipient must also have
the ability to process the message if change via the central route is to occur. Thus, if involvement is high (and the
person is motivated to think about the message content), but the arguments are too complex for the person to
understand, or if too many distractions prevent issue-relevant thought, then the central route cannot be followed.

Finally, we note that attitude change via the central route is a very difficult way to change a person's attitudes.
First, the message must show some personal relevance to the recipient. Second, the person must have the
ability to process the message content. Third. the message must present arguments that elicit primarily favorable
thoughts. If the recipient is able to counterargue the message, then increasing involvement will not facilitate
persuasion. If a change can be produced via the central route however, the benefits are clear--the attitude
change will tend to persist and be predictive of subsequent behavior. An alternative strategy is to induce attitude
change via the peripheral route. Since the peripheral route induces only a temporary change, it will be necessary
to constantly remind the recipient of the cue (e.g., attractive source) upon which the new attitude is based. Lutz
(1979) provides the example of a person who drives Hertz Rent-a-Cars, not because the person has thought
about the attributes of the company (central route), but only because he has been constantly reminded that O. J.
Simpson endorses the company (peripheral route). If the favorable attitude about Hertz had been based on a full
consideration of the positive features of the company, the favorable attitude would likely persist on its own. Since
the favorable attitude is based on a positive peripheral cue however, the favorable attitude persists only so long
as the cue remains salient (accomplished through advertising repetition). Such continually repeated positive cues
may be sufficient to get a person to try the advertised product. Interestingly, once the person has tried the
product, it may become more personally involving and may make the person more likely to think about the
content of future advertisements about the product. In this manner a peripheral change can lead to a central one.

REFERENCES

Apsler, R., and Sears, D.O. (1968), "Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 9, 162-166.

Cacioppo, J. T. , and Petty, R. E. (1980), "Sex differences in influenceability: Toward specifying the underlying
process," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, in press.

Chaiken, S. (1980), "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source and message
cues in persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.

Cialdini, R. B., Levy, A., Herman, P., Kozlowski, L., & Petty, R. (1976), "Elastic shifts of opinion: Determinants of
direction and durability," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 663-672.

Cialdini, R.B., Petty, R. E. , and Cacioppo, J. T. (1981), "Attitude and attitude change," Annual Review of
Psychology, in press.

Eagly, A.H., and Mania, M. (1966), "Evaluation of message and communication as a function of
involvement," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 483-485.

Greenwald, A.G. (1980), "The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history," American
Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

Hovland, C.I., Harvey, O.J., and Sherif, M. (1957), "Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to
communication and attitude change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 244-252.
Krugman, H.E. (1965), "The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 29. 349-356.

Krugman, H.E. (1967), "The measurement of advertising involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 583-596.

Lastovicka, J. L., and Gardner, D. M. (1979), "Components of involvement," in Attitude research plays for hash
stakes, eds., J. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-73.

Lutz, R. J. (1979), "A functional theory framework for designing and pretesting advertising themes," in Attitude
research plays for high stakes, eds., J. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 37-
49.

Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R., and Valone, K. (1976) "Speed of speech and persuasion," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615-624.

Newman, L. M., and Dolich, I.J. (1979), "An examination of ego-involvement as a modifier of attitude changes
caused from product testing," Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 180-183.

Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1979), "Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing
message-relevant cognitive responses," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.

Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1981), Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches,
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Heesacker, M. (1981), "The use of rhetorical questions in persuasion: A
cognitive response analysis," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.

Ray, M. L. (1974), "Consumer initial processing: Definitions, issues, and applications," in Buyer/Consumer
information processing, eds., G. Hughes and M. Ray, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 145-156.

Ray, M. L. (1976), "Attitude as a communication response," in Attitude research at bay, eds., D. Johnson and W.
Wells, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 87-111.

Rhine, R., and Severance, L. (1970), "Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude
change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 175-190.

Rothschild, N. L. (1979), "Advertising strategies for high and low involvement situations," in Attitude research
plays for high stakes, eds., J. Maloney and B. Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 74-93.

Sherif, M., and Hovland, C. (1961), Social judgment, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sherif, C. W. et al. (1973), "Personal involvement, social judgment, and action," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 27, 311-328.

Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., and Nebergall, R. E. (1965), Attitude and attitude change, Philadelphia: Saunders.

Worchel, S., Andreoli, V., and Eason, J. (1975), "Is the medium the message? A study of the effects of media,
communicator, and message characteristics on attitude change," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 157-
172.

----------------------------------------
Consumer Involvement: Definitional Issues and
Research Directions
James A. Muncy, University of Oklahoma
Shelby D. Hunt, Texas Tech University
ABSTRACT - Though involvement has recently become a central issue to consumer researchers, substantial
confusion exist as to its nature. In order to help reduce this confusion, the present paper identifies and discusses
five distinct concepts which have all been labeled "involvement". The concepts of ego involvement, commitment,
communication involvement, purchase importance, and response involvement are discussed as they relate to
this evolving body of knowledge.
[ to cite ]:

James A. Muncy and Shelby D. Hunt (1984) ,"Consumer Involvement: Definitional Issues and Research
Directions", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, eds. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 193-196.
[ direct url ]:

http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6241/volumes/v11/NA-11

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, 1984 Pages 193-196

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT: DEFINITIONAL ISSUES AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

James A. Muncy, University of Oklahoma

Shelby D. Hunt, Texas Tech University

ABSTRACT -

Though involvement has recently become a central issue to consumer researchers, substantial confusion exist
as to its nature. In order to help reduce this confusion, the present paper identifies and discusses five distinct
concepts which have all been labeled "involvement". The concepts of ego involvement, commitment,
communication involvement, purchase importance, and response involvement are discussed as they relate to
this evolving body of knowledge.

INTRODUCTION

The concept "involvement" has been discussed for about two decades in the consumer behavior literature (see
Krugman 1965) and even longer in psychology (see Sherif and Cantril 1947). Interest in involvement has
heightened in recent years by those studying the consumer decision process. Kassarjian (1978) has accused
consumer researchers of anthropomorphism when they infer that buyers are always as involved in the
purchasing process as they themselves are. Olshavsky and Granbois (1979) took Kassarjian's view of the low
involvement consumer a step further. They argued that "for many purchases a decision process never occurs,
not even on the first purchase" (p. 98).
As a result, a school of thought has developed which questions whether the classical view of the consumer holds
for all purchase occasions. An emergent idea is that of the low involvement buyer: one who does not go through
complex decision making and information processing. This new approach can be seen in several consumer
behavior texts which devote special sections to involvement or the low involvement decision process (e.g.,
Assael 1981, pp. 74-190, Engel and Blackwell 1982, pp. 34-40, 539-564). Thus involvement is becoming a key
element of consumer behavior thought.

Since the topic of consumer involvement has only recently begun to gain researchers ' interest, there exists the
need for a significant amount of empirical research in the area. Such research will require the operationalization
of involvement. However, before this can be done, researchers need to develop a clear understanding as to its
nature. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) state:

Regardless of how sophisticated the operationalizations, before a phenomenon can be measured one must
clearly define what it is and what it is not. According to the logic of modern science (Bridgman 1927), such
conceptual definitions ought to precede and determine one's operationalization rather than vice versa. (p.1)

Thus before involvement can be fruitfully investigated, researchers should reach some agreement as to the
nature of this construct. Such agreement does not presently exist. Lastovicka and Gardner (1979) state that there
is "no clear statement or agreement on what this concept (involvement) represents" (p. 49) and Tyebjee (1979)
observed that "there is little agreement about the definition of involvement" (p. 298). Upon reviewing the
involvement literature, the reason for such confusion becomes clear. The term "involvement" has been used by
researchers to denote at least five distinct (yet perhaps related) concepts. Though some researchers
acknowledge the existence of different types of involvement (see Houston and Rothschild undated; Lastovicka
and Gardner 1979; Mitchell 1980; Rothschild 1979), most researchers fail to make a clear statement as to which
concept they are investigating.

The purpose of the present paper is two-fold. First, it separates and discusses the various concepts which have
been labeled "involvement." The purpose here is not to provide an exhaustive literature review of involvement.
Only those papers which best typify each concept are discussed. The purpose is to explain the fundamental
nature of each.

Secondly, the present paper discusses those research areas which are particularly relevant to each type of
involvement. Just as they are all distinctLy different concepts, they all contribute to consumer behavior thought in
different fashions. The purpose here is to point to potentiaL research needs that each has fulfilled or can fulfill.
Such a discussion is needed to add direction to this area which has been described as being a "bag of worms"
(Lastovicka and Gardner 1979; p. 54). We propose that there are basically five concepts which have all been
studied under the topic of "involvement": ego involvement, commitment, communication involvement, purchase
importance. and response involvement.

FIVE TYPES OF INVOLVEMENT

Ego Involvement

The concept of "involvement" originated in social psychology and was substantially developed by the Sherifs and
their colleagues (see Sherif and Cantril 1947; Sherif and Hovland 1961; Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall 1965; and
Sherif and Sherif 1967). It can be defined as the degree to which an object or idea is centrally related to the value
system of an individual (see Ostrom and Brock 1968). A classic example of how a product can become ego
involving was illustrated by Haire (1950). Se showed that women related the type of coffee purchased (i.e.
around or instant) to the values associated with being a good wife and a good person. Though coffee may no
longer be as ego involving (see Hill 1968; Webster and von Pechmann 1970), certainly substantial ego
involvement exists within other product classes.

In consumer behavior, the study of ego involvement addresses the question of how a consumer's value system is
engaged when purchasing a product. For this reason, the construct of ego involvement can provide insights
when researching areas which involve consumer values or value systems (e.g., life style analysis or cross
cultural buyer behavior). Ego involvement is probably also related to the other types of involvement discussed in
this paper.

Commitment

Commitment is another concept which has been studied under involvement. The distinction between ego
involvement and commitment was never fully resolved in the social psychology literature. Freedman (1964) noted
that many authors fail to distinguish between involvement with a particular position on an issue (which would be
commitment) and invoLvement with the issue itself. Some have also failed to make this distinction in marketing.
Robertson's (1976) work, and those citing it, uses the terms involvement and commitment synonymously.
Further, Lastovicka and Gardner (1979) identify commitment as one of two underlying components of
involvement.

Consumers can become committed to a brand or store when that brand or store becomes ego involving to them.
Many organizations have tried to produce such commitment by attempting to tie their product to the central value
systems of individuals (examples are prevalent in the product classes of personal hygiene and alcohol).

Though they may be related, ego involvement and commitment are not isomorphic. Ego involvement can exist
without commitment. For example, someone may feel that the type of automobile a person purchases is related
to that person's worth, resulting in a substantial amount of search occurring before an automobile is purchased.
Once the purchase is made, the person may become committed to his or her decision. However, the ego
involvement preceded the commitment. Commitment could also exist without ego involvement (e.R.. due to high
perceived risk).

Commitment has perhaps been one of the most researched areas in consumer behavior . Under the title of
"loyalty," it has been hypothesized to be related to much of buyer behavior (including importance of purchase
which is another type of involvement discussed in the present paper: see Assael 1981; Howard and Sheth 1968;
Jacoby 1971; Jarvis 1972). Due to its numerous implications to both consumer behavior thought and marketing
practice, commitment will continue to be a central issue in consumer research. However, before substantial
contributions can be made in this area, several conceptual and methodological issues need resolving (see
Jacoby and Chestnut 1978).

Communication Involvement

The writings of Krugman (1965, 1966, 1971, 1977, 1979; Krugman and Hartley 1970) were instrumental in
introducing the idea of "involvement" to consumer behavior. Perplexed with "knowing that advertising works but
being unable to say much about why" ('Krugman 1965, p. 351), he began investigating the extent to which the
low involvement nature of many advertisements might explain their effects. His definition of involvement is based
on the number of connections a person makes between a communication and something existing in their life.

There are two important characteristics which distinguish communication involvement from ego involvement. The
first is that ego involvement is involvement with an object or idea. This causes it to be relatively permanent or
enduring. In communication involvement, the involvement is with something which is occurring at a specific time
(i.e. the communication), making it situationally specific and transitory. When communication involvement exists,
it occurs only during the communication; it will not begin before the communication starts and it will only continue
as long: as the communication does . Its presence or absence is completely determined by a person's reaction
(or lack thereof ) to a particular communication. In contrast, once ego involvement is established, it becomes a
relatively stable characteristic, transcending many situations .

The second important characteristic of communication involvement is that the connections are made with any
aspect of the person's life, not just those which are related to the person's central value system. Thus a person
can become involved with a communication only minimally related to his or her central value system (one must
however be careful not to confuse communication involvement with attention, interest, or excitement: see
Krugman 1965, p. 355). An example of this would be when a person is involved in a communication simply
because of its utilitarian value (such as a consumer paying attention to supermarket prices in newspaper
advertisements).
Communication involvement is particularly relevant in research on consumer information processing. Factors
such as the media in which the communication is present, the editorial content surrounding the communication,
and certain demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the individual have all been related to
communication involvement (Krugman 1966). It may also affect retention via the primacy/recency effect (Hovland
1957; Krugman 1965), whether a person uses heuristic or systematic information processing (Chaiken 1980),
whether the information is processed in the right or left hemisphere of the brain, and whether information is
stored in words or images (Krugman 1977; Hansen 1981). It has also been related to the amount and nature of
attitude change (Petty and Cacioppo 1980; Krugman 1965, 1971), and the amount of counter-argumentation
(Mitchell 1980). This indicates that much if not most of the domain of information acquisition and processing has
been discussed in relation to communication involvement, thus strongly supporting the position that the effects of
promotional campaigns on consumer behavior can only be understood against the backdrop of communication
involvement.

Purchase Importance

Importance of Purchase was introduced as a variable in one of the first comprehensive theoretical structures in
buyer behavior (Howard and Sheth 1969). It was defined as:

A variable in the buyer's frame of reference that corresponds to intensity of Motives. It is product class specific
only and does not distinguish among brands. It is the saliency of one product class with respect to another... It is
variously labeled degree of involvement, importance of task, and seriousness of consequences. (P- 419)

Importance of Purchase was classified as an exogenous variable affecting output variables through key
hypothetical constructs.

Much of the recent conceptual and empirical work on involvement has centered on purchase importance. Hupfer
and Gardner (1971) and Lastovicka and Gardner (1979) operationalized involvement by having subjects state the
"importance" of the product class. Assael (1981) defined high and low involvement by stating: "High involvement
purchases are purchases that are important to the consumer... Low involvement purchases represent purchases
that are not important to the consumer" (p. 11). When Kassarjian (1978) challenged consumer behavioralists to
consider the role of involvement more seriously, he was discussing purchase importance. He stated:

But of the dozens, if not hundreds, of mundane decisions made each day by the average consumer, I wonder just
how many are important to high, just how many are significant or high involvement decisions. (p. xiii, emphasis
added)

Purchase importance has been confused with ego involvement. This is easy to do, since purchase importance
can be a result of ego involvement (i.e. if a purchase is ego involving, it will surely be high in importance.)
However, other factors such as perceived risk can cause high purchase importance. For example, the purchase
of automobile tires might not be ego involving; however, this purchase might be quite important due to functional
risk (i.e., "If one blows out, I might be killed") or financial risk (i.e., "If one blows out, I am oat another 580.00").

Purchase importance has many implications for further consumer behavior research; but first, several
fundamental questions must be answered. The determinants of purchase importance are only incompletely
specified. The two factors identified in this paper were risk and ego involvement. What other factors cause a
purchase to be important? What are the exact effects of these two factors?

Research is also needed on the consequences of purchase importance. Howard and Sheth (1968) hypothesize it
to affect brand loyalty, information search, and size of consumer's evoked set. Others have postulated that
consumers go through different types of decision processes based on the level of purchase importance (e.g.
Assael 1981; Engel and Blackwell 1982; Kassarjian 1978; Ray 1973).

Isolating the exact effect of purchase importance on a buyer's behavior could significantly change current views
of the consumer. However, failing to distinguish it from commitment, ego involvement, communication
involvement, or response involvement will greatly retard progress.
Response Involvement

A fifth way of viewing involvement was presented by Houston and Rothschild (undated). They introduced the term
"response involvement" which was defined as "the complexity of cognitive and behavioral processes
characterizing the overall consumer decision process" (p. 4). High response involvement would represent
situations where individuals are highly active, information processing beings, trying to gain as much information
as possible, then using this information in attempting to arrive at the optical choice. Low response involvement
would reflect a fairly passive choice situations, where individuals are interested in minimizing the physical and
psychological effort required to obtain a product.

Houston and Rothschild distinguish between internal factors (termed enduring involvement) and external factors
(termed situational involvement) which can affect response involvement. Their paper presented a structure for
researching the way such internal and external factors affect response involvement.

Consumer behavior theory has long recognized that the consumer's level of cognitive and behavioral processing
can vary for different purchases. Howard and Sheth (1968) proposed that consumers go through three stages to
reduce the level of complexity of buying situations: extensive problem solving, limited problem solving, and
routinized response behavior. However, the antecedents for differing strategies have yet to be fully explicated.
Howard and Sheth describe them as sequential steps in repetitive decision making. As noted earlier, Olshavsky
and Granbois (1979) argued that no decision process ever occurs for some products. This perspective is quite
different from the one presented by Howard and Sheth. Substantial research on response involvement (perhaps
based on paradigms like Houston and Rothschild's), is needed to resolve such issues. This research needs to
determine if differences in response involvement are due to differences in purchasing situations, product
categories, personality variables, or other factors. Since response involvement does differ across buying
situations and since the cognitive and behavioral processes leading to a purchase can be seen as the core of the
study of consumer behavior, this area should be of primary interest to consumer researchers.

CONCLUSION

Confusion regarding the exact domain of a construct being studied can result in a whole stream of research
becoming impotent. A classic example of this has been brand loyalty research. After reviewing over 300 brand
loyalty studies, Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) concluded that the area has been kept alive "more because of
promise than result" (p. 119). A basic reason for this is that most researchers fail to distinguish brand loyalty from
other types of loyalty. Though Brown (1953) warned against confusing brand loyalty with price, store, and
convenience loyalties, this was done for several years, resulting in a large body of literature which has been
described as lacking many solid contribution" (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978, p. 119).

Those investigating involvement must be careful to not make a similar mistake. To say a person sees a purchase
as being important is not the same as saying the cognitive and behavioral processes are complex, the person's
personal value system is engaged, the person is committed, or the person is an active participant in the
communication process. The failure to distinguish between these concepts in research can result in findings that
are inconsistent, confusing, and/or ambiguous.

The present paper reviewed five major types of involvement which have been discussed in the literature. They
were all identified as conceptually distinct constructs, with separate (yet perhaps related) domains. Each concept
has its own unique potential for future research. Studies using these concepts may hold great potential for future
developments in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, such potential will never be reached as long as researchers
fail to clearly state which concept they are investigating.

REFERENCES

Assael, Henry (1981), Consumer Behavior and Executive Action, Boston: Kent.

Bridgman, Percy W. (1927), The Logic of Modern Physics, New York: MacMillan.

Brown, George a. (1953), "Brand Loyalty - Fact or Fiction?" Advertising Age, 24 (January 26), 75-76.
Chaiken, Shelly (1980), "Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus
Message Cues in Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (November), 752-766.

Freedman, Jonathan L. (1964), "Involvement, Discrepancy, and Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 69 (September), 752-766.

Engle, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behavior, Fourth edition, Chicago: The Dryden Press.

Haire, Mason (1950), "Projective Techniques in Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 14 (April), 649-665.

Hansen, Flemming (1982), "Hemispheral Lateralization: Implications for Understanding Consumer Behavior,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (June), 23-36.

Hill, Conrad R. (1968), "Haire's Classic Coffee Study - 18 Years Later," Journalism Quarterly, 45 (Autumn), 466-
472.

Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild (undated), "A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement,"
working paper, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Hovland, Carl I. (1957), The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hupfer, Nancy T. and David M. Gardner (1971),"Differential Involvement With Products and Issues: An
Exploratory Study, in Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research,
ed. David M. Gardner, College Parke, MD: Association for Consumer Research, 262-270.

Jacoby, Jacob (1971), "A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty," Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (June), 25-31.

Jacoby, Jacob, and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management, New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

Jacoby, Jacob, and David B. Kyner (1973), "Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchase Behavior,' Journal of Marketing
Research, 10 (February), 1-9.

Jarvis, Lance P. (1972), "An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Brand Loyalty and Product Class Importance as
Mediators of Consumer Brand Choice Behavior," unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

Kassarjian, Harold H. (1978), "Presidential Address, 1977: Anthropomorphism and Parsimony," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed., H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. xii-xiv,

Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement," Public
Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1966), "Measuring Advertising Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter), 583-
596.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1971), "Brain Wave Measures of Media Involvement, Journal of Advertising Research, 11
(February), 3-10.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1977), "Memory Without Recall, Exposure Without Perception," Journal of Advertising
Research, 17 (August), 7-14.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1979), "Low Involvement Theory in the Light of New Brain Research," in Attitude Research
Plays for High Stakes, eds. John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association,
16-24.
Krugman, Herbert E., and Eugene L. Hartley (1970), "Passive Learning From Television, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 34 (Summer), 148-149.

Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979), "Components of Involvement," in Attitude Research Plays for
High Stakes, eds. John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-73.

Mitchell, Andrew A. (1981), "The Dimensions of Advertising Involvement," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Volume VIII, ed. Rent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 25-30.

Olshavsky, Richard W. and Donald H. Granbois (1979), "Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction," Journal of
Consumer Research, 6 (September), 93-100,

Ostrom, Thomas M. and Timothy C. Brock (1968), "A Cognitive Model of Attitudinal Involvement," in Theories of
Cognitive Consistency: A Source Book, eds. Robert P. Abelson, Elliot Aronson, William J. McGuire, Theadore M.
Newcomb, Milton J. Rosenberg, Percy H. Tannenbaum, Chicago: Rand McNally, 373-383.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981), "Issue Involvement as a Moderator of the Effects on Attitudes of
Advertising Content and Context," in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume VIII, et, Rent B. Monroe, Ann
Arbor: Association for Consumer Research 20-24.

Ray, Michael L. (1973), "Marketing Communication and the Hierarchy-Of-Effects," in New Models for Mass
Communication Research, Volume II, ed. Peter Clarke, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 147-173.

Robertson, Thomas S. (1976) "Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior," Journal of Advertising Research, 16

(April), 1 9-24 .

Rothschild, Michael L. (1979), "Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations," in Attitude
Research Plays for High Stakes, ed. John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman, Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 74-93.

Sherif, Carolyn W., and Carl I. Hovland (1961), Social Judgement: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in
Communication and Attitude Change, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sherif, Carolyn W., Muzafer Sherif and Roger E. Nebergall (1965), Attitude and Attitude Change, Philadelphia: W.
B. Saunders.

Sherif, Muzafer and Hadley Cantril (1947), The Psychology of Ego Involvement, New York: John Wiley.

Sherif, Muzafer, Carolyn W. Sherif (1967), Attitude, Ego Involvement, and Change, New York: John Wiley.

Tyebjee, Tyzoon T. (1979), "Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice," Journal of Consumer
Research, 6 (December), 295-304.

Webster, Frederick E., and Frederick von Pechmann (1970), "A Replication of the Shopping List Study," Journal
of Marketing, 34 (April), 61-63.

----------------------------------------