Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COGNITIVE STRUCTURES^
John L. Lastovicka, Temple University
David M. Gardner, University of Illinois
Abstract
Jlultidimensional scaling of compact car perceptions is
used to examine differences in cognitive structure, between those highly involved wit'n compact cars and t'nose
who are not. T'he empirical results, in line with prior
theory, suggest a less differentiated and integrative
structure for the low involved.
Despite the extensive research on low involvement consumer be'havior (Maloney, 1977; Sanks and 'riart, i9'^7;
Bowen and Chafee, i57i; Chafee and 'McLeod,
':iupfer
and Gardner, 1971; Preston, i9"0; Robertson, ;976;
Rothschild and Rsy, 1974; and '^'ard, 1575), very little
is kno!>T! about the details of the differences between
the cognitive structures in the two alternative hierarchies of effects.
Introduction
Krugman's (1965) low involvement learning model has recently received renewed attention by consumer behavior
researchers (Miloney, 1977; Banks and Hart, 1977).
Krugman contended that television advertising is a special low involvement comnunication situation in which
receiver responses are a'kin to the passive learning of
nonsense syllables. He furt'ner suggested that the repetition of advertising resulted in a replacement of
old brand perceptions with a new set of beliefs. This
new cognitive structure was said to guide brand choice
behavior without changing attitude (affect) first.
Krugman's original research stimulated consumer behavior
researc'hers to conceptualize t'ne advertising process in
a situation-specific "micro t'neoretical" manner. For
example, Ray et al. (1973) present alternative hierarchies of effect for different levels of involvement.
One hierarchy, the standard COGKITrvE-AFFECTIVE-><:ONATIVE
order, is labeled the learning hierarc'ny, and is seer.
as most appropriate fcr 'nigh involvement decisions which
tj'picaiiy deal with high priced, 'nigh risk products.
Another hierarchy, a COGNITrvE-K:ONATIVE-AFFECTIVE order,
a low involvement 'hierarchy, is seen as being appropriate for much repetitive brand choice beViavior of inexpensive, low risk products. Figure 1 presents the two
hierarc'nies.
Figure 1
Alternative Hierarchies of Effect
LOW INVOLVEMENT:
Affective
(feel)
HIGH. INVOLVEMENT:
Conative
(do)
Conative
(do)
+
Affective
(feel)
Cognitive
(learn)
Cognitive
(learn)
"Learn-Feel-Do"'
Data
One hundred twenty-seven respondents from ar.. introductory marketing course completed a questionnaire dealing
with low price, medium price and luxury domestic compact
cars. Responses were collected on:
1.
iO
(1.)
3.
4.
3.
6.
Fontiac Ventura
AMC Hornet
1
1
Chevy Nova
Definitely
Acceptable
Neutral
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
This last battery of ten questions is based on the Sherif and Sherif (1967) Own Categories Procedure measurement of involvement. The Sherif method starts with a
list of items relevant to an attitude. This may be objects, pictures, or verbal statements about some topic
or issue. In the current research the items are ten
brand names of compact cars.
In the OwTi Categories Procedure respondents are asked to
sort items into categories of acceptability. Considerable research (Sherif and Eowa.rd, 1961; Sherif, Sherif
and Nebergall, 1965) confirms that the items that an individual accepts, rejects and towards which he is neutral
or noncommittal varies systematically vrith his personal
involvement. Specifically the Sherifs found:
Proportional to his lack of involvement, the
number of positions the individual accepts and
rejects become approximately equal and his latitude of none oimr.i tmen t increases. This means that
highly inv'o 1 ved persons have a much broader latitude of rejection than persons less concerned,
and that thev remain noncommittal toward fewer
A n a l y s i s and Results
A pair of multidimensional scaling (KDS) models. Young's
TORSCA (1968) and Carroll and Chang's INOSCAL (1970),
were used tc uncover the underlying dimensions used by
the respondents in evaluating the similarities between
the ten compact cars.
Information processing researchers Schroder, Driver and
Streufert (1957) cite aggregate level MDS methods as a
good measure of differentiation or the number of dimensions used by individuals in processing information.
Individual differences ifflS models such as INDSCAL, which
indicate to what degree respondents use the underlying
dimensions, offers direct measurement of integration or
the degree to which the dimensions are used simultaneously and are interrelated. .Also, MDS researchers
Shepard, Romney and Kerlove (1972) show MDS useful in
recovering degree of cognitive complexity. MDS, therefore, seems well suited for tapping cognitive complexity.
for the low, medium and high groups were 14.28, 19.9C
and 24.70, respectively.
Hypothesis One
.'.verage, standardized similarity matrices for '"e paired
comparison data were, computed for t'ne high and low involvement groups. The result was two 10 x. 1.0 average
matrices cf car model dissimilarities. The high and low
involvement dissimilarity raatrices were scaled st an
aggregate level using the TORSCA algorithm. In each
case, solutions were obtained in one t'nrough four dimensions. Fig-are 2 s'nows t'ne reiations'nip between the
Kruscai's stress statistic (the goodness cf fit betweer.
the origir^al dissimilarities data and the n-dimensionai
>n)S configuration'! and t'he dimensionality of the solution. Examination of Figure 2 s'nould be done in t'he
same spirit as the ''root staring" procedure in factor
analysis in which eigenvalues are plotted versus t'neir
number. 'This comment is miade because established statistical tests for comparing stress levels are not available. Just as in "root staring," then, subjective judgment must play a. large role in t'ne current analysis.
The stress measures for the high and low involvement
scaiings shown in Figure 2 are in support of t'ne first
hypothesis. A simple unidimensional model of dissimilarities is a much better representation of cognitive
structures fcr the low involvement group than the high
involvement group. T'nis simplest scaling indicates t'r.at
a more complex model is needed for the high involvement
group. For the two and t'nree dimensional scaling solutions, differences In stress are not great. Yet these
two and three dimensional solutions offer slightly better fit fcr the high involvement group. Finally, for
the four dimensional scaiings, the most complex models
built in t'nis analysis, t'ne results are as theory predicts. Such further complication does not provide a
better representation cf cognitive struoture for the low
involvement group, yet better fit is margirsaliy obtained
for t'ne hig'h involvement group.
Hvpot'nesis Two
model was used to examine cognitive comThe INDSC
plexity ir. terms of integration. This model assumes a
conmion stimulus space, with differential weighting of
the dimensions of this common space for each respondent.
A respondent's position in t'ne IIiIDSCAL person space represents t'ne salience he assigns to each of the dimens?Lons in the common stimulus space. Thus, the weig'nts
can be used to estimate an individual stimulus space fcr
e.ich person. T'ne iridividual stimulus configurations are
based or. the conution stimulus space, but are differentially "stretched" in accord with, the square roots cf
t'ne respondent's own weights.
The two dimensional group stimulus space in Figure J
was interpreted with the classic L U X m Y and SPORTY dimension.
Figure 3
Two-Space Commorj. Stimulus Configuratioi:. fcr IKDSCAL Scaling Analysis
Figure 2
A Comparison of the Kruscal Stress
Statistic Across ]-4 Dimeasionai
Solutions for Group TORSCA Scalings
12
LOW IK\'OL\'ED
m,
KIGE IN\'OL\'ED
9 Pacer
Hornet
Comet
"^Maverick
^Monarch
Granada
'LUXURY"
Ventura
Skylark
a
Nova
*Oids Omega
i"SPORTY'''
0.0
i.O
2,0
3.0
4.0
NIMBEE OF DIKENSIONS
FIGURE 4
INDSCAL Persor. Space: Plot of Two-Space
Respondent Weights from INDSCAL Analysis
"LEFT" CLUSTER
"CENTER" CLUSTER
equal use of
both dimensions
"SPORTY"
DIMENSION
WEIGHT
I"RIGHT" CLUSTER
} disproportionate use
!
of "LUXURY" dimension
Reierences
Table 1
Standardized Discriminant Weights
Banks, S. and E. '>v.
Methods," in Robert
Assects cf Consuaer
Science Foundation,
rredictor Variable
Automotive Knowledge
Functional .Automotive Preference
.-.utomotive Image Preference
.^.utomotive Thrill Seeking
Overall Compact Car Familiarity
I'G.ntv C o m p a c t ^ a r tanii,,ii.arit'^'
ir.volvenient Index
Age
Sex
Social Class
Group Means on Discriniiiiant Function
Group
Mean
2.99
i.S4
the integrative group wbich used both the INDSCAL stimulus space dimensions equally, has the highest score.
It seems then that equal use of both dimensions occur
priniarilv under high involvement. Low invcivement cognitive structures seem less integrative and rely primarily or one dimension.
Discussion
The general findings of this study are in line with
prior theory.. Low involvement cognitive structures do
seem to. be simpler than high involvement structures in
at least two ways. First, low invcivement structures
seem less differentiated as they can be represented
adequately with fewer dimensions than high involvement
structures. Second, low involvement structures tend tc
be less integrative. In the current data, a. two space
map of a low involved individual's compact car perceptions is typically most reliant on one dimension. The
simultaneous, integrative approach is apparently not
worth the effort on the part of the low involved consumer.
Despite the support for the global hypothesis, several
pcints must be kept in mind.
Pirst, the differences found in cognitive structure can
cniv be said to be potentially due to involvement. Crucial differences besides involvement may be responsible
for the observed phenomena. Further research in this
area should include both use of experimentation and
muitipie measurement approaches to involvement.
Second, cognitive structure, the dependent measure, was
measured only along two dimensions: differentiation and
integration. Cognitive differences in terms of discrimination, for ejcampie, were not examined.
Third, differences have been examined between individuals for a given product. Though such an approach is
useful for market segmentation, the real thrust of low
involvement consumer behavior concerns differences between products.
In conclusion, this study should be seen as a very basic
exploration into the nature of the differences between
high and low involvement cognitive structures. The
taper should help to underscore that there is a difference between the low involved consumer and the high involved consumer that most researchers have implicitly
s.ssumed.
Rothsohlld, M. L., "Advertising Strategies for High Involvement and Low Involvement Situations," in John C.
Maioney, ed. , .Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes
(Chicago; .American Marketing Association, i9"7, in
press^,.
Rothschild, M. L., and M,. L, Ray, "Involvenent and
Political Advertising Effect: An Exploratory Experiment,
Communication Research, 1 u'uly, 1974), 260-5.'..