Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

I.OU' INVOLVEMENT VERSUS HIGH ,.

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)

.Adapted from Ray et al. '1973).


terminology from Raymond (1976).

"Learn-Feel-Do"'

''Preparation of this paper was aided by 'Jni%'ersity of


Illinois participation in. the. General Motors Ir.tercollegiate Marketing Competition. The authors acknowledge
wit'n thanks the. assistance of graduate students Patrick
Kerrili, Bruce Sewinan, Gary Pope, and Kwok-C'neutig Wong
fcr use of their data.

One general assumption in this literature is that a 1


involvement cognitive structure is much less complex
t.han a high involvement cognitive structure. Based o
t'nis assumption, it has beer- suggested thst those adv
tisirig low invoivenent products discuss fewer product
attributes in their advertising copy (Rcthschiid, iS'^
Lastovic'Ka and Gardner, i?77). Yet this global hypot hesis, of less complex cognitive structure in low invol vement, 'nas not been specifically put to empirical test
The intent of this paper is to test this glo'oal hypot hesis.

Method and Hypotheses


Oae approach of demonstrating the effects of involvement
on cognitive structure is to compare and contrast groups
of respondents who differ in their level cf involvement
with a given product class. In this study subjects highly involved wit'n compact cars were compared to su'ojects
who 'nad a low level of invclvenent with compact cars,
.Although a correlation^.! approach necessarily creates
ambiguous statements, such sn approach provides an opportunity to ric'nly demonstrate the powerful effects of involvement en cognitive complexity.
Schroder, Driver and Streufert (1967) discuss sev rai
aspects of cognitive complexity in infcrcation pr ocessing. Twc important aspects are "differentiatio
and
''integration." Broadly defined, differentiation refers
to dimensionality or t'ne num'oer cf dimensions use.d by an
individual in processing inf oraatior,: and Integra tion. refers to the extent dimensions are interrelated or used
Simultaneously. The influence of involvenent on both
differentiation and integration were testec with these
hypotheses:
A ur.idimensionai model of car model similarities
will produce a better representation cf car model
perceptions for low involved cor.suajers than for
high involved consumers. More complex nulti-dimensionai representation of brand perceptions wili be
better models of the cognitive structure of the
'nig'ri involved, but not necessarily t'ne low involved
consumers.
For a giver, dimensionality, hig'nly involved consumers will tend to be more integrative and rely
simultaneously on several perceptual dimensions.
Low involved consumers will rely primarily on a
lesser number of perceptual dimensions.

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.

Twenty-two lifestyle items. A 1-5 strongly d.isagree


--strongly agree scale was used.
Forty-five paired compa rison dissimilarity items for
ten different compact c s. A 1-9 extremely similar
extremely dissimilar scale was used to measure perceptioas cf these ten ompact car models;
Pontiac Ventura
AMC Pacer
Ford Maverick
AMC Hornet
Mercury Comet
Oldsmobile Omega
Buick Skylark
Ford Granada
Chevrolet Nova
Mercury Monarch
These ten cars include the "look-alike" parity models of Granada-Monarch Nova-Omega-Skylark-Ventura,
and Msverick-Comet.

positions, even when not required to evaluate


all of them.
(Sherif and Sherif, 1967, p. i9l,
ita.lics added.)
Typically, an involvement index is created in which the
ratio of the number of items rejected to the number of
items accepted., adjusted by the number of neutral items,
is computed. Kith the current data such a measure was
undefinable for many respondents for whom the number of
items accepted and/or rejected was zero.
However, an involvement index which relied on the number
of items which subjects were neutral or noncommittal
about was operable with the current data. Depending or.
their degree of noncommitment or neutrality, respondents
were rated in involvement with the following index:
Ini'oivement Index
for Individual.

iO
(1.)

3.

In addition to the forty-five paired comparisons for


the ten stimuli, a repeated set of ten paired COB:parison items were completed by each subject. Testretest reliability on the paired comparison task
could then, be measured for each subject.

w h e r e Xj_j i s t h e i t h individual's response to the j t h of


the t e n acceptability questions and 4 is the n e u t r a l
point o n t h e i-7 s c a l e . Following Sherif, a h i g h involvement index n u m b e r computed fron: (1) indicates a
small d e g r e e of n o n c o m m i t t a l and a high level of i n v o l v e m e n t . A low index number represents a large l a t i tude cf non-committal and a corresponding l o w level of
involvement.

4.

A battery of familiarity questions. Subjects were


asked how familiar they were with each of the ten
car models or, a 1-7 not at all familiarvery famiIxsr scale.

By r e c o d i n g the responses to the acceptability q u e s t i o n s


for t h e ten. inakes and models o f compact cars using ( 1 ) ,
an involvem:n.t index w i t h a range of 0-30 w a s computed
for each r e s p o n d e n t .

3.

A battery of demographic questions including age,


sex and perceived social class.

6.

A battery of ten questions ir. which respondents were


asked to sort each of the car models into different
categories of acceptability. The question posed was:
"How acceptable to you are each of the
following car models?"
Definitely Not
Acceptable

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.

Preprocessing the Data


Since each respondent provided two sets of judgments for
ten of the possible forty-five paired comparisons, a
reliability index was computed for each respondent with
Spearman's rank order correlation. Those 79 respondents of the ;27 whose reliabilities were above the
critical level of .54 were retained for both the TORSCA
and INDSCAL analyses. The average Spearman correlation
for this retained group of 79 X'Jas .77.
Once involvement indices were computed, the retained
sample of 7 9 was divided into three, approximately equal
sized, involvemerxt groups; low, medium, and high. The
low group consisted of thirty respondents whose involvement indices were }7 or less. Twenty respondents, with
indices between IS 3.nd 21, were the medium group; and
another twenty-nine respondents, with indices of 22 and
over, were the high group. The mean involvement indices

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.

The person space, showing each of t.he 7 9 respondent s


saliences for the two dimensions cf the common stim^u l U S
space, is shown in Figure t. Using visual clusteri-n g
the respondents were grouped into three clusters re p r esenting three integrative styles. .A "left" cluster f
19 respondents who made disproportionate use of the
SPORTINESS dimension was identified. A "center" cl u s t e t
of integrative respondents w'no made roughly equal u s e cf
both of the common stimulus space dimensions has li r e spondents. T'ne third, cluster, a "right" cluster of
respondents, contains t'nose w'no made disproportiona
use of the LUXURY dimension.
The next step of the analysis was to- test the influence
of involvement on integrative complexity.
In s two

style, familiarity and demographic measures were used to


predict membership- in the integrative "center" cluster
or t'ne nonintegrative "left" anc "right" cluster
Thoug'n the prime interest is in detecting the influence
of involvement on integration, it was felt tne predictive power of this variable should be compared with
ot'ners. Examination of normalized discriminant function
weights allows easy comparative assessment of the predictor variables.
Rather than use tne entire battery of the 71 li:-;style
and familiarity measures as predictors in the discriminant analyses, two independent principal axes factor
analyses were used on these measures- to create a set of
six parsimonious underlying factors.
T'ne first factor analysis conducted on the 22 lifestyle
items revealed four connon fact.;-rs. After a varim^ax
rotation the four factors were easily interpretabie.
The first factor, an automotive knowledge factor, r.ad
high positive loadings on items such as: "T know a let
about oars:"' and "People often coce to me for inforrsation." The second factor, a functional automotive
preference factor, had high positive loadings on itens
like: "I like to drive a car that will hole -.^p in an
accident;" and hig'n negative loadings on items sucr, as:
"You can tell a lot about a person from the model of oar
he drives." The third factor, an image preference factor, loaded highly on items liks: "i thir.k cars are a
mark of status;" and "I like to 'nave the best looking
car on tne road." The fourth lifestyle factor, ar,
automotive t'nrill-see'King factor, loaded riighly on items
such as: "I like to drive fast;" and "I like to listen
tc music while driving." Factor scores were t'nen estimated on these four lifestyle factors.
The second factor analysis was- conducted on the familiarity ratings for the ten compact cars. Two factors
were extracted in this analysis; tr^e first was an overall familiarity factor and t'ne second was familiarity
with certain models of parity .lars. Familiarity with
t'ne differences between the "look-ali'Ke" parity models
of 'Dmega, I\ova, S.^ylsrk and Ventura, for example, was
independent cf overall familiarity. Factor scores were
also estimated for these two fan:iiiarity factors.
Using lifestyle factor score estimates, familiarity factor score estimates, the in.volvesient index, age, social
class and a dunmy variable for sex, a significant discriminant function was found to differentiate oetween
the integrative and non-integrative groups. The obtained value of Rao's F-ratio approximation, ^io.i&~
1.96, is just significant at the .05 level. Using the
discriminant functior.. weig'nts shown in Table 1, 70.S
percent of the integrative gr-oup and 72.^ percent of the
non-integrative group could be correctly classified.
Predictive validity was further tested using U-sethod
pseudo jack-knife classification (Crask and Darder.,
1977). With t'ne U-r.et'nod a classification function was
computed for each of the 79 cases with that case omitted
from the computations. Since eac'n cf these functions
was used to classify the left-out case, a less biased
classification occurs.
Based on the U-r.et'nod jack-'knifed classification functions, 50 percent cf the integrative group and 67.;
percent cf the non-mtegra-tive group- were correctly
classified.
Examination of the relative size cf each standardized
discriminant weight in Table 1 gives an indication of
t'ne. relative imncrtance of the ten %-ariables in differentiating between the two groups. As hypothesized,
involvement is found to be a good explanatory variable
for cognitive integration. T'ne weight for the involvement index, .506, is almost twice t'ne size cf the next
largest weight. Examination of t'b.e cluster means on the
discriminant function shows thst the "center" cluster.

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

i KEY; * LOW im'OLVED


I
i MEDIUM INVOLVED
i
o HIGE IWOLVED

' disproportionate use


'; of "SPORTINESS" dimension

"CENTER" CLUSTER
equal use of
both dimensions

"SPORTY"
DIMENSION
WEIGHT
I"RIGHT" CLUSTER
} disproportionate use
!
of "LUXURY" dimension

"LUXURY" CIMEKSIOK WEIGHT

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

Kart, ".^.dvertising and Procctional


Ferber, ed., .-. Svtitheais cf Selected
Behavior {'."ashington, D.C.: National
19^"^v in press;.

5owen, 1. and S. K. Chafee, "Product Involvetnent and


Pertinent .Advertising .-Appeals," Journalise Ouarterlv,
5i (Winter, i?74), 6I3-2i.

I'G.ntv C o m p a c t ^ a r tanii,,ii.arit'^'

Caroll, J. D. anc J. .". Chang, ''.Analysis ;f Individual


Differences in Multidimensional Scaling Via an N-Way
Generalization of Eckart-Young Deconiposition," Psvchoaetrika, 35 (197C), 283-319,

ir.volvenient Index
Age
Sex
Social Class
Group Means on Discriniiiiant Function
Group

Mean

Integrative ("Center" Cluster)


N'or.- In t egr at ive
("Left" and "Right" Clusters)

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.

Chafee, S. H. and J. M. McLeod, "Consumer Decisions and


Information Use,
;. .-lODertson, ess.
Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources {;iaw 'fork; Prentice-Hall, ;?7 3).
Crask, K. R. and *. D. Perreault, Jr., "validation cf
Discriminant .Analysis in Marketing F.esear:h," Journal cf
Marketing, U ^February, i-^"7), 60-S.
Hupfer, K. and D, Gardner, "Differential Involvement
With Products and Issues: .Ar: Exploratory Study," Proceedings of the Association for Consuaer Research,
Second Conference, I9~l,
Krugman, K. E., "The I.-apact of Television Advertising:
Learning Without Involveaent," Public Opinion Quarterly,
29 (Fall, 1965), 349-56.
Lastovicka, J. L. and D. M. Gardner, "Components of
Involvement," in John C. Maloney, ed., -Axtitude. P.esearch
Plavs for High Stakes (Chicago: A=;erican I-Iarketing
.Associatior;, 197", in press).
Maioney, John C , ed. Attitude Research Plavs fcr High
Stakes (Chicago: American Marketing .Association, 1977,
in press).
(Proceedings of the .American Marketing
Association's Eighth Annuai Attitude Research Conference.
.All papers from two sessions:. "Must. Consumers Thir.k Before They A c t ? A Review of Low Involvement Theory" and
"Low Invcivement versus High Involvement Situations
Some Guidelines for .Action.," ceai w-ith the involvement
issue.)
Preston, L. L., "A Reinterpretation cf the Meaning cf
Involvement in Krugman's Models of Advertising Communication," Journalise Quarterly, ->' (Suianer, 1970),
2S7-95.
Ray, R. L., A. G, Sawyer, M. L. Rothschild, R. M. Heeler,
E. C. Strong., and J. E. Reed, "Marketing Communication
and the Hierarchy of Effects," in P. Clarke,' ed.., New
Models for >tass Congnunication Research (Beverly Hills,
Cai . : Sage., 1973}.
, C. Advertising Research: The State of the .Art
(New York: .Association of I'iational Advertisers, 1976).
Robertson, Thomas S, , "Low Comr.itir.ent Consumer Behavior,"
Journal of .Advertising. Research, 16 (April, I9~6), 19-

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.'..

Schroder, B. K., K. J. Driver and S. Streufert^ Humar;


Inforinatlor! Processing (New York: Holt, Riaehart and
Winston, 1967).
Shepard, R. N., A. K. Romney and S. B. Serlove, eds.,
Multidimensional Scaling, Volume I. (Nev York: Seminar
Press, 1972).
Sheriff M. and C. I. Kovland. Social Judgment: AsEiiKilatior, ar.d Contrast Effects in Communication and
Attitude Change (Sev Haven: Yaie University Press, 1953).
Sherif, !1. and C. K. Sherif. "The Own Categories Procedure in Attitude Research," in Martin Fishbeiri, ed,,
Readings ir: Attitude Theory and Measurement (New York:
Wiley, i9&7),
Sherif, K. C , K. Sherif and R. E. Nebergall. Attitude
and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment Involvement
Approach (Ne*; Haven: Yale University Press, 1965).
Ward, Scott, "Marketing Strategies for 'Low Ego-Intensity/Low Risk' Products," Intercollegiate Case Clearing
House, 1975.
Young, F. K., "TORSCA, An IBM Program for Nonmetric
Multidimensional Scaling," Journal of iferketir.g Research,
5 (August, 196S), 319-21.

Вам также может понравиться