Skip to main content

Full text of "Differential involvement with products and issues : an exploratory study"

See other formats


UNIVERSITY  OF 

ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

A,T  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

BOOKSTACKS 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  BOOKSTACKS 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  renewal  or  its  return  to 
the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped 
below.  You  may  be  charged  a  minimum 
fee  of  $75.00  for  each  lost  boolc. 

llMft,  imitUotien,  ond  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  octlon  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

TO  RENEW  CAU  TELEPHONE  CENTER,  333-8400 
UNIVERSITY    OF    ILllNOiS    liBRARY   AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


1996 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date  below 
previous  due  date.  LI 62 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


http://www.archive.org/details/differentialinvo21hupf 


no-   cilf^ 


Faculty  Working  Papers 


Differential  Involvement  With  Products 

and  Issues:   An  Exploratory  Study 

Nancy  T.  Hupfer  and  David  M.  Gardner 

University  of  Illinois 


College  of  Commerce  and  Business  Administration 

University  of  Illinois  at  U  rba  n  a  -  C  h  a  m  p  a  i  g  n 


FACULTY  WORKING  PAPERS 
College  of  Commerce  and  Business  Administration 
University  of  Illinois  at  Urbana-  Champaign 
August  2,  1971 


Differential  Involvement  With  Products 

and  Issues:   An  Exploratory  Study 

Nancy  T.  Hupfer  and  David  M.  Gardner 

University  of  Illinois 


To  Be  Presented  At 

Association  For  Consumer  Research 
Annual  Conference 
University  of  Maryland 
September  1,  1971 


No,  21 


This  paper  reports  findings  intended  to  clarify  thinking  about  an 
ambiguous  variable  that  is  often  assumed  away  or  designed  into  behavioral 
studies  in  an  arbitrary  manner.   This  troublesome  variable,  ego- involvement,* 
is  often  given  cavalier  treatment  because  of  the  difficulty  of  accurately 
defining,  measuring  and,  more  importantly,  recognizing  its  importance  as 
a  critical  variable. 

The  topic  of  involvement  has  not  been  extensively  explored  in  the  liter- 
ature. An  occasional  study  appears  dealing  with  involvement  with  issues  (12) 
and  also  an  occasional  study  dealing  with  importance  of  products  (15,2),  but 
no  study  has  reported  combining  these  two  categories  to  explore  the  relative 
involvement  of  people  with  issues  and  products. 

Cardozo  in  his  study  on  the  influence  of  effort  in  satisfaction  implied 
that  the  more  valuable  or  important  a  product  is  to  a  consumer,  the  more 
effort  he  will  put  forth  to  acquire  it  (1).   Likewise,  Sherif,  Sherif  and 
Nebergall  suggest  that  involvement  with  a  topic  or  issue  influences  how 
information  relating  to  that  particular  topic  or  issue  is  processed  (12, 
p.  242-44).   And,  one  of  the  more  widely  researched  issues  in  the  roarketing 
and  social  psychology  literature  -  cognitive  dissonance  -  has  as  one  of 
Its  main  tenets  that  the  importance  of  cognitive  elements  affects  the  mag- 
nitude of  dissonance  (3),   Also,  it  is  a  truism  that  the  more  central  a 
belief  is  to  a  person's  view  of  himself  and  the  world,  the  more  difficult 
it  is  to  modify  that  belief. 


*  Ego-involvement  as  used  in  this  paper  is  the  definition  offered  by 
Freedman:   "a  general  level  of  interest  in  or  concern  about  an  issue 
without  reference  to  a  specific  position."  (4) 


2 

Yet,  surprisingly,  there  seems  to  be  little  hard  evidence  regarding 
what  issues,  topics  or  products  are  important  or  ego-involving  and  those 
that  are  low  in  importance  or  ego -involvement.  Much  of  our  thinking 
about  ego -involvement  is  based  upon  intuition,  so  perhaps  it  is  time  to 
examine  the  accuracy  of  these  assumptions. 

Muzafer  Sherif  has  been  concerned  with  involvement  as  a  major  com- 
ponent in  his  approach  to  attitudes  and  attitude  change.   He  suggests 
that  "ego"  is  an  unstable  constellation  of  attitudes  which  can  be  referred 
to  as  ego-attitudes.   These  attitudes,  which  are  characteristic  of  the 
person  and  a  part  of  him,  form  with  respect  to  objects,  persons,  situ- 
ations, and  groups.   The  contents  (objects,  persons,  etc.)  of  the  ego 
provide  a  frame  of  reference  for  the  individual  so  that  he  may  adjust 
his  social  behavior.   Ego-involvement  exists,  then,  when  any  conscious 
or  unconscious  stimulus  is  related  by  the  individual  to  the  domain  of 
the  ego.   Ego-involvement  affects  not  only  what  will  be  learned  and  how 
it  will  be  learned,  but  also  how  the  individual  behaves  and  makes  judg- 
ments.  Thus,  judgments  and  behavior,  which  follow  from  the  identification 
of  oneself  with  certain  values  and  attributes  are,  to  that  extent,  ego- 
involved.   Accordingly,  the  degree  of  ego- involvement  can  be  determined 
by  the  relative  importance  of  attitudes  that  the  individual  holds  regarding 
the  object  or  issue.   This  degree  of  ego -involvement  can  also  be  called 
the  intensity  with  which  an  attitude  is  held  (13). 

For  Sherif,  ego- involvement  is  an  internal  factor  which  operates  in 
a  judgmental  situation  and  which  has  direction.   For  example,  an  individ- 
ual would  be  positively  ego-involved  with  his  spouse  and  negativel;/  ego- 
involved  with  an  enemy  (14). 


3 

A  method  for  measuring  ego- involvement  has  been  developed  and  tested 
by  Sherif,  Sherif  and  Nebergall  (12).   Their  procedure  measures  involve- 
ment through  a  judgmental  process  in  which  attitudes  are  expressed  in 
terms  of  attitudes  of  acceptance,  rejection  and  noncommitment .   Opera- 
tionally, they  define^ involvement  as  being  high  when  the  latitude  of 
rejection  is  large  relative  to  the  latitude  of  acceptance  with  the  lati- 
tude of  noncommitment  being  almost  non-existent.   They  have  studied  such 
issues  as  prohibition,  desegregation  and  presidential  elections. 

The  problems  and  limitations  existing  in  the  work  of  Sherif,  Sherif 
and  Nebergall  point  up  the  gaping  holes  in  our  understanding  of  ego- 
involvement.   While  they  have  dealt  with  issues,  the  Issues  were  probably 
highly  involving  to  start  with.   Naturally  people  would  be  involved  with 
elections  in  an  election  year,  so  their  results  probably  cannot  be  extra- 
polated to  less  involving  issues  or  products.   Likewise,  Sherif,  Sherif 
and  Nebergall  were  primarily  interested  in  involvement  within  a  certain 
situation  (i.e.,  situational  involvement).  The  effects  of  situational 
constraints  and  their  influence  on  an  individual's  feelings  and  action 
tendencies  is  not  to  be  denied,  but  the  measurement  of  involvement  without 
respect  to  the  situation  has  much,  if  not  more,  to  offer  those  interested 
in  message-processing  by  people.   This  is  based  on  the  premise  that  com- 
munications will  be  differentially  processed  depending  on  the  level  of 
involvement  with  the  topic  of  the  communication. 

Preedman  proposed  two  definitions  of  Involvement:   1)  Involvement 
is  an  "interest  in,  concern  about,  or  commitment  to  a  particular  position 
on  an  issue,"  and  2)  Involvement  is  a  "general  level  of  interest  in  or 
concern  about  an  issue  without  reference  to  a  specific  position."  (4) 


4 

Kovland's  analysis  of  the  divergence  of  results  between  attitude 
change  in  the  experimental  situation  and  through  surveys  gives  support 
to  this  study  by  stating  that  deeply  involving  issues  can  be  used  in 
experiments,  which  to  some  extent,  was  the  method  of  exploration  used 
in  this  study.   Since  attitude  change,  in  particular,  is  not  relevant, 
we  do  not  need  to  deal  with  the  reasons  for  discrepancy,  but  his  sugges- 
tions with  respect  to  involving  issues  are  useful  (5). 

Rokeach's  interpretation  of  attitudes  and  values  gives  insight  into 
the  study  of  involvement.   He  suggests  that  individuals  have  a  hierarchy 
of  values  along  a  continuum  of  importance,  which  is  called  the  indi- 
vidual's value  system.   Attitudes  and  values  are  interconnected  within 
the  individual  to  form  a  hierarchical  mental  organization  which  is  intern- 
ally consistent.   Changes  in  either  attitudes  or  values  affect  the  entire 
system,  which  in  turn  usually  produces  a  change  in  behavior.   In  an  actual 
measurement  of  values,  Rokeach  found  a  relationship  between  "terminal" 
values  (world  at  peace,  equality  of  all  men,  freedom,  national  security) 
and  involvement.   He  reports  that  values  transcend  the  situation  and  pro- 
vide a  standard  for  guiding  an  individual's  attitudes,  actions,  and 
emotions  (11) . 

Perspective  is  given  to  the  understanding  of  involvement  by  Krugman, 
who  suggests  that  involvement  with  a  product  or  issue  is  distinctly 
different  from  involvement  with  the  channel  or  media  through  which  a 
communication  about  some  product  or  issue  is  received.   Involvement  with 
advertisements  is  operationally  defined  as,  "the  number  of  connections, 
conscious  bridging  experiences  or  personal  references  per  minute,  that 
the  subject  makes  between  the  content  or  the  persuasive  stimulus  and  the 


5 

content  of  his  own  life,"  (10)  Krugman  demonstrates  that  by  this  opera- 
tional definition  people  are  less  involved  with  television  advertising 
than  with  advertisements  appearing  in  magazines.  He  has  also  demon- 
strated this  same  phenomenon  by  recorded  brain  waves  of  a  subject 
watching  television  commercials  or  reading  a  magazine  (8). 

Krugman  also  argues  that  most  people  are  rather  low-involved  with 
television  and  with  the  products  advertised  on  television.  Therefore, 
he  argues  that  what  really  takes  place  is  not  persuasion,  but  a  type 
of  association  learning  that  may  not  result  in  any  attitude  change  until 
(or  even  after)  the  person  is  confronted  with  a  stimulus  such  as  a  package 
in  the  store  (9) . 

Reviewing  the  literature,  then,  we  find  that: 

1.  Involvement  refers  to  ego- involving  attitudes. 

2.  The  relative  importance  of  issues  to  the  individual  is  a  measure  of 
involvement. 

3.  Communications  have  differing  effects  depending  on  the  involvement 
with  the  topic  by  the  receiver  of  the  communication. 

The  following  study  is  designed  to  test  empirically  the  widespread 
intuitive  hypothesis  that  issues  are  more  important  (ego-involving)  than 
products  and  to  give  some  evidence  of  product  and  issue  ranking  on  this 
variable. 

Twenty  products  and  twenty  issues  were  chosen  for  investigation.   In 
general  the  products  were  representative  of  goods  that  college  students 
would  be  knowledgeable  about  and  either  have  purchased  or  could  reasonably 
anticipate  purchasing  in  the  next  few  years.  Likewise,  issues  were  repre- 
sentative of  those  about  which  college  students  would  have  some  knowledge. 


6 

It  was  not  the  purpose  of  tVits  study  to  investigate  a  subject's 
position  on  an  issue  or  brand,  nor  the  usage  rate  of  a  product  or  the 
amount  of  time  spent  in  relationship  to  an  issue. 

After  extensive  pre-testing  it  was  found  that  the  word  "importance" 
most  closely  approximated  the  concept  of  ego- involvement  used  in  this 
study.*  Other  words  tested  were  'meaningful',  'central',  'satisfaction', 
•involvement'  and  'significant.'   It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
word  'involvement'  could  not  be  used  because  of  its  extensive  use  with 
the  war  (i.e.,  involvement  in  Viet  Nam)  and  other  current  issues  in  the 
sense  of  physical  participation  in  various  activities  such  that  other 
meanings  seem  to  have  been  forgotten. 

Subjects  were  forty-four  male  students  enrolled  in  an  undergraduate 
consumer  behavior  course  at  the  University  of  Illinois-Urbana .   Each 
subject  was  given  a  list  of  ten  issues  and  ten  products  which  he  was  to 
locate  on  a  series  of  eight  concentric  circles.   (See  Figure  1)  The  use 
of  concentric  circles  allows  the  respondent  to  express  more  accurately 
how  he  perceives  the  importance  (involvement)  of  the  various  products 
and  issues  than  if  he  were  merely  asked  to  rank  or  rate  them.   There  is 
no  reason  to  anticipate  that  results  obtained  in  this  manner  would  be 
inconsistent  with  those  obtained  using  a  paired-comparison  procedure. 
The  paired-comparison  procedure  is  not  realistic  for  this  study  because 
of  the  large  number  of  possible  pairs. 


*  A  general  level  of  interest  in  or  concern  about  an  issue  or  product 
class  without  reference  to  a  specific  position  or  brand.  Adapted  from 
Freedman  (4),   This  also  was  consistent  with  the  exogenous  variable, 
"importance  of  purchase"  in  Howard  and  Sheth,  The  Theory  of  Buyer 
Behavior  (7). 


7 

.  Subjects  were  told  that  the  arrow  on  the  diagram  moves  £rom  the 
outer  circle  which  represents  things  of  no  importance  toward  the  central 
point  which  represents  the  most  important  things  imaginable.  An  example 
used  was  that  of  the  Christians  who  on  being  thrown  to  the  lions  would 
place  their  religious  beliefs  right  in  the  middle  of  the  diagram.  Sub- 
jects were  also  reminded  that  their  exact  beliefs  about  a  product  or  issue 
were  not  what  was  being  measured,  but  rather  how  important  the  issue  or 
product  was  to  them  personally. 

RESULTS 

The  space  between  each  circle  was  assigned  a  number  for  the  purposes 
of  scoring,  8  being  the  most  important  (central  point  of  the  circles) 
and  1  the  least  important  (the  outer  circle).  The  data  were  analyzed 
using  a  completely  randomized  analysis  of  variance  procedure,  with  each 
product  and  issue  representing  one  treatment  level.*  Following  the  over- 
all analysis  of  variance  procedure,  differences  between  Individual  products 
and  Issues  were  explored  using  Tukey's  HSD  (honestly  significant  difference) 
multiple  comparison  procedure  (16,  p.  87). 

The  means  for  all  products  and  issues  are  presented  in  Table  1. 

The  analysis  of  variance  procedure  reported  in  Table  2  Indicates 
that  the  difference  between  products  and  issues  Is -significant  at  the  .01 
confidence  level.  Tukey's  HSD  multiple  comparison  test  was  used  to  make 
all  pair-wise  comparisons.  The  critical  value  for  these  data,  which  must 
be  exceeded  to  Indicate  significant  difference  at  the  .01  level,  is  1.73. 
The  number  of  pair-wise  comparisons  significant  at  the  .01  level  of  con- 
fidence is  considerable.  The  results  of  Tukey's  HSD  tests  did  support 


*  Adjustment  was  made  for  unequal  n  following  the  procedure  of  Winer 
(16,  p.  222-4). 


0  !-.  :sa»'j 

-/ro3  io  X»vsl    J[0. 


8 

our  basic  assumption  that  issues  are  more  involving  than  products, 
however. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  those  products  specified  by  subjects  as  being 
of  little  importance  (low  level  of  ego- involvement)  are  significantly 
different  from  those  specified  as  being  of  high  importance.  For  Instance, 
the  product  facial  tissues  is  viewed  as  significantly  less  important 
than  beer  and  all  higher  rated  products.  Likewise,  the  product,  auto- 
mobile, is  viewed  as  significantly  more  important  than  a  movie  and  all 
lower  rated  products. 

The  same  tjrpe  of  analysis  can  be  made  for  issues  and  between  Issues 
and  products.  Of  course  it  is  obvious  that  issues  as  a  class  are  more 
Important  than  products  as  a  class  (t  »  12.72).  Furthermore,  we  find 
products  viewed  as  most  important  are  only  equivalent  to  the  middle  group 
of  issues  and  are  viewed  as  being  significantly  less  important  than  the 
Viet  Nam  war,  future  occupational  status  and  the  draft. 

The  data  suggests  that  the  products  and  Issues  examined  In  this  study 
fall  roughly  into  three  groups,  representing  three  levels  of  Importance 
or  ego-involvement.  The  first  group  would  include  those  products  and 
Issues  which  have  a  mean  value  falling  between  1.19  and  2.91.  The  second 
group  would  Include  those  products  and  issues  having  a  mean  value  between 
3.00  and  4.81  and  the  third  group  would  be  issues  having  a  mean  value  above 
5.00.  Obviously  this  is  an  arbitrary  classification  and  open  to  much 
conjecture  and  statistical  haggling. 

DISCUSSION 

The  extensive  series  of  Investigations  in  the  area  of  communication 
and  persuasion  following  from  the  work  of  the  Yale  group  has  increased 


9 

our  understanding  of  the  communication  process.  A'  review  of  these  studies 
however,  indicates  that  most  issues  used  by  Hovland  and  others  would  pro- 
bably be  considered  to  be  relatively  ego-involving  or  important  (i.e., 
treatment  of  juvenile  delinquents,  devaluation  of  currency,  early  end 
of  the  war  with  Japan  (6).   The  frequent  extension  of  these  findings 
to  include  response  to  persuasive  marketing  communications  for  relatively 
low-involving  products  is,  however,  potentially  misleading. 

Rather  than  relying  entirely  on  these  findings  in  the  future,  adver- 
tisers (as  well  as  communicators  in  general)  would  be  wise  to  subject 
their  own  topic  or  product  to  some  empirical  analysis  regarding  its  impor- 
tance to  their  customers.   If  their  products  are  truly  low  involving,  it 
means  that  the  problem  of  selective  exposure  looms  large,  but  it  also 
means  that  the  cognitive  process  involved  in  giving  meaning  to  commun- 
ications about  low- involving  products  is  sufficiently  different  from 
more  involving  products  or  issues  to  make  many  assumptions  questionable. 
For  instance,  Sherif,  Sherif  and  Nebergall  suggest  that  "evaluations  or 
opinions  of  the  uninvolved  or  slightly  involved  individual  will  vary 
significantly  with  changes  in  the  order  of  arguments,  the  style  and  plan 
of  the  communication,  the  identity  of  the  communicator  (low  or  high 
prestige) ,  and  almost  any  procedure  that  invests  some  aspect  of  himself 
in  support  of  one  stand  or  another  in  the  situation."  On  the  other  hand, 
they  state  that  people  who  are  highly  involved  "are  less  susceptible  to 
attitude  change  in  the  first  place  and  less  responsive  to  variations  in 
the  itmediate  communication  situation,  such  as  characteristics  of  the 
communication  designed  to  sway  him."  (12,  p.  16). 


10 
Depending  on  future  research,  there  appear  to  be  some  possible  appli- 
cations of  the  findings  reported  here.   Realizing  that  individuals  are 
probably  more  involved  with  most  issues  than  they  are  with  the  products 
they  purchase  and  consume,   the  first  possible  application  of  this  idea 
would  be  in  the  development  of  advertising  appeals.   For  most  segments 
of  the  market  that  the  creative  advertising  person  is  trying  to  appeal 
to,  he  must  remember  that  under  most  conditions  his  product  does  not 
rank  very  high  in  the  consumer's  hierarchy  of  things  important  to  him. 
Level  of  involvement  by  topic  probably  varies  across  a  wide  variety  of 
sociodemographic  variables.  This  implies  that,  for  instance,  a  parti- 
cular social  class  may  be  highly  involved  with  automobiles,  but  another 
considerably  less  involved.   Involvement  with  a  product  may  be  a  function 
of  purchase  experience.   Similarly,  an  individual's  knowledge  about, 
interest  in,  and  concern  with  an  issue  would  influence  his  involvement. 
Finally,  individuals  play  a  variety  of  roles,  which  may  influence  which 
products  or  issues  are  important  when  related  to  a  particular  role. 

This  does  not  suggest  that  advertisers  must  incorporate  contemporary 
Issues  into  their  advertising  appeals,  but  that  they  should  place  the 
importance  of  their  products  in  its  proper  perspective  and  appeal  to  the 
consumer  appropriately.   On  the  other  hand,  when  a  believable  connection 
can  be  made  between  an  issue  and  a  product,  this  might  attract  more  poten- 
tial consumers  (i.e.,  more  individuals  would  probably  perceive  this  adver- 
tisement).  Also,  once  a  product  has  been  related  in  the  consumer's  mind 
to  an  issue,  something  important  to  him,  the  probability  of  this  person's 
retaining  knowledge  of  the  product  is  increased. 


11 

More  generally,  researchers  studying  consumers'  involvement  with 
products  in  the  future  should  realize  that  the  continuum  of  involvement 
does  not  range  from  product  A  to  product  Z  or  from  brand  1  to  brand  7, 
but  extends  to  a  broader  categorization  of  products  and  issues.   Although 
more  research  is  needed  in  the  area,  it  now  seems  that  individuals  are 
more  involved  with  issues.   Overlooking  this  fact  could  exaggerate  what 
actually  exists  in  the  consumer's  mind.   Clear  support  is  not  given  to 
the  intuitive  feeling  that  the  more  expensive  a  product  is,  the  more 
important  or  ego  involving  it  is  to  the  individual.   In  fact,  based  on 
this  study,  we  would  have  to  say  that  some  other  factor  is  accounting  for 
a  large  part  of  the  variance. 

The  results  of  this  study,  to  a  great  extent,  conform  to  intuition. 
Nonetheless,  these  results  point  out  the  absolute  necessity  of  taking 
into  account  the  actual  level  of  ego- involvement  with  a  product  or  issue 
if  the  investigator  believes  there  will  be  a  differential  response  to 
communications  based  on  the  level  of  involvement  with  the  topic  of  the 
communication.  Further,  these  results  should  serve  as  a  call  to  reeval- 
uate many  of  the  studies  on  which  communication  theory  is  based. 


TABLE  1 


Mean  Values  for  all  Products  and  Issues# 
(Ascending  Order  of  Importance) 
PRODUCTS  ISSUES 


Fraternity  membership 

Apollo  flights 

Lowering  voting  age  to  18 

Religious  beliefs 

Legalization  of  marijuana 

Censorship 

Grades 

Legalization  of  abortion 

Federal  aid  to  education 

Presidential  elections 

Sports 

Cost  of  living 

Racial  equality  in  work, 
housing  and  education 

Birth  control 

Freedom  of  speech 

Environmental  pollution 

World  peace 

Viet  Nam  war 

Future  occupational  status 

The  draft 

Mean  for  all  issues 


!!< 

n 

Facial  tissues 

1.19 

21 

Bicycle 

1.39 

23 

Soup 

1.52 

21 

Comb 

1.65 

23 

Cola 

1,81 

21 

Cigarettes 

1.83 

23 

Portable  typewriter 

1.86 

21 

Toothpaste 

1.95 

21 

Transistor  radio 

2.14 

21 

Coffee 

2.61 

23 

Movie  (in  a  theater) 

2.67 

21 

Color  television 

2.83 

23 

Pants 

2.91 

23 

Beer 

3.00 

21 

Milk 

3.09 

23 

News  magazine 

3.24 

21 

Bed 

3.74 

23 

Meat 

3.78 

23 

House 

4.17 

23 

Automobile 

4,52 

21 

Mean  for  all  products  =  2.59 

#  Range  of  possible  values  =  1  to  3 
1  »  no  importance 
8  «  highest  importance 


X 

n 

2.38 

21 

2.91 

23 

3.48 

23 

3.71 

21 

3.76 

21 

3.95 

21 

4.17 

23 

4.48 

23 

4.56 

23 

4.78 

23 

4.81 

21 

5.09 

23 

5.17 

21 

5.57 

21 

5.62 

21 

5.67 

21 

6.17 

23 

6.28 

21 

6.43 

23 

6.71 

21 

-  4. 

79 

TABLE  2 

Analysis  of  Variance 
All  Products  and  Issues 


Source  of  Variacion S.S. D.F.   M.S. F 

Between  All  Products  and  All  Issues      2030.3     39  52.06    26.27 

Within  Groups                        1664.4    840  1.98 

F. 01:40,  oo=  1.59 


FIGUEIE  1 

On  the  circle  diagram  below,  as  the  arrow  moves  FROM 'the  outer  circle  TO 
the  central  point,  this  indicates  sweater  degrees  of  IMPORTANCE  in  your 
life.   (KEEP  IN  MIND:   YOU  ARE  CONSIDERING  HOW  IMPORTANT  EACH  ITEM  IS 
TO  YOU.) 


1.  Please  place  the  number  of  each  item  somewhere  on  the  circle  diagram, 
that  is  appropriate  for  you. 

2.  Cross  off  each  number  after  you  place  it  on  the  diagram. 

3.  Stay  within  the  outer  circle. 


\ 


\ 


\ 


V 


i  tii.; 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1.  Cardozo,  Richard  N.,  "An  Experimental  Study  of  Customer  Effort,  Expec- 
tation and  Satisfaction,"  Journal  of  Marketing' Research,  2(August, 
1965)  p.  244-49. 

2.  Cohen,  Joel  B.  and  Marvin  E.  Goldberg,  "The  Dissonance  Model  in  Post- 
Decision  Product  Evaluation,"  Journal  of  Marketing  Research,  7(August, 
1970)  p.  315-21. 

3.  Festinger,  L.  A.,  A  Theory  of  Cognitive  Dissonance,  Stanford,  Stanford 
University  Press,  1957. 

4.  Freedman,  Jonathan  L.,  "Involvement,  Discrepancy  and  Change,"  Journal 
of  Abnormal  and  Social  Psychology,  69(1964)  p.  290-95. 

5.  Hovland,  Carl  I.,  "Reconciling  Conflicting  Results  Derived  From  Exper- 
imental and  Survey  Studies  of  Attitude  Change,"  American  Psychologist, 
14(January  1959)  p.  8-17. 

6.  Hovland,  Carl  I.,  Irving  L.  Janis  and  Harold  H.  Kelley,  Communication 
and  Persuasion,  New  Haven,  Yale  University  Press,  1953. 

7.  Howard,  John  A.  and  Jagdish  N.  Sheth,  The  Theory  of  Buyer  Behavior. 
New  York,  John  Wiley  &   Sons,  Inc.,  1969. 

8.  Krugman,  Herbert  E.,  "Electroencephalographic  Aspects  of  Low  Involve- 
ment:  Implications  for  the  McLuhan  Hypothesis,"  unpublished  paper 
circulated  by  Marketing  Science  Institute,  October,  1970. 

9.  Krugman,  Herbert  E.,  "The  Impact  of  Television  Advertising:   Learning 
Without  Involvement,"  Public  Opinion  Quarterly.  29(Fall,  1965)  p.  349-56. 

10.  Krugman,  Herbert  E.,  "The  Measurement  of  Advertising  Involvement," 
Public  Opinion  Quarterly,  30(Winter  1966-67)  p.  583-96. 

11.  Rokeach,  Milton,  "The  Role  of  Values  in  Public  Opinion  Research," 
Public  Opinion  Quarterly,  32(Winter  1968-69)  p.  547-59. 

12.  Sherif ,  C  rolyn,  Muzafer  Sherif  and  Roger  Nebergall,  Attitude  and 
Attitude  Change,  Philadelphia,  W.  B.  Saunders  Company,  1965. 

13.  Sherif,  Muzafer  and  H.  Cantril,  The  Psychology  of  Ego-Involvements . 
New  York,  John  Wiley  and  Sons,  Inc.,  1947. 

14.  Sherif,  Muzafer  and  0.  J.  Harvey,  "Level  of  Aspiration  as  a  Case  of 
Judgmental  Activity  in  which  Ego-Involvements  Operate  as  Factors,"" 
Sociometry,  14(    )  p.  121-147. 

15.  Sheth,  Jagdish  K.  and  M.  Venkatesan,  "Risk  Reduction  Processes  in 
Repetitive  Consumer  Behavior,"  Journal  of  Marketing  Research 
5(August,  1968)  p.  307-310. 

16.  Winer,  B.  J.,  Statistical  Principles  in  Experimental  Design,  New  York, 
McGraw-Hill  Book  Company,  1962. 

17.  Zimbardo,  P.  G.,  "Involvement  and  Communication  Discrepancy  as  Deter- 
minants of  Opinion  Conformity,"  Journal  of  Abnormal  and  Social  Psychology. 
60(1960)  p.  86-94.