Main Questionnaire: Study F - Overview of the Methodology Employed In Study 2

Overview of the Methodology Employed In Study 2 - Confirmatory Scale

5.3 Main Questionnaire: Study F

5.3.1 Constructs: Measures, Descriptions and Sources

Measurement is a fundamental activity of any science. Knowledge is acquired about people, objects, events and processes by observing them. Making sense of these observations frequently requires that researchers quantify them – that is, they measure the things in which they have a scientific interest (DeVellis, 2003). Lee and Ling (2008) argue that the root of measurement lies in social processes and that these processes and their measurements actually precede science. Whatever the initial motives are, each area of science develops its own set of measurement procedures. Typically, the measurement procedure used is questionnaires, and the variables of interest are part of a broader theoretical framework.

Therefore, when designing a questionnaire, it is important for the researcher to spend time composing, designing, checking and revising the questionnaire. Iacobucci and Churchill (2010) note that non-response bias needs to be minimized, both because of the loss of information and the data analysis difficulties. Non-response bias is connected to question content, question construction, method of administration and questionnaire length. Sensitive, irrelevant, or repetitive questions, as well as those that are poorly worded, difficult to understand, difficult to answer or have insufficient response categories can frustrate respondents and produce a non-response bias.

Subsequently, important issues to address when developing the questionnaire include the length of the survey questionnaire and the items in each construct, the interpretation of wording in the survey instrument, and the need to minimize respondent bias and enhance reliability (Iacobucci and Churchill, 2010). Firstly, however individual constructs will be discussed alongside source of constructs and measure type.

5.3.2 Individual Constructs

Once the variables pertaining to the conceptual framework are identified, it is important to define individual constructs (Hair et al., 2006) to ensure a sound measurement of the developed theory, as poor construct conceptualization can have serious consequences for the validity of research (Edwards and Bagozzi, 2000; MacKenzie, 2003). According to Hinkin (1995), each construct under investigation needs to be operationalized through the selection of scale items and scale type (Hinkin, 1995). In this research, each construct can be measured using multi-item scales drawn from previous

~ 181 ~

literature and qualitative inquiry with regards to the Negative Brand Personality traits. Further, marketers are better served by multi-item measures than by single-item measures, since measurement error tends to decrease as item numbers increase (Churchill, 1979).

Another important consideration when planning research is to ensure that an adequate amount of indicators are used to measure each latent construct. There is no established ideal number of indicators; however, a minimum of three or four is recommended (Cohen et al., 1990; Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996). As Robins et al., (2001) have discussed, one should be skeptical about single-item measures due to the random error that is likely to accumulate. Therefore, multiple-single-item measures should be more reliable as they cancel out random error and thus provide a more reliable measurement.

It is worth noting that the scales for constructs pertaining to the antecedents and outcome varibales were adapted from established scales. For the purpose of developing the Negative Brand Personality scale, the steps outlined by Churchill (1979) were followed, and were supplemented by more recent guidelines detailed by DeVellis (2003). The aim was to develop a valid, parsimonious, yet relatively short measure of Negative Brand Personality that could be easily incorporated into a wider questionnaire which was clear and understandable and did not take too much of the respondents’

time and energy. Following the recommendation by Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (2003), a multi-stage development process was used to optimize the integrity of the new instrument (as discussed in Chapter 4, which detailed the four sub studies from the initial scale development study). Table 5.2 below presents the central information for each variable/construct collected regarding the conceptual framework discussed earlier.

~ 182 ~

Table 5.2: Details of the variable/construct measure, number of items and the source.

5.3.3 Physical Questionnaire Design

The physical design of the questionnaire is an important step in questionnaire development (Lee and Lings, 2008), especially in terms of increasing the response rate and collecting good quality data (Iacobucci and Churchill, 2010). The following section will detail the questionnaire structure and the physical characteristics of the questionnaire.

21 3 items reflect the actual self-concept and the other 3 items are the reverse scores.

Category Construct Description measure

Social Irresponsible Consumer rating on a 1-6 Likert type scale

Corporate Hypocrisy Consumer rating on a 1-6 Likert type scale

3 Wagner, Lutz and Weitz (2009).

Price Price Unfairness Consumer rating on a 1-6 Likert type scale

3 Campbell (2007).

Brand Confusion Overload Consumer rating on a 1-6 Likert type scale

Self-Concept Self-Incongruence Consumer rating on a 1-6 Likert type scale

~ 183 ~

5.3.4 Questionnaire Design

As discussed earlier, data was collected through paper and web-based surveys. It is believed that a survey is an efficient data collection technique when the researcher knows what is required and how to measure the variables of interest (Sekaran, 2000). Therefore, the survey was carefully structured;

it was also undisguised through briefing of the respondents about the purpose of the survey.

Moreover, as many respondents as possible were encouraged to complete the survey (Churchill, 1999).

Dillman (2007) displayed general guidelines and recommendations for increasing response rate. The length and structure of the survey is important for increasing respondents’ cooperation. In particular, it is argued that the length, type of questions, the order of items and their appearance were amongst the key indicators to increase response (Churchill, 1999; Lee and Lings, 2008; Iacobucci and Churchill, 2010). Further, it is suggested that shorter questionnaires are likely to increase respondents’

response rate relative to longer questionnaires. Another important consideration is the order in which the questions are presented to respondents (Churchill, 1999; Dillman, 2007). It has been suggested that there should be some logical order to the questions (Iacubucci and Churchill, 2010). In accordance with this, demographic variables were placed at the end of the questionnaire whilst important variables were placed at the beginning of the questionnaire (Churchill, 1999; Dillman, 2007) in order to prevent respondents from feeling threatened by giving their personal details from the outset. The consistency and clarity apparent in the questions should also be reflected in the professional design of the questionnaire, including the physical layout and formatting.

The questionnaire length was addressed by using double sided printing as this has no negative effect on response rate (Jobber, 1989). The total questionnaire consisted of six A4 pages including the cover letter and thank you note at the end. The cover letter was written to convince the respondent to cooperate, and plays an important role in increasing response rates (Iacubucci and Churchill, 2010).

Accordingly, the cover letter provided the respondent with a description of the research study, its purpose and how the data was to be used. DeVellis (1991) and Jobber and O'Reilly (1998) cover letters that appeal to the reader and give a detailed project description have been found to increase response rates; Appendix H details a copy of the final paper based questionnaire. As a result, a cover page was used to introduce respondents to the research topic and the focus of the research to motivate respondents to participate and complete the questionnaire pertaining to this study.

Further, respondents were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality in order to try to improve

~ 184 ~

response rates (Iacubucci and Churchill, 2010) and encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire (Dillman, 2007).

Jobber and O'Reilly (1998) suggested that non-monetary incentives can increase response rates. A non-monetary incentive was given to respondents in the form of miniature chocolate bars to increase response rates. In terms of time, the completion of the questionnaire was estimated to take around 15-20 minutes, which is considered to be reasonable. Furthermore, respondents were assisted in the completion of the questionnaire through instructions detailed in the cover letter: an example of one question was given which was filled out by the researcher to guide respondents on how to fill out the questionnaire. The logical format of the questionnaire is detailed in the following section.

5.3.5 Flow of Questionnaire

The questionnaire was divided into six broad categories: Section 1 was labeled ‘Brand personality traits’, Section 2 ‘Personal Characteristics’, Section 3 ‘Perceptions Of Brand Meaning’, Section 4

‘Individual Characteristics’, Section 5 ‘Outcomes Variables’, and Section 6 ‘Demographic Variables’.

The final section details personal information.

Section 1 was labeled as ‘Brand Personality Traits’, and included the developed Negative Brand Personality traits and Aaker’s (1997) brand personality traits. As the focus of the study stems from brand personality, it warrants the support in the choice of including Negative Brand Personality traits at the beginning of the questionnaire. The items were presented in a counterbalanced order, where a positive trait was presented from Aaker’s (1997) scale and the two Negative Brand Personality traits obtained from the Initial scale development study. The purpose of this was to avoid response bias and to further encourage the respondent to read the content of the item before answering the question.

Section 2 was labeled ‘Personal Characteristics’ with measures detailing the Attitude construct. It seemed logical after asking respondents to rate the brand personality trait to ask about their own characteristics, such as their general attitude towards the brand.

Section 3 was labeled ‘Perceptions of Brand Meanings’ and detailed seven subsections. The seven subsections were the antecedent variables. Although it is recognized that the antecedent variables

~ 185 ~

are relatively more important than personal characteristics, it was important to keep the respondent focused; so, after presenting respondents with a long list of brand personality traits using Likert scales, it was necessary to present respondents with relatively straightforward questions with a different form of Semantic response scale. Although the seven antecedent variables are the second most important construct, it was important to present important constructs in a counterbalanced form to increase respondents’ attention span. As a result the first antecedent construct ‘Immoral Brand Practice’ was written with a more global approach to immoral brand practice, which made logical sense given the previous question focused on respondents global attitudes. This approach provided a subtle lead to a more focused attention on the Gucci brand for the remaining constructs.

Furthermore, the content of the items required more thought and concentration relative to their global attitude. Additionally, in case respondents might not finish the full course of questions, the chances would be higher with regards to important constructs.

Section 4, labeled ‘Individual Characteristics’, was supported by one subsections: Brand Attachment.

This variable was presented straight after the discrepant self-meaning section as it was expected that respondents would find it easier to justify their responses through individual characteristics.

Section 5, labeled ‘Outcome Variables’, detailed Brand Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. The main reason for placing the dependent variable in this section was to allow respondents to reflect on their choice of responses and supports the choice to ask about their level of satisfaction and loyalty towards the end of the questionnaire as a means to justify their previous responses. It was also expected that it would be easier for respondents to complete after their evaluative perceptions of the brand. It is worth noting however, that respondents were asked on the outset before completing the questionnaire about the involvement with the brand Gucci (to have purchased the product in the past or are aware of the product purchase - whether it be from a close friend or family member) to ensure consumer’s satisfaction level is captured.

The final section provided questions on demographic variables, such as age, gender and occupation (Churchill 1999), as these questions are more personal to the respondent. On the last page of the questionnaire, respondents were thanked for their time and contribution as an incentive for their participation. See Appendix H for a sample of the final questionnaire.

~ 186 ~

5.3.6 Presentation of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was printed on A4 double sided paper which was folded into an A5 booklet (by printing two pages per piece of paper) to make the questionnaire appear more appealing. This method reduced the number of pages to four. The questionnaire was presented in a booklet format with a total of 5 pages including the cover (brief) letter, and the debrief letter at the end (Dillman, 2007). The presentation of the questionnaire in a booklet format was deemed appropriate for the potential sample to encourage respondents to complete the full questionnaire, as it looked rather a short questionnaire. The font size was not jeopardized through this format and was considered to be adequate for a person with average eye sight to complete the questionnaire with the subsequent scales.

The questionnaire was peer reviewed (Dillman, 2007) by one academic who is knowledgeable in instrument development and two senior PhD students in the field of marketing. Detailed comments were sought; in particular, comments were sought that suggested improvements regarding the layout and comprehensiveness of the questionnaire. As a result of such feedback, minor adjustments were made, such as the points on the semantic scales to ease the completion of the questionnaire.

Further, minor grammatical corrections were made to some of the item wordings, especially with reverse items to ensure an improved fit to the study’s context.

Eight respondents from the potential sample also participated in a Think Aloud Task (further details are provided in the subsequent chapter [Chapter 6] which details specific item changes). The central purpose of the Think Aloud Task was to receive further feedback on the data collection instrument by observing participants completing the questionnaire and gaining feedback as they progressed to complete the questionnaire. The aim was to assess and improve the clarity of each item pertaining to each construct and the sequence of questions (Dillman, 2007). Observing participants filling out the questionnaire provided an indication of approximately how long the questionnaire was taking for respondents to complete. The questionnaire length did not appear to be of concern.

5.3.7 Measure Type

The traditional paradigm of construct measurement has been that of reflective indicators, where a construct is viewed as causing variation in its items (hence, the items reflect the construct). That is, a single construct underlies a set of items aimed at measuring the construct (Gerbing and Anderson,

~ 187 ~

1988). Therefore, any change in the construct affects its measurement item and, vice versa, any change to the construct will bring about change to the measurement item. Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001) emphasized that a multi-item measure should reflect the underlying construct. For example, the Egotistical factor of Negative Brand Personality should, to a great extent, only measure

‘Egotistical’ and no other latent variable. So, a change in the score of the individual items of the

‘Egotistical’ construct should cause a change in the true score of this construct other than systematic or random error. Subsequently, the systematic or random error should not have a significant impact on other latent variables to render a unidimensionality (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988), which is a necessary condition for validity (Churchill, 1979). Thereby, if a measure is not unidimensional it is considered to be invalid as it captures measures other than that intended by the construct (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).

However, unidimesionality is not a prerequisite for a formative measure as the measures of variables need to correlate with each other. That is, a single latent construct underlies a set of observed scale items (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Therefore, the formative measure perspective forms an index (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2003). Unlike reflective measures, for a formative measure the indicators form the latent constructs (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2003) which do not have to be positively intercorrelated (Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2003). Therefore, different indicators of formative measures are supposed to capture different and specific aspects of the latent construct. This suggests that redundant items should be avoided (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001) as they can lead to problems with the measurement model by losing unique components of the latent construct, which can subsequently lose the meaning of the variable (Jarvis, Mackenzie and Podsakoff, 2003). This is unlike reflected measures in a specification model where items can be deleted during the item purification stage.

Further, it is worth noting that formative measurement models are still very much at the early stage of adoption (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001), with no current evidence of their adoption in prior brand personality research. With this in mind, the current research followed convention in the measurement of all variables (i.e., it adopted a reflective model rather than a formative one). This is in keeping with the almost unanimous use of reflective models in previous brand personality literature (c. f., Aaker, 1997).

~ 188 ~

It is, however, acknowledged that incorrect specification of measurement models (i.e., a model viewed as reflective when it should be formative) can lead to incorrect parameter estimates being generated (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Cadogan, Souchon and Proctor, 2008;

Diamantopoulos, 2008), which could have serious implications for reported research findings (Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Jarvis, 2005).

Having discussed the measure type alongside other key attributes of the questionnaire such as the constructs, form of response, questionnaire design and flow of questions, it is important that careful consideration is given to the brand selected to reflect a high variance between both positive and Negative Brand Personality traits. Therefore, a separate study was conducted as a form of a manipulative check to ensure the brand was not biased towards either Positive or Negative Brand Personality traits, and to further account for the highest retained total variance. The rationale for and the details of this study are given below.

5.3.8 Form of Response

The constructs and variables were operationalized with a close ended format with different forms of response measures, which were selected for reasons discussed below. By definition, Likert scales are classified as interval scales that are used to ask respondents to indicate whether they agree or disagree with an item that relates to the construct, hence rating a series of mental beliefs or behavioral belief statements (Hair et al., 2006). Interval scaling is considered to be one of the most widely used in research (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994) and is most suitable for testing the hypothesis (DeVellis, 1991). Within this scale, numbers are assigned to indicate the measurement of latent constructs in units of equal intervals (Zikmund, 2003).

The majority of the scales adopted a close ended format, which utilized a 6 point scale that was anchored by strongly agree (1) and strongly disagree (6). The main reason for this choice was that it does not permit vagueness or uncertainty (DeVellis, 2003). This, however, does mean that respondents are forced to make at least a weak commitment in the direction of one or the other extreme (forced choice between mildly agree or mildly disagree response). Given that this research was designed to prevent vagueness, it was felt by the researcher that respondents would select a neutral response as a means of avoiding choice. As brand personality is a form of self-expression (discussed in Chapter 2), it was deemed appropriate to force subjects to express a preference for information on Negative Brand Personality, antecedents and outcome variables for two reasons.

~ 189 ~

Firstly, a six-point scale provides a level of intensity where feelings can be expressed. It is also believed that more scale points are better for allowing respondents to answer questions with more specificity (Brady et al., 2005) as well as allowing the responses to be easily managed and coded (DeVellis, 1991). Secondly, Likert scaling is widely used in instruments measuring opinions, beliefs, and attitudes (DeVellis, 2003). Hair et al., (2006) recommend that Likert scales are the best designs when using self-administered surveys or online survey methods to collect data.

Therefore, a six-point Likert scale allows for the moderation of opinion to be expressed within different levels of response options. Additionally, a Likert-type scale allows for responses to be easily managed and coded and is appropriate for different statistical techniques (Iacobucci and Churchill,

In document Negative brand personality:the construct, its antecedents and outcome variables (Page 182-191)