Questionnaire development and pre-testing Variables and scaling (Measurements)

medium and 34 participants for large for a multiple regression with three variables).

3.4.4 Questionnaire development and pre-testing Variables and scaling (Measurements)

The issues of reliability and validity were considered in choosing the appropriate

measurements. Reliability

P

G T

most common way of evaluating reliability is through internal consistency reliability

C C

(Peterson, 1994). General recommendations point to values of 0.70 as being acceptable and 0.80 as being desirable (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994: 265). As shown in Table 3.5 below, the scales used in the experimental questionnaire had

C

above mentioned guidelines.

The second concept that was considered in the questionnaire development was

validity A

G V

interconnected and a good level of validity can signal an adequate level of reliability;

however this relationship is not reciprocal (Campbell, 1960). There are different types of validity: content validity, face validity, criterion validity, construct validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Goodwin, 2008). While content validity refers to the suitability of the measurement items for measuring a certain construct

D V

those who are G T -testing stage of the

questionnaire ensured face validity was reached, while support for content validity of used scales was offered by previous studies that employed these measurements.

The questionnaire included five sections (S) each of them measuring different constructs: emotional information management (S1), current recycling behaviour (S2), emotions (S3), recycling intentions and environmental concern (S4) and socio-demographic characteristics (S5). The same questionnaire was distributed to all three groups but changes were made to some items in S2 which were adapted so that they can clearly express the intended emotions in the context of recycling (e.g.

I I ntrol group questionnaire

I I

T

questionnaire are presented in Appendix 3.5 and the measured used are presented below (see Table 3.5 for a summarised version).

Emotional information management (EIM)

The EIM concept was assessed using the measurement developed by Taute et al.

(2010). The respondents had to rate in total 26 randomised items that compiled the four dimensions of EIM: dimension recognition of emotions, optimistic utilisation of emotions, management of emotions, and empathy (see Table 3.5).

Current recycling behaviour

Three questions about current recycling were included in S2 of the questionnaire

not included in the conceptual framework or hypotheses. Question 1 was designed

W

C L

- - - Q

W C

you take T “

D

s rated on 5-point Likert (1

This section in the questionnaire was created as a result of the pre-testing stage which showed that students who lack recycling facilities could not fill in the statements about recycling intentions. These questions also allowed an appropriate filtering of the subjects because the adverts and the experiment were designed with

Emotions

After watching the advert the students were asked to fill in Section 3 which measured their emotional responses to the video. This question included, in a

randomised order, items measuring pride, guilt and other emotions. Items for other emotions were included for manipulation checks reasons i.e. to ensure that the levels of all other emotions were very low in the pride and guilt group and that no strong emotions were particularly generated by the relaxation video in the control group. The starting point for the measurement of emotions was the Differential Emotional Scale (DES) which was developed by Izard (1972, 1974)²⁹ . A short version of DES was used which meant that only one item instead of three has been included

T

decision taken in order to reduce the cumulative length of the questionnaire (i.e. a section three times longer would have acted as deterrent for the subjects). The selection of the item was consistent with the cluster name associated by Tangney et al. (1996: 1266) for shame, guilt and embarrassment, while for all other emotions this was determined in the early stages of pre-testing (e.g. students stated that

Guilt

T DE“

scale and six items from Roseman et al. (1994)³⁰. Their original guilt scale was comprised of 10 items but some of these items were considered inappropriate for

I

I ³¹ T ‘

(1994) were subsequently adapted (see Table 3.5 and Appendix 3.5).

29 B I DE“

subscales.

30 This scale was presented “ V K

the Journal of Business.

31 T “ V K

investigated guilt as a result of pocketing the excess money given as change i.e. taking advantage of a seller.

Pride

As presented in Section 2.3.4 of the literature review, two types of pride have been

- T study

required the measurement of authentic pride since recycling can be regarded as an

“ T ‘

(2007) scale³² for authentic pride was used to measure pride related to recycling

contr O -test showed

that it was indeed inappropriate for the chosen context and behaviour (see Table 3.5 and Appendix 3.5). In the data analysis (see Chapter 5) an index of guilt was created based on the guilt items and an index of pride was created by including the items aforementioned.

Behavioural intentions C

W T cling behaviour

was comprised of the 6 items which measure the recycling intentions for different types of materials. These items were the actual measures for recycling intentions (see Appendix 3.7 for the reliability analysis of this measurement). The second

relevant to the tested relationships but it was included in the questionnaire because a bigger item pool could distract the subjects and conceal the purpose of the research i.e. recycling. In relation to this the items for the two dimensions were randomised (see Table 3.5, Appendices 3.5 and 3.7).

32 T ‘ J of Personality and Social Psychology

differentiates hubristic and authentic pride and presents the development of two scales meant to measure these different types of pride. The items that measure hubristic pride contain the following key words: arrogant, conceited, egotistical, pompous, smug, snobbish, stuck-up, which did not represent the emotion that was described by the interviewees who took part in the qualitative study.

Socio-demographic

I -demographic profile was

built using questions about age, gender type of accommodation, nationality and education level.

Behaviour

Behaviour was measured in the second part of the experiment through the product choice task (see Appendix 3.6). The subjects were asked to answer two questions about: 1) the chosen P

P

give at least 2 reasons/ex -ended

question). The decision to include measurements of actual behaviour was justified not only by the research objectives but also by the criticism related to the ability of intentions to accurately predict behaviour. Researchers (e.g. Chandon et al., 2005;

Feldman and Lynch, 1988; Morwitz and Fitzsimons, 2004) drew attention to the phenomenon of self-generated validity which leads to assuming the existence of a significant relationship intentions-behaviour even when this is inexistent; the association between the two variables is caused by the very measurement of intentions.

Self-survey respondents to form judgements that they otherwise would not access in

C

Others consider relying on the measurement of intentions is insufficient and even erroneous because of the consistency or self-presentational biases which can lead to overestimating the relationship between intentions and behaviour (Budd, 1987).

Table 3.5 Scales used for construct measurements

Variables and sources of adaptation

Dimension Scales Type

Emotional information management (EIM) Taute et al. (2010)

Recognition of

I am aware of even subtle emotions as I have them.

I keep going in the face of adversity.

I keep trying in the face of obstacles.

I

accomplishing my goals.

I have the will to win.

I continue to try even when it seems hopeless.

Management of emotions

I do not let bad moods ruin my day.

I can soothe or contain distressing feelings I need to do.

I do not get upset or frustrated when inconvenienced.

I am able to maintain my composure when things do not go well.

I maintain control when I feel threatened.

I have control over my emotions.

When I am upset at someone, I usually try

I believe there are two sides to every question and try to look at both sides.

Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their shoes.

E I I I

arguments.

I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

O

great deal.

I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them.

I am often quite touched by things I see happen

Variables and sources of adaptation

Dimension Scales Type

Differential Emotional Scale DE“ Izard et al. (1974); Tangney, Miller, Flicker, Barlow (1996)

I feel scared

I feel like I am a productive/useful person I feel like I have self-worth

G Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006); Roseman et al.(1994) I feel I like undoing some things I have done in the past

Behavioural intentions Webb et al. (2008)

Consumer

I will avoid buying from companies that harm endangered plants or animals.

Whenever possible, I will walk, ride a bike, car pool, or use public transportation to help reduce air pollution.

I will avoid using products that pollute the air.

I will avoid buying products that pollute the water.

I will make an effort to avoid products or services that cause environmental damage.

I will avoid buying products that are made from endangered animals.

I will limit my use of energy such as electricity or natural gas to reduce my impact on the environment.

Pre-testing

The pre-testing of the questionnaire was largely concurrent with the pre-testing of the stimuli/video. It was conducted with both male and female students that closely matched the targeted sample.

The pre-tests helped adapt some of the measurements presented above. Changes were made in relation to the wording of some terms e.g. for the word

A DE“

context and the video that was presented in the pride and guilt group. For example,

I I I I

I I feel fulfilled

I feel I am in the wrong with my

^.

As mentioned before, the students received a separate short questionnaire for the product choice task, in the second part of the experiment. The pre-tests showed that there was a chance that the two parts could not be consistently grouped together without a numbering system. As a result, the final version of the questionnaires included ID numbers (e.g. G1, G2, G3 etc. for the guilt group, P1 etc. for the pride group and C1 etc. for the control group). No information about the student ID number or name was requested.

The pre-tests were useful in highlighting that a mechanism for filtering subjects about their recycling habits needed to be included in the questionnaire (see section 2 in the questionnaire) since some students were not sure how to fill in the intentions scales since they had no recycling facilities where they lived.

In document The role of self-conscious emotions in ethical consumption (Page 97-106)