STUDY THREE: VALIDITION OF WICKLERIAN EISNERIAN MIMICRY SCALE This step is conducted to establish the scale’s criterion validity (predictive) and construct/trait

validity (nomological, discriminant and convergent). Studies by Campbell and Fiske (1959), Churchill (1979), and Walsh and Mitchell (2005) were followed as guides for this stage. For this to be achieved, new survey forms and collection of new data was required. This is discussed in the following section.

Sample

A new survey was designed by including the 11-item Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry scale items and the measures to be used to test for predictive, nomological, discriminant and convergent validity. The survey was pre-tested on respondents that are similar to the intended sample used for the main data collection. A focus group like exercise was conducted to collect feedback regarding the possible issues with the readability, grammatical,

comprehension of instructions, and so on. The pre-test showed that the new survey is fit to be used.

The data collection is conducted using a new group of respondents who do not have prior exposure to any of the mimicry scale development procedures. After removing any incomplete or inappropriately completed data, 141 useable responses remained.

Criterion (predictive) and Construct (nomological) Validity

Trait and nomological validity are both useful distinctions for the exploration of construct validity (Campbell, 1960). Eastman et al. (1999, p. 44) stated that “criterion validity is the extent to which a measure is related to actual behaviours of other real life outcomes (Anastasi, 1986; Nunnally, 1978)”. This form of validity relates to the ability of a scale “to predict something that should theoretically be related or ability to predict” (Oh, 2005, p. 301). In addition, Churchill (1979) proposes that as a final step to scale development, it is important to show that the measure behaves as expected to other constructs. Hence, criterion validity attempts to correctly predict the criterion measure. Perception of luxury and product evaluation of mimic brand is included to test for the criterion validity of the presence of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry. Previous studies have demonstrated product similarities are expected to have a significant effect on product evaluation (Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason, 1993;

van Horen and Pieters, 2012). However, according to DeVellis (2003, p. 52) even if the

157 correlation between a predictor measure and a criterion is high, the score obtained on the predictor may not serve as the most accurate estimate of the criterion.

For Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry, the perception of luxury and product evaluation both recorded positive Cronbach’s alpha scores (α = .874 and α = .864 respectively). The criterion (predictive) validity of the Wicklerian-Eisnerian scale was supported. Those who perceive a high presence of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry (measured by the scale developed for this study) had a significantly lower mean score of perception of luxury towards mimic brand (M

= 1.6800, SD = .7964) than those who perceive a lower presence of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry (M = 2.2171, SD = 1.0520) (t = -3.203, p = .002). In addition, those who perceived a high presence of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry had a significantly lower mean score of product evaluation of mimic brand (M = 2.2436, SD = 1.038) than those who perceive a lower presence of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry (M = 3.0229, SD = 1.1679) (t = -3.528, p

= .001). This is explained by the fact that Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimics are of highly similar to the model brands (i.e. blatant copies) (van Horen and Pieters, 2012b). Therefore it results in a negative product evaluation from consumers. This finding is in line with the definition of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry.

In conjunction with establishing criterion validity, the use of the consumers’ evaluation scale should also be used to establish “nomological validity”. Initially proposed by Cronbach and Meehl (1955), nomological validity serves as a form of construct validity that is lawlike and the examination of the constructs and measures is conducted using formal hypotheses based on theory (Peter, 1981; Cadogan et al., 1999). When an instrument is believed to have nomological validity, it will demonstrate relationship to another construct to which it is theoretically related (Churchill, 1995). The link between nomological validity and criterion (predictive) validity lies in the explanation that “the degree which the construct as measured by a set of indicators predicts other constructs that past theoretical or empirical work says it should predict” (Droge, 1997). As proposed by previous studies (e.g. van Horen and Pieters, 2012b) the presence of mimicry (similarity between products) should lead to attitude and evaluation formation. Therefore, to test for the nomological validity of the presence of mimicry scale, it is anticipated that there should be a relationship between presence of mimicry, perception of luxury and product evaluation as dictated in the literature (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2008). This would provide evidence that the scale and the related constructs in the study should behave as what theory dictates (Cadogan et al., 1999).

Past studies have used correlations to test for the relationship between constructs in validation of scales (Heeler and Ray, 1972). In addition, when examining the nomological validity of a measure, it is paramount for the researcher to also concentrate on a pattern of the results between the criterion and predictors rather than just the significance of the results (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Netemeyer et al., 1991). Therefore, while nomological validity is achieved in this study, further research that identify the patterns would need to be conducted in order to robustly justify the scales as having nomological validity. At this stage, with the support of previous results, the scales continue in their line of positive results towards validation.

Based on the results in Table 5.6A, it is shown that there are significant correlations between the presence of mimicry scale and other constructs which are theoretically related. Therefore it can be suggested that the presence of mimicry scale predicts the relationships as what past studies have documented. Although there are no direct studies that examine the presence of Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry, it can be postulated that the scale has the “ability to predict”

what past studies in imitation and product similarity has postulated.

Table 5.6A: Results for criterion and construct validity (Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry) Pearson

Correlations Presence of

Mimicry Perception of

Luxury Product

Evaluation

Presence of Mimicry 1

Perception of Luxury .377** 1

Product Evaluation .405** .709** 1

**p ≤ 0.01

Trait Validity (discriminant and convergent)

Based on the fundamental principles in science, a particular construct or trait should be measurable by more than one method (Churchill, 1979). Furthermore, Peter (1981) has stated that in addition to construct validity, trait validity provides necessary information for

accepting construct validity. Distinctive to construct validity, trait validity relates to the empirical relationship between measures of different constructs (Peter, 1981). Trait validity can be conducted using discriminant and convergent validity tests (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). The intention to conduct discriminant and convergent validity tests is to primarily examine “the amount of systematic variance in a measure’s scores and determine whether the systematic variance results in high correlations with other measures of the construct and low

159 correlations with constructs of other phenomena with which the construct should not be associated” (Peter, 1981, p. 135). Convergent validity relates to the degree of agreement in measures of the same or similar construct, whereas discriminant relates to the degree which measures of conceptually different constructs differ (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Churchill, 1979; Oh, 2005).

According to Ping (2004), discriminant validity has been typically established in past studies as using correlations. It is determined by demonstrating that a measure does not highly correlate with another measure from which it is different (Campbell, 1960). It is suggested that correlations with other measures below 0.7 is deemed as acceptable and can serve as evidence of measuring distinctness and discriminant validity (Ping, 2004). On the other hand, convergent validity is “based on the correlation between responses obtained by maximally different methods of measuring the same construct” (Peter, 1981). Following Ping (2004) and Walsh and Mitchell’s (2005) as guidelines for the validity tests, for discriminant validity the Brand Familiarity scale is used. The Brand Familiarity scale is chosen because it is believed that theoretically, the presence of mimicry scale should not be related to Brand Familiarity (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005) as the items that the scale consists of are “I am familiar…”, “I am knowledgeable about…”. The three-item scale was reliable (α = .939). The Brand Familiarity scale is from Kent and Allen (1994).

For convergent validity, the use of Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) Overload-Confusion scale was used and the scale is found to be reliable (α = .845). The Overload-Confusion scale is selected based on the justification that when consumers are faced with brands that are closely similar and with a great number of brands to choose from, they become overloaded with information (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). As a consumer, one will begin to simplify the information they can process about the brands (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). According to Walsh and Mitchell (2005), when there are a great number of brands in a product category to choose from, it is often a sign of brand copying and in this case testing for the presence of mimicry scale further emphasizes the presence of brands with similar features. Therefore, based on this premise, it is postulated that information overload and presence of mimicry likely to be positively correlated.

In order to show discriminant validity, a correlations test is conducted between the Brand Familiarity scale and the presence of mimicry scale. As previously discussed, it is postulated

that Brand Familiarity should not theoretically relate to the presence of mimicry scale since brand familiarity discusses the level of knowledge a consumer has (Kim and Chung, 2012), as opposed to whether there are similar attributes between two products (presence of mimicry scale). The results in Table 5.7A shows that the presence of mimicry and the Brand

Familiarity scale has a low but significant correlation, which shows some discriminant validity.

In order to demonstrate convergent validity, a correlations test is conducted between the Confusion-Overload and the presence of mimicry scale. The bivariate correlation (Pearson) between the two scales was .48 and is statistically significant at .05, this suggests a degree of convergent validity.

Table 5.7A: Results for discriminant and convergent validity (Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry) Pearson

Correlations Presence of

Mimicry Confusion

Overload Brand

Familiarity

Presence of Mimicry 1

Confusion Overload .480** 1

Brand Familiarity -.234* -.057 1

**p ≤ 0.01, *p ≤ 0.05

Concluding comments for Study Three

From this study, we can observe that the proposed Wicklerian Eisnerian mimicry scale performed successfully in the predictive, nomological, convergent and discriminant validity tests.

161 STUDY FOUR: GENERALIZABILITY OF WICKLERIAN EISNERIAN SCALE The purpose of this study was to increase the generalizability of the scales by performing a CFA on the previously validated items in each of the scales using a variation in the stimulus, through the use of a different product category and brand.

Generalizability

It is important for a scale to be able to function under varying conditions and scenarios in order for it to be successfully adopted and applied both academically and managerially. In order to test for the generalizability of the scale, the stimulus consisting of the collage of two brands (one model and one mimic) within the same product category is produced. The stimulus included new images pertaining to Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry. A new survey was produced. This generalizability test is adopted from one of the main studies (see Chapter 6).

Sample

The stimuli are newly created collage using real life brands falling under one of the four product categories chosen for the main study. A focus group for each of the stimuli was undertaken with the respondents similar to that used in the intended group for analysis. The stimuli were discussed with the group to ensure that they were accurately measuring the form of mimicry the scale was designed to measure. A new sample was collected under conditions stated in previous studies resulting in 165 useable responses.

Results

AMOS 19 was utilized to complete the CFA. The results for the CFA in this study are revealed in Figure 5.8A.

Figure 5.8A: CFA for the Wicklerian Eisnerian mimicry scale under new conditions

Selected important statistics for the CFA (Figure 5.8A) include: Chi-square = 41.069, Degrees of freedom = 38, Probability level = .338, RMSEA = .025, RMR = .096, AGFI

= .908, CFI = .996.

Concluding comments for Study Four

The CFA showed that the Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry scale under a different condition revealed acceptable results (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The finding suggests the generalizability of the scale. The final items for this scale can be seen in Figure 5.9A.

163 Figure 5.9A: Final Wicklerian-Eisnerian mimicry scale

Items appear as a 7-point Likert scale anchored at 1 by ‘strongly disagree” and at 7 “strongly agree”.