The Houston and Rothschild S-O-R consumer invol
vement paradigm is tested for validity with measures
of involvement for a shampoo purchase decision. A
multitrait-multimethod matrix approach confirms the
convergent and discriminant validity of the measure
employed. A causal modeling analysis suggests that
enduring involvement may work through situational
involvement to influence consumer responses. Marketing
implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arora, Raj.1982. "Validation of an S-O-R Model for Situation, Enduring and Response Components of Involvement." Journal of Marketing Research (November): 505-16.
2.
Assael, Henry.1981. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Boston, Mass: Kent.
3.
Bagozzi, Richard P.1978. "The Construct Validity of the Affective, Behavioral and Cognitive Components of Attitudes by Analysis of Covariance Structures ." Multivariate Behavioral Research13 (January): 9-31.
4.
Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske .1959. "Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix." Psychological Bulletin56: 81-105.
5.
Clark, R.A. and R. Stewart.1974. "Latitude of Rejection as a Measure of Ego Involvement." Speech Monographs38: 228-34.
6.
Greenwald, Anthony G.1981. "Ego Task Analysis: An Integration of Research on Ego-Involvement and Self-Awareness." In Cognitive Social Psychology. Eds. A. Hastrof and A. Isen . New York : Elsevier-North Holland .
7.
Helgeson, James G., E. Alan Kluge, Jons Mager and Cheri Taylor.1984. "Trends in Consumer Behavior Research: A Content Analysis." Journal of Consumer Research10 (March): 449-54.
8.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild .1977. "A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement." Unpublished Paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
9.
Houston, Michael J. and Michael L. Rothschild .1978. "Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement." In Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions. Ed. Subhash C. Jain , 184-7. Chicago: American Marketing Association .
10.
Hupfer, Nancy T. and David M. Gardner .1971. "Differential Involvement with Product and Issues: An Exploratory Study." In Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research. Ed. David M. Gardner, 262-70. College Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research.
11.
Joreskog, Karl G.1971. "Statistical Analysis of Sets of Congeneric Tests ." Psychometrika36: 109-33.
12.
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom.1984. LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables, and Least Square Methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
13.
Kassarjian, Harold H.1981. "Low Involvement-A Second Look." In Advances in Consumer Research: Volume 8. Ed. Kent B. Monroe, 31-4. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
14.
Lastovicka, John and David Gardner.1979. "Components of Involvement." In Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes. Eds. John C. Maloney and Bernard Silverman, 53-73. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
15.
Leavitt, Clark, Anthony G. Greenwald, and Carl Obermiller .1981. "What is Low Involvement Low In?" In Advances in Consumer Research: Volume 8. Ed. Kent B. Monroe, 15-9. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
16.
Lovelock, C.H., R. Stiff, D. Cullwick and I.M. Kaufman.1976. "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Drop-off Questionnaire Delivery." Journal of Marketing Research13 (November): 358-364.
17.
Muncy, James A. and Shelby D. Hunt.1984. "Consumer Involvement: Definitional Issues and Research Directions." In Advances in Consumer Research : Volume 11. Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, 193-6. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
18.
Parkinson, Thomas L. and Carolyn T. Schenk .1980. "An Empirical Investigation of the S-O-R Paradigm of Consumer Involvement." In Advances in Consumer Research: Volume 7. Ed. Jerry C. Olson, 94-111. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
19.
Rothschild, Michael L.1979. "Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involve-ment Situations." In Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes. Eds. John C. M /J and Bernard Silverman, 94-111. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
20.
Sherif, Muzafer and Hadley Cantril.1947. The Psychology of Ego Involvement. New York: John Wiley.
21.
Sherif, Muzafer and Carolyn W. Sherif .1967. "The Own Categories Procedure in Attitude Research." In Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement . Ed. Martin Fishbein.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
22.
Slama, Mark and Armen Tashchian.1985. "Involvement as a Consumer Behavior Construct: A Critical Review." Working Paper, College of Business , Utah State University.
23.
Slama, Mark and Armen Tashchian .1983. "Comparing Methods of Measuring Involvement with Product Classes: A Structural Equations Approach." In Research Methods and Causal Modeling in Marketing. Eds. William R. Darden, Kent B. Monroe and William R. Dillon, 66-9. Chicago : American Marketing Association.
24.
Slama, Mark and Roobina O. Tashchian .1983. "The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort: An Extension ." In Proceedings. Eds. John P. Dickson and Denis Umstot, 317-9. Tacoma: American Institute ofDecision Sciences.
25.
Sudman, Seymour, Andrew Greely and Leonard Pinto.1965. "The Effectiveness of Self-Administered Questionnaires." Journal of Markeling Research (August): 293-7.
26.
Survey Research Center.1976. Interviewer's Manual, Revised Edition. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
27.
Zeigarnik, Bhuma V.1938. "On Finished and Unfinished Tasks." In A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. Ed. William D. Ellis.New York: Humanities Press.
