Danny Weathers

Assessing Three Sources of Misresponse to Reversed Likert Items

Data collected through multi-item Likert scales that contain reversed items often exhibit problems, such as unexpected factor structures and diminished scale reliabilities. These problems arise when respondents select responses on the same side of the scale neutral point for both reversed and nonreversed items, a phenomenon the authors call “misresponse.” Across four experiments and an exploratory study using published data, the authors find that misresponse to reversed Likert items averaged approximately 20%, twice the level identified as problematic in previous simulation studies. Counter to prevailing thought, the patterns of misresponse and response latency across manipulated items could not be attributed to respondent inattention or acquiescence. Instead, the pattern supports an item verification difficulty explanation, which holds that task complexity, and thus misresponse and response latency, increases with the number of cognitive operations required for a respondent to compare a scale item with his or her belief. The observed results are well explained by the constituent comparison model.

Assessing generalizability of scales used in cross-national research

Abstract Increased globalization has generated considerable interest in testing theories in other countries that were developed in the United States. A requirement for any cross-national research should be that measures (scales) of constructs are generalizable across countries, and an important related issue is how many items and subjects are needed to generalize the scale across countries. This article discusses the use of generalizability theory (G theory) to assess the extent to which a previously administered scale can be generalized across countries and also to estimate the number of scale items and subjects needed to obtain a desired level of generalizability for future studies. The article further illustrates how G theory can be used in conjunction with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) framework to provide supplementary evidence of measurement invariance across countries. An empirical illustration of both G theory and the CFA-based framework is provided using data collected from multiple countries. The article concludes with a discussion of the unique benefits of CFA and G theory and suggests that the two techniques should be treated as complementary techniques for assessing measurement invariance and estimating the number of items and subjects needed to generalize the scale across countries.

Specifying Price Judgments with Range-Frequency Theory in Models of Brand Choice

To construct a price judgment, consumers compare a focal price with one or more reference prices. However, reference price operationalizations in the brand choice literature use single-point summary measures that cannot account for several distributional effects. To account for effects beyond the first moment of the reference price distribution, the authors specify price judgments in models of brand choice in accordance with range–frequency theory. The findings indicate that range–frequency price judgments provide a more complete specification of reference price effects and become more important with an increase in the second and third moments of a reference price distribution. The data also indicate that range effects are stronger for coupon users and frequency effects are stronger for consumers exposed to a trend of prices. The results have several implications for choice modeling, pricing theory, and pricing strategy.

Consumer Responses to Bonus Pack and Product Enlargement Claims

In conveying product size increases, manufacturers use labeling tactics that can be classified as “bonus packs” (more for the same price) or “product enlargements” (more, but no mention of price). One study shows that when consumers do not know a product’s original size and price, attitudes are more favorable toward a bonus pack than an economically equivalent product enlargement. This difference disappears when consumers know the original product size and price. A second study shows that, less intuitively, a product enlargement associated with a small (but not a large) price increase is evaluated as positively as a comparable bonus pack. The result for a small price increase and corroborating evidence support an account in which the product enlargement’s economic inferiority is offset by consumer’s use of the quantity discount heuristic. Implications for product manufacturers and consumer researchers are discussed.

Tracking food intake as bites: Effects on cognitive resources, eating enjoyment, and self-control

While monitoring food intake is critical for controlling eating, traditional tools designed for this purpose can be impractical when one desires real-time feedback. Further, the act of monitoring can deplete valuable cognitive resources. In response to these concerns, technologies have been developed to aid those wanting to control their food intake. Of note, devices can now track eating in number of bites taken as opposed to more traditional units such as pieces or volume. Through two studies, the current research investigates the effects of tracking food portions at the bite level on cognitive resources, enjoyment of the eating experience, and objective and subjective self-control. Results indicate that using wearable technology to track bite portions, as compared to doing so mentally, (1) reduces cognitive resource depletion, (2) is equally as effective for allowing users to successfully achieve eating goals, and (3) does not reduce enjoyment of the eating experience. These results support the viability of tracking food intake at the bite level, which holds a number of potential implications for eating and weight management.

Effects of Price/Quantity Presentation Order and Timing on Consumer Value Judgements

Bundling is defined as products or services sold together with two or more items at an equivalent or a lower price (Guiltinan 1987). Bagchi and Davis (2012) have demonstrated that the presentation order (price first or quantity first) affects consumer perceptions of a multi-item package. In addition, they proposed that unit price calculation difficulty moderates the relationship between presentation order and consumer perceptions. This study offers an extension of these findings by considering presentation timing (sequentially or simultaneously) along with presentation order. Scarce that few studies in extant literature have considered both presentation order and presentation timing together. In this research, we hypothesized that consumers would evaluate a bundled offer higher if the offer was simultaneously presented with price information first and quantity information second. This is because simultaneous price/quantity presentation order is more consistent with promotions which consumers typically encounter in daily life. In addition, simultaneous presentation does not require memorization of the offer, leading consumers to reduce their mental effort. As such, we anticipate that consumers will evaluate these offers more favorably. A 2 (presentation order: price first or quantity first) × 2 (presentation timing: sequentially or simultaneously) factorial between subjects design was conducted using MTurk to gather data. Results showed that in scenarios with simultaneous presentation of offer information, consumers considered products with price information presented first as higher quality than those with quantity information presented first. This study demonstrated how presentation order and timing jointly influenced consumer value judgments of bundled offers. In future research, unit price calculation difficulty will be added to evaluate how presentation order and timing can influence consumer value judgments of the product offered. In addition, multiple offers will be provided to consumers to better understand their value judgments. Based on this investigation, meaningful suggestions can be offered to marketing managers as they consider various pricing strategies.

Comparing Consumer Reactions to Percentage and Absolute Values: An Analogue Magnitude Encoding Perspective

When marketers wish to communicate a change in a quantifiable product attribute, such as price, weight, or volume, they often do so by providing the original quantity along with the amount of the change. The original quantity can be referred to as a primary, or base, value, and the change amount can be referred to as a secondary value. Secondary values are typically indicated in one of two formats: (1) as a percentage of the primary value (e.g., 20 oz. plus 10% extra) or (2) as an absolute value (e.g., 20 oz. plus 2 oz. extra). Interestingly, even when the two formats convey equivalent quantities, research suggests that consumers may not perceive them as such (e.g., Chen, Monroe, and Lou 1998; DelVecchio, Krishnan, and Smith 2007; Heath, Chatterjee, and France 1995; Kim and Kramer 2006a).