Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response: Implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products

Journal of Business Research

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 108-124

  Viswanathan, Madhubalan ^a   Sudman, Seymour ^a   Johnson, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer perceptions; Measurement; Number of response alternatives; Response categories; Scales

Indexed keywords

EID: 0348159671     PISSN: 01482963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00296-X     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bendig A.W. Reliability and the number of rating scale categories J Appl Psychol 38 1 1954 38-40
2. Block J. Buss D.M. Block J.H. Gjerde P.F. The cognitive style of breadth of categorization: longitudinal consistency of personality correlates J Pers Soc Psychol 40 4 1981 770-779
3. Bruner J.S. Tajfel H. Cognitive risk and environmental change J Abnorm Soc Psychol 62 2 1961 231-241
4. Champney H. Marshall H. Rater's minimal discrimination as a criterion for determining the optimal refinement of a rating scale J Appl Psychol 23 1939 323-331
5. Chattopadhyay A. Alba J.W. The situational importance of recall and inference in consumer decision making J Consum Res 15 1988 1-12
6. Churchill G.A. Peter J.P. Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis J Mark Res 21 1984 360-375
7. Cox E. The optimal number of response alternatives in a scale: a review J Mark Res 17 1980 407-422
8. Feldman J.M. Lynch J.G. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior J Appl Psychol 73 1988 421-435
9. Gardner R.W. Schoen R.A. Differentiation and abstraction in concept formation Psychol Monogr 76 41 1962 Whole No. 560
10. Garner W.R. Hake H.W. The amount of information in absolute judgments Psychol Rev 58 1951 446-459
11. Hinrichs J.V. Novick L.R. Memory for numbers: nominal vs. magnitude information Mem Cognit 10 5 1982 479-486
12. Holyoak K.J. Mah W.A. Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude Cognit Psychol 14 1982 328-352
13. Jacoby J. Matell M.S. Three-point Likert scales are good enough J Mark Res 8 1971 495-500
14. Johnson M.D. Fornell C. The nature and methodological implications of the cognitive representation of products J Consum Res 14 1987 214-228
15. Johnson M.D. Lehmann D.R. Horne D.R. The effects of fatigue on judgments of interproduct similarity Int J Res Mark 7 1990 35-43
16. Komorita S.S. Graham W.K. Number of scale points and the reliability of scale Educ Psychol Meas 25 4 1965 987-995
17. Matell M.S. Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? J Appl Psychol 56 1972 506-509
18. Miller G.A. The magical seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information Psychol Rev 63 1956 81-97
19. Parducci A. Category judgment: a range frequency model Psychol Rev 72 6 1965 407-418
20. Park C.W. A conflict resolution choice model J Consum Res 5 1978 124-137
21. Park C.W. Lessig V.P. Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics J Consum Res 8 1981 223-230 September
22. Poulton E.C. Bias in quantifying judgments 1989 Erlbaum Hillsdale
23. Ramsay J.O. The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values Psychometrika 38 4 1973 513-532
24. Schwarz N. Bienias J. What mediates the impact of response alternatives on frequency reports of mundane behaviors Appl Cognit Psychol 4(1) Jan-Feb 1990 61-72 John Wiley & Sons Inc. US
25. Schwarz N. Hippler H.-J. Deutsch B. Strack F. Response scales: Effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments Pub Opin Quart 49(3) Fall 1985 388-395 University of Chicago Press US
26. Sudman S. Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1982 Jossey-Bass San Francisco (CA)
27. Viswanathan M. Individual Differences in Need for Precision Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23 7 1997 717-735
28. Viswanathan M, Childers T. The encoding and utilization of magnitudes of product attributes: an investigation using numerical and verbal information. Faculty Working Paper No. 92-0105. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois, 1992.
29. Viswanathan M. Childers T. Processing of numerical and verbal product information J Consum Psychol 5 4 1996 359-385
30. Viswanathan M. Childers T. Nagaraj S. Using magnitude estimation scaling in marketing research: an application to understand how consumers think about product attributes Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference vol. 6 1995 483-489 American Marketing Association Chicago (IL)
31. Viswanathan M. Johnson M. Sudman S. Understanding consumer usage of product magnitudes through sorting tasks Psychol Mark 16 8 1999 643-657
32. Wyatt R.C. Meyers L.S. Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert-type response scales Educ Psychol Meas 47 1987 27-35
33. Zimmer A.C. A model for the interpretation of verbal predictions Int J Man-Mach Stud 20 1984 121-134