Abstract:
An empirical study is reported which attempts to validate
two key theoretical consequences of consumer involvement:
differences in brand buying behaviour and differences in
the type of decision processing undertaken.
A literature review is provided which traces the history of
involvement and identifies a suitable contemporary
framework. Work on brand loyalty and attitude modelling is
also reviewed and suitable frameworks identified.
A pilot stage is reported which shows how involvement
measurement techniques can be adapted for use among
frequently purchased products. Results from reliability
testing and differences in the mean levels of involvement
for six grocery product categories are reported.
A main fieldwork phase is reported where a consumer panel
was operated for four months (n=191). Data on levels of
involvement, decision making and purchasing behaviour were
collected from the panel using surveys and diary sheets for
three product categories: newspapers, breakfast cereals and
paper kitchen towels.
The relationship between sources of involvement and buying
behaviour was analysed using LISREL. A model of
involvement is identified which suggests that brand
involvement is generated by the risks associated with
making a poor brand choice and the levels of pleasure
associated with the product field. For newspapers, the
modelling identifies a significant (but small) relationship
between involvement and devotion of purchasing to a limited
number of brands. This relationship was not significant in
the other two product fields. Further analysis identifies
four classifications of buying behaviour (habitual, loyal,
switchers, and variety seekers) which helps to explain why
the linear relationship is so weak.
A second analysis phase is reported which examines the
utility of the Extended Fishbein Model for each of the
three product categories. This analysis supports the
notion that decision processing is more extensive where the
level of product involvement is higher.
The theoretical and managerial implications of the findings
are discussed. Strengths and limitations of the research
design are reviewed.
