SCALE NAME: Purchase Intention SCALE DESCRIPTION: The scale is typically characterized by multiple Likert-like items used to measure

the inclination of a consumer to buy a specified good or use a service. The various versions of the scale discussed here employed between two and four items. Most of the studies appear to have used seven-point response scales with the exception of Okechuku and Wang (1988) who used a nine point format. Stafford (1998) modified the statements for use with services and called the scale conative attitude toward the ad. SCALE ORIGIN: The source of this scale is a study of the physical attractiveness of models in advertisements (Baker and Churchill 1977). Consistent with the tripartite theory of attitudes, scales were developed to measure the cognitive, affective, and conative components of one's evaluation of an ad. Item-total correlations indicated that the three items expected to capture the conative component (#1, #2, and #3 below) were homogeneous. It should be noted that while the scale was developed to measure the conative dimension of one's attitude toward an ad, the statements instead measure the conative dimension of attitude toward the brand. Technically, therefore, this scale does not measure behavioral intention towards an ad although it could certainly be used with a product described in an ad. RELIABILITY: Alphas of .73, .91, .81, .81, and .81 have been reported by Kilbourne (1986), Kilbourne, Painton and Ridley (1985), Neese and Taylor (1994), Perrien, Dussart, and Paul (1985), and Stafford (1998), respectively. Okechuku and Wang (1988) reported two alphas: .82 and .77 for clothing and shoe ads, respectively. The item-total correlations reported in their study also provide some evidence of scale item homogeneity. VALIDITY: No examination of the scales validity was reported by Neese and Taylor (1994) though they authors stated in general terms that they used item-total correlations and the results of a factor analyses to purify each of their scales. The item-total correlations reported by Okechuku and Wang (1988) indicated that items composing this scale had much higher correlations with scores on this scale than with correlations with total scores on two other scales (cognitive and affective dimensions of attitude). This provides some evidence of convergent and discriminate validities although at the item level rather than the scale level. As some evidence of content validity, Perrien, Dussart and Paul (1985) used items taken from the literature and tested with 15 marketing experts. All were unanimous in connecting the expected items with the proper dimensions of attitude (affective, cognitive, and conative).
2000, Dr. Gordon C. Bruner II

COMMENTS: Several users of this scale referred to it as a semantic differential. However, it is described here as a Likert-type because it does not use a series of bi-polar adjectives but is instead composed of a series of statements responded to on a scale with the same verbal anchors. REFERENCES: Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1977), "The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations," JMR, 14 (November), 538-555. Kilbourne, William E. (1986), "An Exploratory Study of Sex Role Stereotyping on Attitudes Toward Magazine Advertisements," JAMS, 14 (4) 43-46. __________, Scott Painton and Danny Ridley (1985), "The Effect of Sexual Embedding on Responses to Magazine Advertisements," JA, 14 (2) 48-56. Neese, William T. and Ronald D. Taylor (1994), Verbal Strategies for Indirect Comparative Advertising, JAR, 34 (March/April), 56-69. Okechuku, Chike and Gongrong Wang (1988), "The Effectiveness of Chinese Print Advertisements in North America," JAR, 28 (October/ November) 25-34. Perrien, Jean, Christian Dussart and Francoise Paul (1985), "Advertisers and the Factual Content of Advertising," JA, 14 (1), 30-35, 53. Stafford, Marla Royne (1998), Advertising Sex-Typed Services: The Effects of Sex, Service Type, and Employee Type on Consumer Attitudes, JA, 27 (2), 65-82. SCALE ITEMS: * 1. Would you like to try this __________? 2. Would you buy this __________ if you happened to see it in a store? 3. Would you actively seek out this __________ (in a store in order to purchase it)? 4. I would patronize this __________.

This is the version of the scale reported by Baker and Churchill (1977) and the anchors on the seven-point response scale were yes, definitely and no, definitely not. Kilbourne, Painton, and Ridley (1985), Kilbourne (1986), and Neese and Taylor (1994) used phrases based upon these item. Okechuku and Wang (1988) appear to
2000, Dr. Gordon C. Bruner II

have used short phrases based upon these items. Perrien, Dussart, and Paul (1985) used items that referred to an ad the respondents had been exposed to and then asked questions similar to these items. Their scale also incorporated one bi-polar adjective (influential/not influential) that was included to measure the perceived power of the ad to affect purchase behavior. Stafford (1998) used items similar to #1, #3, #4 (above). Each statement began with the phrase "If I needed a __________ service" and was apparently responded to using a seven-point agree/disagree scale.

2000, Dr. Gordon C. Bruner II