Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Construct validity of spouses’ relative influence measures: An application of the direct product model

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the construct validity of three measures of spouses’ relative influence. A joint decision-making exercise was developed and completed by 65 couples in which relative influence was measured by two self-report measures and one outcome measure. The self-report measures were a balanced 5-point “who won” continuum and a 100-point constant sum scale. The outcome measure was derived from part-worth utility weights yielded from dummy-coded ordinary least squares regressions. The direct product model (DPM) was used to analyze the resulting multitrait-multimethod data. The model assumes that correlations among measures are influenced by method effects. Results provide evidence of convergent validity among methods and trait discriminant validity. However, the communality index suggests that the outcome measure captured a different dimension of relative influence than did the self-report measures. Implications of these findings for research in joint decision making are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, Craig M. 1984. “On the Validity of Relative Validity Studies of ‘Final-Say’ Measures of Marital Power.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 46 (August): 619–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Craig M. and Murray A. Straus. 1984. “‘Final Say’ Measures of Marital Power: Theoretical Critique and Empirical Findings From Five Studies in the United States and India.”Journal of Comparative Family Studies 15 (Autumn): 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P. and Younjae Yi. 1991. “Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices in Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (March): 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— and —————. 1992. “Testing Hypotheses about Methods, Traits, and Communalities in the Direct-Product Model.”Applied Psychological Measurement 16 (December): 373–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— and —————. 1993. “Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices in Consumer Research: Critique and New Developments.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 2 (2): 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, Sharon E. and Salil Talpade. 1994. “Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A Replication With Extension.”Journal of Consumer Research 21 (September): 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blood, Robert O., Jr. and Donald M. Wolfe. 1960.Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinberg, David and Nancy Schwenk. 1985. “Husband-Wife Decision Making: An Exploratory Study of the Interaction Process.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, vol. 12. Eds. Elizabeth Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, Michael W. 1984. “The Decomposition of Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices.”British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 37 (May): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1989. “Relationships Between an Additive Model and a Multiplicative Model for Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices.” InMultiway Data Analysis. Eds. R. Coppi and S. Bolasco. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 507–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1992.MUTMUM User’s Guide [Computer program and manual]. Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1993. “Models for Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices.” InPsychometric Methodology: Proceedings of the 7th European Meeting of the Psychometric Society in Trier. Eds. Rolf Steyer, Karl F. Wender, and Keith F. Widaman. Stuttgart and New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, Michael W. and Robert Cudeck. 1989. “Single Sample Cross-Validation Indices for Covariance Structures.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 24 (October): 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— and —————. 1992. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.”Sociological Methods & Research 21 (November): 230–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, Michael W. and S.H.C. DuToit. 1992. “Automated Fitting of Nonstandard Models.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 27 (2): 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, David J. 1992. “Husband-Wife Innovative Consumer Decision Making: Exploring the Effect of Family Power.”Psychology and Marketing 9 (May/June): 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, David J. and Jo Anne Hopper. 1986. “An Analysis of the Presence, Stability and Antecedents of Husband and Wife Purchase Decision Making Influence Agreement and Disagreement.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, vol. 13. Ed. Richard J. Lutz, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 175–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.”Psychological Bulletin 56 (March): 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald T. and Edward J. O’Connell. 1967. “Methods Factors in Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices: Multiplicative Rather Than Additive?”Multivariate Behavioral Research 2 (October): 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Erik. 1972. “Toward a Sociology of International Tourism.”Social Research 39 (1): 164–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, James S. 1973.The Mathematics of Collective Action. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corfman, Kim P. 1989. “Measures of Relative Influence in Couples: A Typology and Predictions for Accuracy.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, vol. 16. Ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 659–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1991. “Perceptions of Relative Influence: Formation and Measurement.”Journal of Marketing Research 28 (May): 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfman, Kim P. and Donald R. Lehmann. 1987. “Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (June): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cote, Joseph A. and Ronald Buckley. 1987. “Estimating Trait, Method and Error Variance: Generalizing Across Seventy Construct Validation Studies.”Journal of Marketing Research 24 (August): 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— and —————. 1988. “Measurement Error and Theory Testing in Consumer Research: An Illustration of the Importance of Construct Validation.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (March): 579–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crano, William D. and Marilyn B. Brewer. 1986.Principles and Methods of Social Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudeck, Robert. 1988. “Multiplicative Models and MTMM Matrices.”Journal of Educational Statistics 13 (2): 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cudeck, Robert. and Michael Browne. 1983. “Cross-Validation of Covariance Structures.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 18:147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Harry L. 1971. “Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence in Consumer Purchase Decisions.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (August): 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Harry L., Stephen J. Hoch, and E. K. Easton Ragsdale. 1986. “An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June): 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Harry L. and Benny P. Rigaux. 1974. “Perceptions of Marital Roles in Decision Processes.”Journal of Consumer Research 1 (June): 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, William R., Ajith Kumar, and Narendra Mulani. 1987. “Offending Estimates in Covariance Structure Analysis: Comments on the Causes of and Solutions to Heywood Cases.”Psychological Bulletin 101 (January): 126–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filitrault, Pierre and J. R. Brent Ritchie. 1980. “Joint Purchasing Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family and Couple Decision-Making Units.”Journal of Consumer Research 7 (September): 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin, Deborah D. and John Scanzoni. 1989a. “Couple Consensus During Marital Joint Decision Making: A Context, Process, Outcome Model.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 51 (November): 943–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— and —————. 1989b. “Couple Decision Making: Commonalities and Differences Across Issues and Spouses.”Journal of Family Issues 10 (September): 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, JoAnne Stilley, Alvin C. Burns, and Daniel L. Sherrell. 1989. “An Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of Husband and Wife Self-Report Purchase Decision Making Measures.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (Summer): 227–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston, Ted L. 1983. “Power.” InClose Relationships. Eds. Harold Kelley et al. New York: W. H. Freeman, 169–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston, Ted L. and Elliot Robins. 1982. “Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Studying Close Relationships.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 44 (November): 901–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, Nancy M. and John Scanzoni. 1989. “Process Power and Decision Outcomes Among Dual-Career Couples.”Journal of Comparative Family Studies 20 (Summer): 231–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kranichfeld, Marion L. 1987. “Rethinking Family Power.”Journal of Family Issues 8 (March): 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthi, Lakshman. 1988. “Conjoint Models of Family Decision Making.”International Journal of Research in Marketing 5 (3): 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, Jordan J. 1988. “Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity.”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22 (January): 93–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, Herbert W. and Dennis Hocevar. 1988. “A New, More Powerful Approach to Multitrait-Multimethod Analyses: Application of Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis.”Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (1): 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, Gerald. 1980. “Family Power: The Assessment of a Decade of Theory and Research.”Journal of Marriage and Family 42 (November): 309–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menasco, Michael B. and David J. Curry. 1989. “Utility and Choice: An Empirical Study of Wife/Husband Decision Making.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June): 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhlbacher, Hans and Gunther Botschen. 1988. “The Use of Trade-Off Analysis for the Design of Holiday Travel Packages.”Journal of Business Research 17 (September): 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munsinger, Gary M., Jean E. Weber, and Richard W. Hansen. 1975. “Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives.”Journal of Consumer Research 1 (March): 60–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, David H. 1969. “The Measurement of Family Power by Self-Report and Behavioral Methods.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 31 (August): 545–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1977. “Insiders’ and Outsiders’ Views of Relationships: Research Studies.” InClose Relationships: Perspectives on the Meaning of Intimacy. Eds. George Levinger and Harold L. Raush. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, David H. and Ronald E. Cromwell. 1975. “Power in Families.” InPower in Families. Eds. Ronald E. Cromwell and David H. Olson. New York: John Wiley, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, David H. and Carolyn Rabunsky. 1972. “Validity Measures of Family Power.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 34 (May): 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. Whan. 1982. “Joint Decisions in Home Purchasing: A Muddling-Through Process.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September): 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patchen, Martin. 1963. “Alternative Questionnaire Approaches to the Measurement of Influence in Organizations.”American Journal of Sociology 69 (July): 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualls, William J. 1982. “Changing Sex Roles: Its Impact Upon Family Decision Making.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, vol. 9. Ed. Andrew A. Mitchell. St Louis, MO: Association for Consumer Research, 267–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1984. “Sex Roles, Husband-Wife Influence, and Family Decision Behavior.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, vol. 11. Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear. Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Consumer Research, 270–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1987. “Household Decision Behavior: The Impact of Husbands’ and Wives’ Sex Role Orientation.”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (September): 264–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, Neal and Daniel M. Stults. 1986. “Methodology Review: Analysis of Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices.”Applied Psychological Measurement 10 (March): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, Christine S. and Daniel S. Perlman. 1989. “Couples’ Career Orientation, Gender Role Orientation, and Perceived Equity as Determinants of Marital Power.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 51 (November): 933–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silk, Alvin J. and Manohar U. Kalwani. 1982. “Measuring Influence in Organizational Purchase Decisions.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (May): 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, Rosann L. 1983. “Persuasion in Family Decision-Making.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (March): 393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, James H. 1990. “Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 25 (April): 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, James H. and J. Lind. 1980. “Statistically Based Tests for the Number of Common Factors.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, June.

  • Szinovacz, Maximiliane E. 1981. “Relationship Among Marital Power Measures: A Critical Review and an Empirical Test.”Journal of Comparative Family Studies 12 (Spring): 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1987. “Family Power.” InHandbook of Marriage of the Family. Eds. Marvin B. Sussman and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum, 651–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szybillo, George, Arlene K. Sosanie, and Aaron Tenenbein. 1979. “Family Member Influence in Household Decision Making.”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (December): 312–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi, James T., Barry R. Schlenker, and Thomas V. Bonoma. 1973.Conflict, Power and Games. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk, James L. and Norman W. Bell. 1972. “Measuring Power in Families.”Journal of Marriage and the Family 34 (May): 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Cynthia. 1994. “Effects of Hispanic Ethnic Identification on Marital Roles in the Purchase Decision Process.”Journal of Consumer Research 21 (September): 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widaman, Keith F. 1985. “Hierarchically Nested Covariance Structure Models for Multitrait-Multimethod Data.”Applied Psychological Measurement 9 (March): 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes, Robert E. 1975. “Husband-Wife Influence in Purchase Decisions—A Confirmation and Extension.”Journal of Marketing Research 12 (May): 224–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Jerry, Paul E. Green, Douglas Shifflet, and Marsha Scarbrough. 1989. “Courtyard by Marriott: Designing a Hotel Facility With Consumer-Based Marketing Models.”Interfaces 19 (January/February): 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wothke, Werner and Michael W. Browne. 1990. “The Direct Product Model for the MTMM Matrix Parameterised as a Second Order Factor Analysis Model.”Psychometrika 55 (June): 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter and Mary Ann Kriewall. 1980. “State-of-Mind Effects on the Accuracy With Which Utility Functions Predict Marketplace Choice.”Journal of Marketing Research 17 (August): 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Charles H. Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon, USA

    Robert Madrigal

  2. Rice University, USA

    Christopher M. Miller

Authors
  1. Robert Madrigal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher M. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

He received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon. His areas of interest include the affective consequences of performance consumption, consumer decision making, and research methods. His work has been published in theJournal of Leisure Research, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, and other journals.

He received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon. His fields of interest include decision making, interdependencies, and statistics. He has published in theJournal of Marketing Research, Journal of Retailing, International Journal of Forecasting, Marketing Letters, and other journals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Madrigal, R., Miller, C.M. Construct validity of spouses’ relative influence measures: An application of the direct product model. JAMS 24, 157–170 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070396242006

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070396242006

Keywords

Search

Navigation