Advertisement

Structural Model of Product Meaning Using Means-End Approach

  • Adam Sagan
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to model motivational and cognitive structures of product meaning based on means-end chain framework. Applying SEM to means-end provides new analysis to help validate “hard laddering” measurement scales, model relationships among multiple latent predictors (bundles of product attributes) and criterions (consequences and values), as well as error of measurement and test a priori substantive assumptions against the data. This methodology introduces Guttman scaling to means-end framework and a confirmatory instead of classical exploratory approach to MEC analysis.

Keywords

Mobile Phone Item Response Theory Tetrachoric Correlation Product Meaning Guttman Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANDERSON, J.C. and GERBING, D.W. (1988): Structural Equation Modeling in Practice; a Review and Reccomended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AURIFEILLE, J-M. and VALETTE-FLORENCE, P. (1995): Determination of the Dominant Means-End Chains: A Constrained Clustering Approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BOTSCHEN, G. and HEMETSBERGER, A. (1998): Diagnosing Means-End Structures to Determine the Degree of Potential Marketing Program Standarization. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 151–159.Google Scholar
  4. BOTSCHEN, G. and THELEN, E. (1998): Hard versus Soft Laddering: Implication for the Appropriate Use. In: I. Balderjahn, C. Mennicken, and E. Vernette (Eds.): New Developments and Approaches in Consumer Behavior Research. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, 321–339.Google Scholar
  5. FRIEDMAN, R. and ZIMMER, M. (1988): The Role of Psychological Meaning in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 1, 31–40.Google Scholar
  6. GRUNERT, K.G. (1997): What’s in a Steak? A Cross-Cultural Study on the Quality Perception of Beef. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. LEIGH, J.H. and GABEL, T.G. (1992): Symbolic Interactionism: Its Effects on Consumer Behavior and Implications for Marketing Strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9, 27–38.Google Scholar
  8. LIN, F. (2002): Attribute-Consequence-Value Linkages: A New Technique for Understanding Consumer’s Product Knowledge. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10, 339–352.Google Scholar
  9. MCCRACKEN, G. (1990): Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of The Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods. Indiana University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. NÖTH, W. (1988): The Language of Commodities. Grundwork for a Semiotics of Consumer Goods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 4, 173–186.Google Scholar
  11. PIETERS, R., BAUMGARTNER, H., and ALLEN, D. (1995): A Means-End Chain Approach to Consumer Goal Structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. REYNOLDS, T.J. and GUTMAN, J. (1988): Laddering Theory. Method, Analysis and Interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 2, 11–31.Google Scholar
  13. REYNOLDS, T.J. and PERKINS, W.S. (1987): Cognitive Differentiation Analysis: New Methodology for Assesing the Validity of Means-End Hierarchies. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 109–113.Google Scholar
  14. ROEHRICH, G. and VALLETTE-FLORENCE, P. (1991): A Weighted Cluster-Based Analysis of Direct and Indirect Connections in Means-End Chains: An Application to Lingerie Retail. In: K.G. Grunert and P. Vallette-Florence (Eds.): Workshop on Values and Lifestyle Research in Marketing. EIASM, Brussels.Google Scholar
  15. SAGAN, A. (2001): Metody sieciowe w analizie środków-celów z wykorzystaniem programu UCINET. [Social Network Analysis of Means-End Chains-Application of UCINET Statistical Package] Zeszyty Naukowe. AE, Krakw 558.Google Scholar
  16. SHETH, J., NEWMAN, B., and GROSS, B. (1991): Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SOLOMON, M.R. (1983): The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. SPREADLY, J. (1988): The Ethnographic Interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. TER HOFSTEDE, F., ANDENAERT, A., STEENKAMP, J.B., and WEDEL, M. (1998): An Investigation into the Association Pattern Technique as a Quntitative Approach to Measuring Means-End Chains. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. VALETTE-FLORENCE, P. and RAPACCHI, B. (1991): Improvements in Means-End Chain Analysis. Using Graph Theory and Correspondence Analysis. Journal of Advertising Research, 2, 30–45.Google Scholar
  21. VANDEN ABELE, P. (1990): A Means-End Study of Diary Consumption Motivation. No. EC Regulation 1000/90-43ST. EC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Sagan
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ManagementCracow University of EconomicsKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations