Object Classification and Measures

  • John R. Rossiter


Applied to measurement theory, “UFO,” in Aussie Bluetongue beer-speak could well-stand for “unidentified friggin’ object” because this frequent measurement mistake is so very annoying. Half the problem with measures in the social sciences is due to misrepresentation of the object. The object of the construct—the element to be rated or otherwise evaluated—is carelessly represented in nearly every measure. For example, a common measure-distorting mistake (D m in the new true-score model of Chapter 1) in marketing research is to represent consumer products in the measure by their verbal brand names when the actual object of choice is the physical product in its visual (and sometimes tactile) brand package as it is presented in the store. Non content-valid object representation in the measure can reduce the validity of the whole measure drastically and lead to grossly misleading scores. Another example of low content-valid object representation in the other social sciences is the important set of abstract objects called VALUES.


Object Representation Concrete Object Verbal Stimulus Brand Attitude Object Component 
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.


  1. Bardi A, Lee JA, Hoffmann-Towfigh N, Soutar G (2009) The structure of intraindividual value change. J Pers Soc Psychol 97(5):913–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boswell WR, Shipp AJ, Payne SC, Culbertson SS (2009) Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. J Appl Psychol 94(4): 844–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan AM, Rossiter JR (1998) Construction of a Chinese values scale and a Chineseness ethnicity scale. Asia Pac Adv Consum Res 3:61–67Google Scholar
  4. Etgar M, Fuchs G (2009) Why and how service quality perceptions impact consumer responses. Manag Serv Qual 19(4):474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB, Pierce JL (1998) Single-item versus multi0ple-item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educ Psychol Meas 58(6):898–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harringman U (1990) Complete crossword dictionary. GAP Publishing Pty. Ltd, Norman parkGoogle Scholar
  7. Hung IW, Wyer RS (2008) The impact of implicit theories on responses to problem-solving print advertisements. J Consum Psychol 18(3):223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. James W (1892) Psychology: the briefer course. Harper, New York, 1961 reprintCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Judge TA, Hurst C, Simon LS (2009) Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. J Appl Psychol 94(3):742–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Law KS, Wong CS (1999) Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: an illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. J Manag 25(2):143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin A (2007) The representative of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58:25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Munson JM, McIntyre SH (1979) Developing practical procedures for the measurement of personal values in consumer behavior. Adv Consum Res 15:381–386Google Scholar
  13. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry L (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. J Retailing 64(1):12–40Google Scholar
  14. Peissig JJ, Tarr MJ (2007) Visual object recognition: do we know more now than we did 20 years ago? Annu Rev Psychol 58:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynolds TJ, Jolly JP (1980) Measuring personal values: an evaluation of alternative methods. J Mark Res 17:531–536 (November)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rokeach M (1968) Beliefs, attitudes and values. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Rossiter JR (2008a) Content validity of measures of abstract constructs in management and organizational research. Br J Manag 19(4):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rossiter JR, Foxall GR (2008) Hull-Spence behavior theory as a paradigm for consumer behavior. Mark Theory 8(2):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossiter JR, Percy L (1987) Advertising and promotional management. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Rossiter JR, Percy L (1997) Advertising communications and promotion management. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Rossiter JR, Thornton J (2004) Fear-pattern analysis supports the fear-drive model for anti-speeding road-safety TV ads. Psychol Mark 21(11):945–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith A (1999) Some problems when adopting Churchill’s paradigm for the development of service quality measurement scales. J Bus Res 46(2):109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Griskevicius V (2009) Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. J Pers Soc Psychol 97(1):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Innovation in Business and Social Research, University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations