Selection of Item-Type and Answer Scale

  • John R. Rossiter


The sheep-like fraternity of social-science researchers is apparently under the impression that all item types are created equal. Social-science researchers seem to believe they are at complete liberty to choose what type of item to use to operationalize the measure. This laissez-faire state of affairs is evidenced by researchers’ arbitrary and unjustified selection of Likert measures (most popular), Semantic Differential measures (second most popular), and Unipolar measures (occasionally) to represent almost any construct. They couldn’t be more wrong about item types all being equal and interchangeable.


Item Type General Intelligence Romantic Love Evaluative Conditioning Likert Item 
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. Ajzen I (1988) Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport GW (1985) The historical background of social psychology. In: Gardner L, Elliot A (eds) The handbook of social psychology, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  3. Althuizen N, Wierenga B, Rossiter JR (2010) The validity of two brief measures of creative ability. Creativ Res J 22(1):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anastasi A (1981) Coaching, test sophistication, and developed abilities. Am Psychol 36(10):1086–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett LF (2004) Feelings or words? Understanding the content in self-report ratings of emotional experience. J Pers Soc Psychol 87(2):266–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellman S (2007) Theory and measurement of type 1 and type 2 emotions. Australas Mark J 15(1):14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blau P, Duncan OD (1967) The American occupational structure. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Brakus JJ, Schmitt BH, Zarantonello L (2009) Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. J Mark 73(2):52–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown RP, Day EA (2006) The difference isn’t black and white: stereotype threat and the race gap on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. J Appl Psychol 91(4):979–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger JM (2009) Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today?. Am Psychol 64(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burkley E, Burkley M (2009) “Mythbusters”: a tool for teaching research methods in psychology. Teach Psychol 36(3):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss DM (2009) How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences?. Perspect Psychol Sci 4(4):359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calver LA, Stokes BJ, Isbister GK (2009) The dark side of the moon. Med J Aust 191:692–694 (11 Dec)Google Scholar
  14. Ceci SJ, Williams WM (1997) Schooling intelligence, and income. Am Psychol 52(10): 1051–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for development better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denollet J (2005) DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosom Med 67(1):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dichter ER (1964) Handbook of consumer motivations: the psychology of the world of objects. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickens WT, Kane TJ, Schultze CL (1995) Ring true? A closer look at a grim portrait of American society. Brookings Rev 13(1):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudley NM, Orvis KA, Lebietki JE, Cortina JM (2006) A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. J Appl Psychol 91(1):40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emons WHM, Sijtsma K, Meijer RR (2007) On the consistency of individual classification using short scales. Psychol Meth 12(1):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrando PJ, Anguiano-Carrasco C (2009) Assessing the impact of faking on binary personality measures: an IRT-based multiple-group factor analytic procedure. Multivariate Behav Res 44(4):497–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fishbein M (1963) An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about the object and attitude toward that object. Human Relat 16(3):233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishbein M, Hall-Jamieson K, Zimmer E, von Haeften I, Nabi R (2002) Avoiding the boomerang: testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. Am J Public Health 92(2):238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flynn JR (1987) Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: what IQ tests really measure. Psychol Bull 101(2):171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrington DM, Block J, Block JH (1983) Predicting creativity in adolescence from divergent thinking in early childhood. J Pers Soc Psychol 45(3):609–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hatfield E, Rapson RL (2000) Love and attachment processes. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM (eds) Handbook of emotions, 2nd edn<. Guilford, New York, pp 654–662Google Scholar
  28. Heise DR (1969) Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychol Bull 72(6):406–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoch SJ (1988) Who do we know: predicting the interests and opinions of the American consumer. J Consum Res 15(3):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogan J, Barrett P, Hogan R (2007) Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. J Appl Psychol 92(5):1270–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hull CL (1952) A behavior system: an introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunter JE (1986) Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. J Vocat Behav 29(3):340–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James W (1884) What is an emotion?. Mind 9(34):188–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen AR (1970) Hierarchical theories of mental ability.In: Cuckrall WB (ed) On intelligence. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Kabanoff B, Rossiter JR (1994) Recent developments in applied creativity. In: Cooper CL, Robertson IT (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 9. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Klimstra TA, Hale WW, Raaijmakers QAW, Branje SJT, Meeus WHJ (2009) Maturation of personality in adolescence. J Pers Soc Psychol 96(4):898–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lord FM (1980) Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  38. Lykken DT (1982) Research with twins: the concept of emergenesis. Psychophysiology 19(4): 361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynn R (1997) Geographic variations in intelligence. In: Nyborg H (ed) The scientific study of human nature. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 259–281Google Scholar
  40. Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McClelland DC (1975) Power: the inner experience. Irvington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67(4):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molenaar PCM, Campbell CG (2009) The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. <jtl>Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(2):112–117Google Scholar
  44. Mowrer OH (1960) Learning theory and behavior. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Myers IB, McCaulley MH (1985) Manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  46. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  48. Rossiter JR (2004) How to construct a test of scientific knowledge in consumer behavior. J Consum Res 30(2):305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rossiter JR (2009a) ER-SERVCOMPSQUAL: a measure of e-retailing service components quality. Serv Sci 1(4):212–224Google Scholar
  50. Rossiter JR, Bellman S (2005) Marketing communications: theory and applications. Pearson Prentice Hall, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  51. Rossiter JR, Bergkvist L (2009) The importance of choosing one good item for single-item measures of attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand and its generalization to all measures. <jtl>Transf Werbeforschung Praxis 55(2):8–18Google Scholar
  52. Rossiter JR, Foxall GR (2008) Hull-Spence behavior theory as a paradigm for consumer behavior. Mark Theory 8(2):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rossiter JR, Percy L (1987) Advertising and promotional management. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Rossiter JR, Percy L (1997) Advertising communications and promotion management. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Russell JA, Barrett LF (1999) Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: dissecting the elephant. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(5):805–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Russell JA, Weiss A, Mendelsohn GA (1989) Affect grid: a single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(3):493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schacter S, Singer J (1962) Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychol Rev 69(5):379–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skinner BF (1959) Science and human behavior. Appleton Century Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI (2009) Men, things, women, and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychol Bull 135(6):859–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swain SD, Weathers D, Niedrich RW (2008) Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. J Mark Res 45(1):116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taft R, Rossiter JR (1966) The Remote Associates Test: divergent or convergent thinking? . Psychol Rep 19(2):1313–1314Google Scholar
  62. van Rekom J, Jacobs G, Verleigh PWJ (2006) Measuring the essence of a brand personality. Mark Lett 17(3):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wark P (2005) Too negative for your own good?. The Times 17:32–33Google Scholar
  64. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect. The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(6):1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weiss RF (1968) An extension of Hullian learning theory to persuasive communications. In: Greenwald AG, Brock TC, Ostrom TM (eds) Psychological foundations of attitudes. Academic Press, New York, pp 147–170Google Scholar
  66. Rushton JP (1997) (Im)pure genius–psychoticism, intelligence, and creativity. In: Nyborg H (ed) The scientific study of human nature. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Green BG, Hoffman HJ, Ko C-W, Lucchina LA, Marks LE, Snyder DJ, Weiffenbach JM (2004) Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol Behav 82(1):109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. “Good oil on Cadbury.” (3 Jan 2010) Sunday Telegraph, p 17.Google Scholar
  69. Green BG, Shaffer GS, Gilmore MM (1993) A semantically-labeled magnitude scale of oral sensation with apparent ratio properties. Chem Senses 18(6):683–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rossiter JR, Bellman S (2010) Emotional branding pays off. J Advert Res (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  71. Rossiter JR, Smidts A (2010) Print advertising: celebrity presenters. J Bus ResGoogle Scholar
  72. Tuccitto DE, Giacobbi PR, Leite WL (2010) The internal structure of positive and negative affect: a confirmatory factor analysis of the PANAS. Educ Psychol Meas 70(1):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Langner T, Fischer A, Rossiter JR, Kürten DA (2010). The behavioral consequences of “loving” versus “liking” a brand and a typology of the origins of “brand love.” Paper presented at the 32nd INFORMS Marketing Science Conference, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
  74. Miller GA, Galanter E, Pribram KH (1972) Plans and the structure of behavior. Adams Bannister Cox, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Mills KI (2009). “More shocking results: New research replicated Milgram’s findings.” APA Monitor (March):13Google 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