IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01415386.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Square but straight: Measurement tool design to improve response task fluency and certainty

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Audrezet

    (ISG - Institut supérieur de gestion - Université de Tunis)

  • Béatrice Parguel

    (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The assessment of overall customer satisfaction is an important issue in market research (Haumann et al. 2014, Homburg et al. 2014). After each online purchase, customers are asked to assess the product or service for which they have paid, usually on a five-point rating scales (e.g., Amazon, Trip Advisor). Comparable to bipolar scales, these tools are effective in making a distinction between polarized evaluations (i.e., either strong positivity or strong negativity). However, the literature on methodology reveals serious problems related to the mid-point displayed on these continuums (Kaplan 1972, Thompson et al. 1995). Actually, this mid-point inappropriately aggregates uncertain responses (difficult evaluation) with ambivalent (a combination of moderate to high positivity and negativity) or indifferent (low positivity and negativity) ones, when these different responses have been shown to reflect different attitudes and drive distinct behavioral responses (Yoo 2010, Thornton 2011). The Evaluative Space Grid (hereafter, ESG), developed in psychology by Larsen and colleagues (2009), could help address part of this methodological issue. The ESG comprises a 5×5 grid that measures both the degree of positivity of a stimulus and its degree of negativity within a bidimensional matrix. One dimension of the matrix is dedicated to the measurement of the respondent's degree of negativity ("not at all negative" - "extremely negative"), its degree of positivity ("not at all positive" - "extremely positive"). The combination of the two dimensions allows the respondent to choose which of the grid's 25 cells best describes its evaluation. The ESG has been validated in psychology with respect to unipolar measurement of positivity and negativity (Larsen et al. 2009). Applying the ESG in a service marketing context, Audrezet et al., (forthcoming) have recently demonstrated its relevance to measure overall customer satisfaction. Regarding the practical implementation of ESG, Larsen and colleagues (2009) formulate 2-minute generic instructions before using the ESG, which include the presence of an experimenter to accompany the respondents in their task. However, they do not discuss the extent to which the grid could be easy to use in self-administered surveys. Based on a rapid qualitative study we assume that the ESG could hinder response task fluency, which could negatively affect response certainty (Regier et al. 2014). This, in turn, could potentially be very detrimental to market research as response certainty is a crucial determinant of data and prediction quality (Fazio and Zanna 1978, Antil 1983). The present article builds on previous research to investigate the influence of different formats of the ESG on response task fluency and certainty. To do so, an experiment specifically manipulating the ESG dimension and the presence of verbal labels in the cells was conducted on a sample of 105 undergraduate students. We demonstrate that the use of verbal labels, rather than a reduction in response alternatives, is a promising way to increase response task fluency and, in turn, improve individuals' response certainty. This work advocates for tool design reflection to create responding behavior incentives and reduce survey drop-out rates which is especially challenging within self-administered electronic settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Audrezet & Béatrice Parguel, 2016. "Square but straight: Measurement tool design to improve response task fluency and certainty," Post-Print hal-01415386, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01415386
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01415386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01415386/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01415386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.