KEYWORDS: VALUE, LOYALTY, QUALITY, IMAGE

SCALE NAME: Brand Equity

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
Five, seven-point items are used to measure the degree to which a consumer has such a high regard for a
company that he/she would be willing to pay more for its services than for the same service from other providers.

SCALE ORIGIN:
The itemsused byVoorhees, Brady, andHorowitz (2006) are from a scale by Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemon (2000)
which wasbased on definitions of brand equityby Aaker (1991) and Keller (1998). Brandy et al. (2008) used the
scale with several businesses and products in two studies, slightly modifying the phrases in each case so as to
specify what was being described.

RELIABILITY:
The construct reliabilities for the scale have been .86 (Voorhees, Brady, andHorowitz2006) and .84 (Brady et al.
2008).

VALIDITY:
Evidence in support of the scale's convergent and discriminant validities was provided by Voorhees, Brady,
andHorowitz (2006). The AVE of the scale was .55. A measurement model of all of the study's many constructs
fit the data well. Similarly, Brady et al. stated they found sufficientevidence in support of their scales' convergent
and discriminant validities although the specific statistics regarding this scale were not provided.

REFERENCES:
Aaker, David (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press.
Brady, Michael K., J. Joseph Cronin Jr., Gavin L. Fox, and Michelle L. Roehm (2008), Strategies to Offset
Performance Failures: The Role of Brand Equity, Journal of Retailing, 84 (2), 151-164.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1998),Strategic Brand Management, New York: Prentice Hall.
Rust, Roland T., Valerie A. Zeithaml, and Katherine N. Lemon (2000), Driving Customer Equity, New York: Free
Press.
Voorhees, Clay M. (2009), personal correspondence.
Voorhees, Clay M., Michael K. Brady, and David M. Horowitz (2006), A Voice From the Silent Masses: An
Exploratory and Comparative Analysis of Noncomplainers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4),
514-527.

SCALE ITEMS:1
1. How loyal were you to this company? Not at All Loyal / Very Loyal
2. What kind of attitude did you have about this company? Negative Attitude / Positive Attitude
3. What kind of image did the company have? Negative Image / Positive Image
4. How would you rate the quality delivered by this company? Low Quality / High Quality
5. Would you have been willing to pay more for services from this company than for other companies services?
Definitely Not / Definitely
1. The items were provided by Voorhees (2009). Theverbal anchors used inresponse to each item are provided at the end of each statement. The phrasing of the
items used by Brandy et al. (2008) were extremely similar to those shown here except that the name of the business or brand was stated in placeof "this company."

153

KEYWORDS: FAMILIARITY, IMAGE, UNIQUE, BRAND

SCALE NAME: Brand Equity

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
Three, five-point Likert-type items are used to measure a person's general awareness and image of a particular
brand. This scale focuses on the attitudinal aspect of brand equity rather than the behavioral (e.g., loyalty
intentions).

SCALE ORIGIN:
Although Verhoef, Langerak, and Donkers (2007) drew on Keller (2003) for inspiration, the scale seems to
beoriginal to them. In developing this scale and the others in their study, the authors generated a pool of items
and conducted three pretests.

RELIABILITY:
The alpha for the scale was reported to be .70 (Verhoef, Langerak, and Donkers2007).

VALIDITY:
After using EFA to purify each of their scales, Verhoef, Langerak, and Donkers (2007) used CFA to further refine
the scales. Evidence was provided in support of their scales' convergent and discriminant validities. However, this
scale's AVE was .45, generally considered to below if not inadequate (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Strong
consideration should be given to purifying the scale further.

REFERENCES:
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39-50.
Keller, Kevin L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management, Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Verhoef, Peter C., Fred Langerak, and Bas Donkers (2007), Understanding Brand and Dealer Retention in the New
Car Market: The Moderating Role of Brand Tier, Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 97-113.

SCALE ITEMS:1
1. __________ is a strong brand.
2. __________ is a well-known brand.
3. __________ is a unique brand.
1. The name of the brand should be placed in the blanks.

154

KEYWORDS: ATTITUDES, EMOTIONS, BRAND, EXPERIENCE, INVOLVEMENT,LOYALTY

SCALE NAME: Brand Experience (Affective)

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
The degree to which a consumer believes thata particular brand has hada strong emotional impact on him/her is
measured in this scale with three, seven-point Likert-type items.

SCALE ORIGIN:
The scale is one of a set of four that were carefully constructed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) to
measure the ways that consumers experience a brand. After providing conceptual support for the existence of a
multi-faceted construct, they conductedsix studies in which items were generated, the comparative quality of the
items was tested, scales were developed andpurified, and evidence was gathered regarding scale quality
(dimensionality, reliability, validity). In the last study, the authors showed the relationship between brand
experience and related constructs such as satisfaction andloyalty. Ultimately, they concluded that brand
experience was composed of four main components: sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. Structurally,
the evidence was strongest for a four-factor model of correlated factors.

RELIABILITY:
The alpha for the sensory scale was .81 for Study 3 and .74 for Study 6 (Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello2009). (Reliabilities were not reported for the other studies.) In Study 4, the stability of the brand
experience instrument was examined. The test-retest correlation was .77 overall and ranged from .69 to .73 for
the individual scales. (The correlations were not reported separately for each scale.)

VALIDITY:
A considerable amount of evidence in support of the scale's validity was provided by Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello (2009) in their six studies, from content validity to criterion and discriminant validity.

REFERENCES:
Brakus, J. Joko, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), "Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 5268.

SCALE ITEMS:
1. This brand induces feelings and sentiments.
2. I do not have strong emotions for this brand. (r)
3. This brand is an emotional brand.

155

KEYWORDS: ATTITUDES, BRAND, EXPERIENCE, INVOLVEMENT, ACTIVITY, LOYALTY

SCALE NAME: Brand Experience (Behavioral)

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
This scale measures the degree to which a consumer reports having action-oriented experiences witha particular
brand. Three, seven-point Likert-type items compose the scale.

SCALE ORIGIN:
The scale is one of a set of four that were carefully constructed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) to
measure the ways that consumers experience a brand. After providing conceptual support for the existence of a
multi-faceted construct, they conductedsix studies in which items were generated, the comparative quality of the
items was tested, scales were developed andpurified, and evidence was gathered regarding scale quality
(dimensionality, reliability, validity). In the last study, the authors showed the relationship between brand
experience and related constructs such as satisfaction andloyalty. Ultimately, they concluded that brand
experience was composed of four main components: sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. Structurally,
the evidence was strongest for a four-factor model of correlated factors.

RELIABILITY:
The alpha for the sensory scale was .76 for Study 3 and .72 for Study 6 (Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello2009). (Reliabilities were not reported for the other studies.) In Study 4, the stability of the brand
experience instrument was examined. The test-retest correlation was .77 overall and ranged from .69 to .73 for
the individual scales. (The correlations were not reported separately for each scale.)

VALIDITY:
A considerable amount of evidence in support of the scale's validity was provided by Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello (2009) in their six studies, from content validity to criterion and discriminant validity.

REFERENCES:
Brakus, J. Joko, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), "Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 5268.

SCALE ITEMS:
1. I engage in physical actions and behaviors when I use this brand.
2. This brand results in bodily experiences.
3. This brand is not action oriented. (r)

156

KEYWORDS: ATTITUDES, BRAND, EXPERIENCE, INVOLVEMENT, COGNITION, LOYALTY

SCALE NAME: Brand Experience (Intellectual)

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
The scale uses three, seven-point Likert-type items to measure the degree to which a consumer believes that
his/her use of a particular brand has evoked cognitve activity.

SCALE ORIGIN:
The scale is one of a set of four that were carefully constructed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) to
measure the ways that consumers experience a brand. After providing conceptual support for the existence of a
multi-faceted construct, they conductedsix studies in which items were generated, the comparative quality of the
items was tested, scales were developed andpurified, and evidence was gathered regarding scale quality
(dimensionality, reliability, validity). In the last study, the authors showed the relationship between brand
experience and related constructs such as satisfaction andloyalty. Ultimately, they concluded that brand
experience was composed of four main components: sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. Structurally,
the evidence was strongest for a four-factor model of correlated factors.

RELIABILITY:
The alpha for the sensory scale was .79 for both Study 3 and 6 (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello2009).
(Reliabilities were not reported for the other studies.) In Study 4, the stability of the brand experience
instrument was examined. The test-retest correlation was .77 overall and ranged from .69 to .73 for the
individual scales. (The correlations were not reported separately for each scale.)

VALIDITY:
A considerable amount of evidence in support of the scale's validity was provided by Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello (2009) in their six studies, from content validity to criterion and discriminant validity.

REFERENCES:
Brakus, J. Joko, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), "Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 5268.

SCALE ITEMS:
1. I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand.
2. This brand does not make me think. (r)
3. This brand stimulates my curiosity and problem solving.

157

KEYWORDS: ATTITUDES, BRAND, EXPERIENCE, INVOLVEMENT, SENSITIVITY, LOYALTY

SCALE NAME: Brand Experience (Sensory)

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
Three, seven-point Likert-type statements are used to measure the degree to which a consumer believes thata
particular brand has hada strong effect onone or more of his/her senses.

SCALE ORIGIN:
The scale is one of a set of four that were carefully constructed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) to
measure the ways that consumers experience a brand. After providing conceptual support for the existence of a
multi-faceted construct, they conductedsix studies in which items were generated, the comparative quality of the
items was tested, scales were developed andpurified, and evidence was gathered regarding scale quality
(dimensionality, reliability, validity). In the last study, the authors showed the relationship between brand
experience and related constructs such as satisfaction andloyalty. Ultimately, they concluded that brand
experience was composed of four main components: sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. Structurally,
the evidence was strongest for a four-factor model of correlated factors.

RELIABILITY:
The alpha for the sensory scale was .83 for Study 3 and .77 for Study 6 (Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello2009). (Reliabilities were not reported for the other studies.) In Study 4, the stability of the brand
experience instrument was examined. The test-retest correlation was .77 overall and ranged from .69 to .73 for
the individual scales. (The correlations were not reported separately for each scale.)

VALIDITY:
A considerable amount of evidence in support of the scale's validity was provided by Brakus, Schmitt, and
Zarantonello (2009) in their six studies, from content validity to criterion and discriminant validity.

REFERENCES:
Brakus, J. Joko, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), "Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 5268.

SCALE ITEMS:
1. This brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses.
2. I find this brand interesting in a sensory way.
3. This brand does not appeal to my senses. (r)

158

KEYWORDS: ATTITUDES, BRAND, IMAGE, CLARITY, INTEGRATION, UNDERSTANDING

SCALE NAME: Brand Image Clarity

SCALE DESCRIPTION:
The coherence of a brand's meaning and one's ease in understanding it is measured in this scale using five, sevenpoint items. The scale was referred to as perceived understanding byLee and Shavitt (2009).

SCALE ORIGIN:
The scale was developed by Lee and Shavitt (2009). A couple of theitems were drawn from the literature but the
rest were created by them for their purpose. Developmental work was conductedin a pretest before Experiment
1. The scale was used with 14 brands andthe alphas ranged from .74 to .94 (mean alpha = .91). In an EFA, all
of the items loaded high on one factor.

RELIABILITY:
In addition to the pretest, Lee and Shavitt (2009) reported the results of four experiments and this scale was used
in each one. However, the internal consistencieswere only given for Study 1 (alpha = .87) and 2 (alpha = .80).

VALIDITY:
Lee and Shavitt (2009) did not report direct examination of the scale's validity.

REFERENCES:
Lee, Kyoungmi and Sharon Shavitt (2009), Can McDonald's Food Ever Be Considered Healthful? Metacognitive
Experiences Affect the Perceived Understanding of a Brand, Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (2), 222-233.

SCALE ITEMS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

To
To
To
To
To

1. The
2.The
3.The
4. The
5.The

what
what
what
what
what
name
name
name
name
name

of
of
of
of
of

extent
extent
extent
extent
extent

do you think the characteristics of __________ are coherent? 1

do you view __________ as an integrated brand? 2
does __________ give you a concrete image about what this brand is like? 3
do you think it is easy to explain your impression of __________ to other people? 4
do you easily categorize what __________ is? 5

the
the
the
the
the

should
should
should
should
should

brand
brand
brand
brand
brand

be
be
be
be
be

placed
placed
placed
placed
placed

in
in
in
in
in

the
the
the
the
the

blank.
blank.
blank.
blank.
blank.

The
The
The
The
The

extreme
extreme
extreme
extreme
extreme

verbal
verbal
verbal
verbal
verbal

anchors
anchors
anchors
anchors
anchors

159

used
used
used
used
used

with
with
with
with
with

this
this
this
this
this

item were not at all coherent (1) and very coherent (7).
item were not at all integrated (1) and very integrated (7).
items were not at all concrete (1) and very concrete (7).
item were not at all easy (1) and very easy (7).
item were not at all easy (1) and very easy (7).