Psychometric vs. C-OAR-SE measures of brand love: A reply to Rossiter
- PDF / 159,911 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 50 Downloads / 152 Views
Psychometric vs. C-OAR-SE measures of brand love: A reply to Rossiter Aaron Ahuvia & Richard P. Bagozzi & Rajeev Batra
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Rossiter (Marketing Lett 23: 905–916, 2012) provides a critique of the brand love measure from Batra et al. (J Marketing 76: 1–16, 2012) and offers a new measure of brand love to be used in its stead. In this reply, we argue that our measure is more consistent with the best available understanding on love and brand love. We also note several serious problems in the underlying definition of love used by Rossiter and problems in the way his definition is operationalized in his measure. Keywords Brand love . Love . C-OAR-SE method . Construct validity . Content validity . Prototypes
1 Introduction Rossiter (2012) provides a critique of the conceptualization and measurement of brand love by Batra et al. (2012) (BAB hereafter) and Carroll and Ahuvia (2006). Rossiter (2012) rejects past definitions of love and brand love, as well as “the now-standard
A. Ahuvia (*) College of Business, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Fairlane Center South, 19000 Hubbard Drive, Dearborn, MI 48126, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. P. Bagozzi : R. Batra Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA R. P. Bagozzi e-mail: [email protected] R. Batra e-mail: [email protected] R. P. Bagozzi Clinical, Social and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Mark Lett
‘psychometrics’ approach” (Rossiter 2012, p. 906) to measurement. He argues for his alternative system of measurement called C-OAR-SE1, as well as an alternative definition of love, with a corresponding brand love measure. Science advances through critique, and this debate addresses issues central to consumer–brand relationship research. So we would like to thank Dr. Rossiter for contributing to the brand love literature with his work. And it is in this spirit of open inquiry that we offer our reply and a discussion of brand love that we hope is useful to a wider audience. Because BAB is an advance on Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), this reply will focus on the former. Since Rossiter (2012) is partly a demonstration project for construct definition, COAR-SE, one might expect his definition of love to fit well with measurement priorities that underlie C-OAR-SE, which are, first and foremost, the need to begin with an accurate definition of the construct in question. However, we will demonstrate below that Rossiter's definition of brand love is not an accurate reflection of that construct; whereas the measure of brand love from BAB is better in this regard, since it is based on extensive consumer data and a more accurate characterization of the prior literature. Below, we show this by comparing Rossiter's, and our, coverage of different dimensions or components of love; the distinction between the emotion of love and the relationship called love; and the appropriateness of a prototype, rather than
Data Loading...
