Descripción y análisis de las acciones de inclusión: directiva

The hypothesized model had eleven latent variables – price comparison, locus of causality, controllability, temporal stability, emotional response, distributive price fairness, procedural price fairness, behavioral loyalty, willingness to pay more (WTP), complaining, and revenge behavior. The measurement items for each variable were adapted from previous research (Table 1), and were somewhat modified to best fit the study context. The survey instrument was composed of the information sheet and three main sections. The first section included a screening question and respondents‟ general leisure flight behaviors (e.g. purchasing an airline ticket, frequency of taking flights). The second section measure all variables (i.e. price comparison, locus of causality, controllability, temporal stability, emotional response, distributive price fairness, procedural price fairness, behavioral loyalty, willingness to pay (WTP), complaining, and revenge behavior), in sequence. The last section asks socio-demographic profiles including gender, age, household income, education, ethnicity, and ZIP code.

Variables

Information Sheet: In line with the consent checklist and information sheet samples guided by Texas A&M University‟s Institutional Review Board (IRB), the first page of the survey included consent requirements. In this section, statements that

explained the purpose of the study, any likely risks or discomforts to respondents, survey procedures including estimated completion time, and voluntary participation were

Screening and General Behavior of Flight Trip: To rule out ineligible units, only individuals who had taken domestic flights in the past 12 months were selected with the following screening question: “Have you taken any U.S. domestic flights in the past 12 months (since March 2009) for leisure travel?”. If a respondent answered “no”, the response was screened out, and consequently, did not count. In addition to the screening question, the airlines that a respondent used on the most recent trip was asked: “which of the following airlines did you use when traveling on your most recent trip for leisure purposes?”. A respondent was instructed to choose one of the major U.S domestic airlines from a given list.

Additionally, price sensitivity was measured with the Lichtenstein, Bloch, and Black (1988) scale. This is a three-item scale, and each of the items are placed on a five- point Likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Lichtenstein, et al., 1988). As discussed in the literature review section, this operationalized concept was used to categorize the collected data into two groups: high vs. low price sensitive groups using the median to divide the two groups. Frequency of taking domestic flights per year was also asked to examine the respondents‟ familiarity with airlines pricing scheme.

Price Comparison: Price comparison was measured with items which have been used in previous studies (Bolton, et al., 2003; Xia, et al., 2004). Four items related to extra fees were given in this part. For example, each question asked whether the actual price was more or less than respondents‟ reference price.

Cognitive Attribution: The items for cognitive attribution were adapted from the attribution theory literature. In particular, cognitive attribution items were derived from

the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS I and II), which has been developed to measure how individuals infer causes of an event (McAuley, et al., 1992; Russell, 1982), and the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Peterson, et al., 1982). Results of a pilot test indicated that some errors in wording may exist. Therefore, some items were re-worded and some were replaced with other items for the main survey. Also, a pilot test used only seven items, but the main survey used a total of nine items derived from CDS I and II. For example, instead of one item for causality in the pilot survey (to what extent do you think there are actions the company could take but has not to keep the price

unchanged?), two items were added to measure causality (the cause of price changes is something that reflects an aspect of the company/the situation and the cause of price change is something about the company/the situation). Items for stability were also re- worded (the cause of price change is something permanent/temporary) and added (the cause of price change is something unchangeable/changeable).

Emotional Response: Emotional response was measured with multiple items which have been frequently used in related contexts (Folkes, et al., 1987).

Price Fairness: Distributive and procedural price justice was measured with valid and reliable scales which have been used in marketing and tourism literatures (Martin, et al., 2009; Petrick, 2002; Wirtz & Kimes, 2007), with minor wording changes to fit the current study‟s context.

Behavioral Intentions: Behavioral intentions were measured with items frequently used in tourism and marketing literature (Campbell, 1999a; Grewal, et al., 1998; Herrmann, et al., 2007; Lee, et al., 2007).

75 75 Table 1. Measurement Scales in Previous Research

Concept Research Measurement scales

Price comparison

Bolton, et al. (2003) Xia, et al. (2004)

 The fees I paid were (less/more) than what I paid for my previous flights.

 The fees I paid were (less/more) than other passengers on the flight.

 The fees I paid were (less/more) than the fees of other competitive airlines toward the same destination.

 The fees I paid were (less/more) than what I thought it would be appropriate prices.

Cognitive attribution

Russell (1982)

* Causal Dimension Scale (CDS I): bipolar scale

Is the cause(s) something:

 that reflects an aspect of yourself ↔ that reflects an aspect of the situation

 inside of you ↔ outside of you

 something about you ↔ something about others

 permanent ↔ temporary

 stable over time ↔ variable over time

 unchangeable ↔ changeable

 controllable by you or other people ↔ uncontrollable by you or other people

 intended by you or other people ↔ unintended by you or other people

76 76 Table 1. Continued

Concept Research Measurement scales

Cognitive attribution

McAuley, Duncan, & Russell (1992)

*Causal Dimension Scale (CDS II): bipolar scale

Is the cause(s) something:

 that reflects an aspect of yourself ↔ that reflects an aspect of the situation

 inside of you ↔ outside of you

 something about you ↔ something about others

 permanent ↔ temporary

 stable over time ↔ variable over time

 unchangeable ↔ changeable

 over which others have control ↔ over which others have no control

 under the power of other people ↔ not under the power of other people

 other people can regulate ↔ other people cannot regulate

 manageable by you ↔ not manageable by you

 you can regulate ↔ you cannot regulate

 over which you have power ↔ over which you have no power

Peterson et al. (1982) *Attributional Style

Questionnaire (ASQ): bipolar scale

 Is the cause of ( ) due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstance?

(totally due to other people ↔ totally due to me)

 In the future, will this cause again be present?

(will never again be present ↔ will always be present)

 Is the cause something that just influences ( ) or does it also influence other situations?

(influences just this situation ↔ influences all situations)

 How important would this situation be if it happened to you? (not at all important ↔ extremely important)

77 77 Table 1. Continued

Concept Research Measurement scales

Cognitive attribution

McAuley, Duncan, & Russell (1992)

*Causal Dimension Scale (CDS II): bipolar scale

Is the cause(s) something:

 that reflects an aspect of yourself ↔ that reflects an aspect of the situation

 inside of you ↔ outside of you

 something about you ↔ something about others

 permanent ↔ temporary

 stable over time ↔ variable over time

 unchangeable ↔ changeable

 over which others have control ↔ over which others have no control

 under the power of other people ↔ not under the power of other people

 other people can regulate ↔ other people cannot regulate

 manageable by you ↔ not manageable by you

 you can regulate ↔ you cannot regulate

 over which you have power ↔ over which you have no power

Peterson et al. (1982) *Attributional Style

Questionnaire (ASQ): bipolar scale

 Is the cause of ( ) due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstance?

(totally due to other people ↔ totally due to me)

 In the future, will this cause again be present?

(will never again be present ↔ will always be present)

 Is the cause something that just influences ( ) or does it also influence other situations?

(influences just this situation ↔ influences all situations)

 How important would this situation be if it happened to you? (not at all important ↔ extremely important)

78 78 Table 1. Continued

Concept Research Measurement scales

Emotional response to the price

Folkes et al., (1987)

 How important was it to you that you pay the fair price?

 How angry were you at the company for the price changes?

 How disappointed were you that the company changed the price?

 How much distress did you feel that the company changed the price?

Distributive Price fairness

Martin et al. (2009)

 The new price is fair.

 The new price is reasonable.

 The new price is acceptable.

Wirtz and Kimes (2007)

 The price changes were clearly understandable

 All consumers were treated equally by the company‟s pricing policy

 I think the price changes were based on cost

 The price changes were independent of customer‟s needs

 The price changes were acceptable

 The price changes were fair

Procedural Price fairness

Martin et al. (2009)

 The ( )‟s pricing processes and procedures are fair.

 The ( )‟s pricing processes and procedures are reasonable.

 The ( )‟s pricing processes and procedures are acceptable. Wirtz and Kimes (2007)

 The pricing decision processes and procedures were fair

 The pricing decision processes and procedures were reasonable

79 79 Table 1. Continued

Concept Research Measurement scales

Behavioral

loyalty Zeithaml et al. (1996)

 Say positive things about ( ) to other people.

 Recommend ( ) to someone who seeks your advice.

 Encourage friends and relatives to do business with ( ).

 Consider ( ) your first choice to buy ( ) services.

 Do more business with ( ) in the next few years. Willingness to

Pay More Zeithaml et al. (1996)

 Continue to do business with ( ) if its prices increase somewhat.

 Pay a higher price than competitors charge for the benefits you currently receive from ( ).

Complaining Zeithaml et al. (1996) _{Xia et al. (2004)}

 Complain to other customers if you experience a problem with ( )‟s service.

 Complain to external agencies, such as the Better Business Bureau, if you experience a problem with ( )‟s service.

 Complain to ( )‟s employees if you experience a problem with ( )‟s service.

Revenge

Zeithaml et al. (1996)

 Switch to a competitor if you experience a problem with ( )‟s service.

 Do less business with ( ) in the next few years.

 Take some of your business to a competitor that offers better prices. Xia et al. (2004)  Report what you experienced to the media.

80 80 Table 1. Continued

Concept Research Measurement scales

Price sensitivity

Lichtenstein, Bloch, and Black (1988)

 I usually buy ( ) when they are on sale.

 I buy the lowest priced ( ) that will suit my needs.

In document Estudio de la inclusión educativa de niños con trastornos del espectro autista (TEA) en escuelas de la Ciudad de Quito (página 112-116)