What are we trying to achieve?
This stage of the scale development sets out to generate the items for the scale. Items were generated using the three methods as proposed by Li, Edwards and Lee (2002);
literature reviews (Churchill 1979), thesaurus searches (Wells, Leavitt & McConville 1971), and experience surveys (Chen & Wells 1999; Churchill 1979). The
development of the scale follows the steps outlined by DeVellis (2003).
What do we want to measure?
A scale is to be developed to find statements which best reflect prototypicality. To date, a scale that fully captures the concept does not exist. Thus, the purpose is to provide a measurement tool for the concept of prototypicality that will allow brand managers to periodically monitor the progress of their brand.
With the concept of typicality being quite similar to the fit construct, it must be noted that numerous scales exist to measure brand extension fit (Ahluwalia & Gürhan-Canli 2000, Bridges, Keller & Sood 2000, Klink & Smith 2001, Martin & Stewart 2001). However, with the growing interest in prototypicality as a brand concept, it is believed that prototypicality is important enough to justify a scale specifically measuring for it (Babin & Babin 2001; Han 1998; Kalamas et al. 2006; Loken &
John 1993).
Previous scales have been developed to measure typicality, as the terms
prototypicality and typicality are used interchangeably in the literature (Boush &
Loken 1991; Carson, Jewell & Joiner 2007; Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran 1998; Han 1998; Kalamas et al. 2006; Loken & John 1993; Loken & Ward 1990; Nedungadi &
Hutchinson 1985). A three item, eleven-point (0 to 10) semantic differential scale was developed by Loken and Ward (1990) to measure the degree to which an object is perceived to be representative from its category of objects (α = .82). Ward, Bitner and Barnes (1992) used the scale and reported a Cronbach alpha of .94.
A further four item, nine-point semantic differential scale was developed by Campbell and Goodstein (2001) to measure the degree to which an individual perceives a stimulus to have characteristics that make it fit within a category. A Cronbach alpha of .86 was reported.
The scales that measure typicality available in the current literature are only semantic differential in style, and they do not report validity. Due to this, their generalisability is quite limited. Further, these existing scales only partially represent the concept as they tend to only measure certain elements of prototypicality. Therefore a new scale will be developed using a Likert measurement approach in order to fulfil this gap within the literature.
Generate an item pool
A large pool of potential scale items must be found to ensure all definitions of the concept and surrounding concepts are covered within the scale.
Literature Reviews
The literature review is designed to uncover previous attempts to conceptualize the constructs of interest and theories. In doing so, a more precise conceptualization of the construct, its boundaries and content domain, and potential antecedents and consequences can be found.
A review of all previous literature surrounding prototypicality and typicality in various fields including branding (e.g. Boush & Loken 1991; Han 1998; Kalamas et al. 2006), psychology (e.g. Barsalou 1985; van Dijke & De Cremer 2008), and product design (e.g. Carson et al. 2007; Veryzer Jr & Hutchinson 1998) was carried out. This resulted in a list of 21 statements defining prototypicality.
Thesaurus Searches
A thesaurus search was conducted using all the terms the literature had used to describe prototypicality. The only term that gave any meaningful results was prototypical, but even this only provided very basic synonyms, none of which were of any use. Given its specific nature and relative newness in gaining interest, perhaps this is not surprising.
Experience Surveys
Two forms of experience surveys were conducted in order to provide additional rigor and accuracy to the scale items. The first was by asking a panel of eight people with both industry and academic experience on the suitability of the statements. This was done in a focus group going through each definition one by one. While there was some concern over a few of the words used to describe prototypicality and whether a
normal consumer would understand them, the general consensus of the group was to leave them in, as if the consumer did not understand the term they would be taken out in subsequent factor analyses.
The second experience survey was done in order to find out any good information from an average consumer. This phase of the scale development was initiated to gain outside opinions of the concept of prototypicality. The exercise was done in Pilot Test 1 and began by giving respondents a brief background of the concept of
prototypicality, without definitions, but with examples. They were then asked to list their understanding and definition of the terms prototypicality and prototypical brand.
The survey instrument asked respondents to write their understanding of the term prototypicality or a prototypical brand in an open-ended format. The instrument further asked how the respondent would explain to a layman what prototypicality or a prototypical brand means. Respondents were asked to purely state their opinions in the form of everything that came to their mind. The results gained a total of 225 responses which were analysed physically to check for any further useful
information. The results did not end up adding anything of use to the scale items that was not already covered. Further information on this experience survey can be found in the Methodology chapter, Pilot Test 1, Question 1.