Attitude Toward the Product/Brand (Hedonic) (ATPH)

Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Product/Brand (Hedonic) (ATPH) scale is an established, psychometrically validated measurement instrument developed by Kevin E. Voss, Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003) to quantify the hedonic component of consumer attitudes. Grounded in the dual-dimension paradigm of consumer evaluation, which posits that consumer attitudes toward products and brands are structurally bifurcated into utilitarian and hedonic dimensions, the ATPH isolates the affective, experiential, and sensory gratification aspects of consumer judgment. The scale comprises five 7-point semantic differential item pairs: Not fun / Fun, Dull / Exciting, Not delightful / Delightful, Not thrilling / Thrilling, and Unenjoyable / Enjoyable. Across extensive development and validation phases encompassing multiple product classes, pretests, and confirmatory studies, the hedonic dimension demonstrated exceptional internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .90 and composite reliabilities above .92). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have consistently affirmed that the ATPH exhibits high convergent validity, distinct discriminant validity from its utilitarian counterpart (the ATPU) and general attitude measures, as well as robust predictive validity across behavioral intentions, brand loyalty, and product adoption. Today, the ATPH remains one of the most widely cited psychometric tools in marketing, advertising, consumer psychology, and product design research.

Keywords

Attitude Toward the Product, Hedonic Attitude, Semantic Differential, Consumer Psychology, Voss Spangenberg Grohmann, Experiential Consumption, Brand Attitude, Utilitarian vs Hedonic, Psychometrics, Scale Validation

Authors

The ATPH scale was developed and psychometrically validated by a team of leading scholars in marketing and consumer behavior:

• Kevin E. Voss, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA. His research focuses on measurement and psychometrics in marketing, consumer behavior, brand management, and pricing strategies.
• Eric R. Spangenberg, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and former Dean, Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA (previously at Washington State University). Renowned for his work on sensory marketing, ambient environmental effects, consumer psychology, and psychometric measurement.
• Bianca Grohmann, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Concordia University Research Chair in Consumer Psychology and Marketing, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Her expertise encompasses sensory marketing, brand personality, aesthetic product design, and quantitative scale development.

Purpose

The primary objective of developing the ATPH was to address longstanding methodological and theoretical ambiguities in consumer attitude measurement. Historically, marketing and applied psychology researchers relied on omnibus, unidimensional scales (e.g., measuring attitudes purely along a Bad/Good or Unfavorable/Favorable continuum) or unvalidated ad hoc batteries. Such approaches failed to distinguish between whether a consumer favored a product because of its functional, goal-directed efficacy or because of its sensory, emotional, and pleasure-inducing properties. The development of the ATPH provided a rigorous, psychometrically tested instrument designed to capture the distinct hedonic dimension of brand and product evaluations independently from the utilitarian dimension.

In academic research, the scale is employed to test complex theoretical models involving dual-process cognition, emotional versus rational persuasion, consumer motivation, experiential branding, and product positioning. For instance, researchers utilize the ATPH to assess how varying advertising appeals (e.g., emotional storytelling versus technical specification framing) interact with product types (e.g., luxury goods versus household cleaners) to influence overall brand equity and purchase intention. In practical commercial and industry settings, the ATPH serves as a diagnostic tool in product development, sensory evaluation, packaging design, and brand health tracking. It enables brand managers and user experience (UX) researchers to ascertain whether an aesthetic redesign or novel feature successfully elevates consumers’ perceived excitement, enjoyment, and sensory delight without confounding these responses with perceived practical utility.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the ATPH is the hedonic dimension of consumer attitude. Rooted in psychological theories of affect and motivation, consumer attitude is defined as an enduring, learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner toward a particular object, brand, or service. The hedonic dimension specifically encapsulates the subjective, experiential, affective, and emotional gratification derived from, or anticipated in, the consumption experience.

Hedonic consumption is characterized by multisensory engagement, fantasy, excitement, aesthetic appreciation, and pleasure seeking. Consequently, the ATPH measures the degree to which an object stimulates positive affective arousal and intrinsic reward. The construct does not measure cognitive competence, instrumentally driven problem solving, or functional efficacy; rather, it reflects what psychologists describe as consummatory, affective valuation. When individuals evaluate an entity hedonically, they process stimuli through sensory channels (auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory) and intrinsic emotional responses.

The ATPH models this construct through five specific emotional-evaluative markers:

• Fun: The perception of playful amusement, lightheartedness, and entertainment associated with interacting with the product.
• Excitement: The level of positive psychological and physiological arousal, stimulation, and dynamism elicited by the brand.
• Delight: An intense state of positive surprise and affective satisfaction that transcends basic contentment.
• Thrillingness: The capacity of the object to produce visceral, intense, and exhilarating emotional reactions.
• Enjoyment: The overarching sensation of personal pleasure, gratification, and positive well-being derived from use or ownership.

By capturing these facets simultaneously, the ATPH yields a unified, highly focused metric of hedonic attitude that operates orthogonally or obliquely alongside utilitarian considerations depending on the product category under investigation.

Theoretical Framework

The ATPH is grounded in the foundational consumer behavior paradigm articulated by Elizabeth Hirschman and Morris Holbrook (1982) regarding experiential consumption. Prior to Hirschman and Holbrook’s seminal contributions, consumer decision making was predominantly conceptualized through an information-processing, rational-actor lens (e.g., the models of Howard and Sheth, or Bettman), which viewed consumers as logical problem-solvers seeking to optimize functional utility.

Hirschman and Holbrook challenged this microeconomic orthodoxy by arguing that consumers frequently pursue products for their symbolic meaning, sensory pleasure, aesthetic value, and emotional resonance. They posited that consumption entails multisensory images, emotional arousal, and playful experiences. This experiential view aligned with broader psychological frameworks, such as the Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD) emotional state model introduced by Mehrabian and Russell (1974), which underscored the role of primary emotional reactions in driving approach and avoidance behaviors.

Building on these conceptual foundations, Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003) operationalized the dual-component attitude structure. They posited that total attitude toward an object ($A_O$) is a joint function of utilitarian evaluation ($A_{Utilitarian}$) and hedonic evaluation ($A_{Hedonic}$):

A_O = f(A_Utilitarian, A_Hedonic)

Within this theoretical model, the utilitarian dimension is cognitively anchored, evaluating instrumental, practical, and functional efficacy (e.g., whether an object is effective, helpful, functional, necessary, and practical). In contrast, the hedonic dimension is affectively anchored, evaluating experiential pleasure, sensory stimulation, and emotional reward. While certain utilitarian goods (e.g., laundry detergent, prescription medication) may predominantly activate the utilitarian component, and certain hedonic goods (e.g., amusement parks, luxury perfume, video games) primarily evoke hedonic attitudes, most consumption objects occupy a multidimensional space wherein both components operate concurrently to shape overall preference, brand attachment, and loyalty.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the ATPH was established across an extensive multistep scale development paradigm reported by Voss et al. (2003) and corroborated by subsequent international research.

Content and Face Validity

Voss and colleagues initially generated a pool of candidate items extracted from an extensive review of the psychology, marketing, and psychometrics literature. Panels of expert judges in consumer behavior and psychometrics evaluated the candidate semantic differentials, refining and eliminating ambiguous, overly generic, or overlapping items. The five final hedonic items were demonstrated to possess clear semantic alignment with the theoretical boundaries of experiential and sensory gratification.

Convergent Validity

In structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), convergent validity is evidenced by high, statistically significant factor loadings on the latent hedonic construct. Across diverse product testing contexts (encompassing utilitarian products like motor oil and headache remedies, dual-nature products like athletic shoes and personal computers, and purely hedonic products like musical concerts and gourmet chocolates), standard factor loadings ($lambda$) for all five hedonic items consistently exceeded .80, with many surpassing .90 ($p < .001$). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for the hedonic dimension routinely exceeded .70 to .80, markedly above the conventional .50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981).

Discriminant Validity

A critical milestone in establishing the ATPH was demonstrating its statistical independence from the utilitarian scale (ATPU) and general bipolar attitude scales (e.g., Bad/Good, Unfavorable/Favorable). Voss et al. (2003) utilized nested CFA model comparisons, demonstrating that a two-factor model (constraining hedonic and utilitarian dimensions to be distinct but correlated) yielded significantly superior fit over a single-factor unconstrained model ($\Delta\chi^2$ tests were significant at $p < .001$). Furthermore, the squared correlation between the hedonic and utilitarian constructs was substantially lower than the AVE of each individual construct, fulfilling the rigorous Fornell-Larcker discriminant validity criterion. Additional cross-validation studies verified that the ATPH does not conflate with product involvement, brand familiarity, or generalized positive affectivity.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive utility of the ATPH has been documented across numerous empirical investigations. The hedonic dimension uniquely predicts variance in impulse buying, experiential brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth (WOM), and emotional brand attachment beyond what is explained by utilitarian attitudes alone. In hedonic and lifestyle product categories, the ATPH typically displays a substantially stronger regression weight on purchase intention and willingness to pay a price premium than does the utilitarian dimension.

Reliability

The ATPH demonstrates exceptional internal consistency reliability across varied samples, demographic cohorts, and cultural contexts. In the original validation studies by Voss et al. (2003):

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Alpha coefficients for the five-item hedonic scale ranged between .91 and .96 across four separate empirical studies and diverse product categories.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling estimates for composite reliability routinely exceeded .92, well above the standard psychometric benchmark of .70.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for each of the five items routinely exceeded .75, indicating high item homogeneity without excessive semantic redundancy.

Subsequent replications in experimental marketing, human-computer interaction (evaluating hedonic websites and digital software), and hospitality research have confirmed comparable levels of reliability ($lpha > .88$). Test-retest reliability across short administration intervals (e.g., two to three weeks in stable brand attitude conditions) has further established the temporal stability of the scale scores.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the ATPH was rigorously evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during item purification and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during formal validation.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary phases, candidate items representing both utilitarian and hedonic aspects were subjected to principal components and maximum likelihood factor analyses with oblique rotations (e.g., Promax). The analyses clearly demonstrated a clean, two-factor structure. Hedonic items (fun, exciting, delightful, thrilling, enjoyable) exhibited primary loadings ranging from .78 to .91 on the hedonic factor, with cross-loadings on the utilitarian factor remaining negligible (consistently below .20).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In the final CFA models evaluated by Voss et al. (2003) across multiple samples, the hypothesized two-factor oblique structure provided an exemplary fit to the empirical data. Representative goodness-of-fit indices reported across studies included:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranged from .96 to .99, indicating excellent model fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI / NNFI): Consistently exceeded .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values ranged between .041 and .065, confirming low residual error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Consistently below .04.

Standardized factor loadings for the five items in the final measurement model are detailed below:

• Not fun / Fun: $lambda pprox .86 – .93$
• Dull / Exciting: $lambda pprox .82 – .89$
• Not delightful / Delightful: $lambda pprox .84 – .92$
• Not thrilling / Thrilling: $lambda pprox .80 – .88$
• Unenjoyable / Enjoyable: $lambda pprox .88 – .94$

These robust factor loadings confirmed that each item contributes substantial, unique explanatory power to the latent hedonic construct while preserving parsimony.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale.
• Format: 7-point bipolar semantic differential scale.
• Number of Items: 5 item pairs.
• Scoring Range: Individual items are scored from 1 (most negative hedonic anchor) to 7 (most positive hedonic anchor). The composite score can be calculated as the arithmetic mean (ranging from 1.0 to 7.0) or summed total (ranging from 5 to 35). Higher scores denote a more favorable, pleasure-oriented, and emotionally gratifying attitude toward the target product or brand.
• Administration Time: Less than 2 minutes, rendering it suitable for large-scale consumer surveys, post-experience evaluations, and laboratory experiments.
• Target Population: Consumers, adult respondents, adolescents, and user experience evaluators across general population samples.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2003.
• Original Publication Source: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 310–320).
• Copyright & Permissions: The scale was published under the copyright of the Academy of Marketing Science and Sage Publications. The scale items were placed in the public academic literature for scholarly, educational, and non-commercial research purposes. Academic researchers may utilize the scale in scientific investigations without royalty fees, provided appropriate scholarly citation is attributed to Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003). Commercial entities, market research corporations, or software developers seeking to integrate the scale into proprietary commercial diagnostic suites should consult copyright policies or seek formal clearance from the publisher.

References

• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600314
• Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press.
• Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303254404

Items of the Scale