The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing
Abstract
The examination of individual differences in consumer information processing is an emerging area of research within both marketing and consumer behavior. In this article, we report on two studies that focus on ability versus preference for imaginal or visual processing. The first study assesses the psychometric properties of frequently used measures of imaginal processing ability and preference; the study's results were somewhat supportive of the two ability measures but not supportive of the preference measure. The second study proposes and tests a new measure of processing preference—the Style of Processing (SOP) scale—which exhibits internal consistency as well as discriminant and criterion validity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
VISUAL IMAGERY DIFFERENCES IN THE RECALL OF PICTURES
MARKS, D. F. (1973) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x · Cited by 1,778
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208812 · Cited by 1,344
Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices
Peter, J. P. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150948 · Cited by 1,189
Cited by
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517
Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response
Bloch, P. H. (1995) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299505900302 · Cited by 1,920
Hilken, T., de Ruyter, K., Chylinski, M., Mahr, D., & Keeling, D. I. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0541-x · Cited by 693
Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/374697 · Cited by 527
When Do People Rely on Affective and Cognitive Feelings in Judgment? A Review
Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868310367640 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1985-09
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2074049680
- Cited by
- 498
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 3.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/208501
- The paper
- Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/208501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
