See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229566029

The Perceived Credibility of Quality Labels: A Scale Validation with

Refinement

Article in International IJC · August 2008

DOI: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00713.x

CITATIONS READS

95 2,975

2 authors:

Salim Moussa Mourad Touzani

University of Gafsa, Tunisia NEOMA Business School
46 PUBLICATIONS 535 CITATIONS 81 PUBLICATIONS 895 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Salim Moussa on 30 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

The perceived credibility of quality labels: a scale validation

with refinement
Salim Moussa and Mourad Touzani
Higher Institute of Management, University of Tunis, Tunisia

Keywords
Quality labels, signal theory, credibility, scale
validation.
Correspondence
Salim Moussa, Institut Supérieur de Gestion,
41 Rue de la Liberté, Cité Bouchoucha, Le
Bardo 2000, Tunisie. E-mail:
salimmoussa@yahoo.fr
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00713.x
Abstract
In this paper, we present quality labels as signals that reduce problems that arise under
asymmetric information. We propose to closely scrutinize the concept of signal credibility,
which is a key determinant of signalling effectiveness. In order to assess the perceived
credibility of a quality label, we offer a revisited version of a scale originally proposed by
Larceneux. The data used in this paper involve three different labels and were collected
using self-report surveys administered to 602 respondents. Based on findings from a
variety of reliability and validity tests, the scale demonstrates good psychometric proper-
ties. Both theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, along with limitations and
future research directions.

los and Krystallis, 2003; Larceneux, 2003b; McEachern and

Introduction
Over the last decade, the proliferation of quality labels, certifica-
tion marks and seals of approval has become a worldwide phe-
nomenon. Fuelling this increase in quality labels are (a) the
growing consumer concerns about the safety of fresh meat and
food products in general as a result of numerous scandals and
crises that have affected the food industry (such as bovine spongi-
form encephalopathy – so-called ‘mad cow’ disease – in the early
1990s and the recent outbreak of ‘bird flu’ virus H5N1); (b) the
increased consumers’ knowledge about links between diet and
health; and (c) the latest significant development of green and
ethical consumerism. Therefore, consumers have become more
and more concerned not only about health and safety claims but
also about the ethical and ecological aspects of their consumption
(Fraj and Martinez, 2007; Llopis-Goig, 2007).
In response to consumers’ growing demand for healthy/safe,
organic, regional-specific, fair trade, reliable, power-saving and
environmental-friendly products, manufacturers and retailers are
currently flagging products displaying a specific logo (or label)
that ascertain one or more of these quality attributes (McEachern
and Warnaby, 2004). However, not all of the quality labels cur-
rently appearing on products in the marketplace are issued by
third parties. Many of them are the result of testing or certifying
schemes maintained by retailers and manufacturers who are
directly involved in the production and sale of these products.
Despite the ubiquity of quality labels that has brought a ‘new’
attribute that is free and immediately present at the moment of
purchasing into the consumer choice process, quality labels have
received relatively modest but upward interest within the market-
ing literature (Parkinson, 1975; Laric and Sarel, 1981; Beltramini
and Stafford, 1993; Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy, 2002; Fotopou-
Schröder, 2004; Tang et al., 2004; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005;
Getz and Shreck, 2006; D’Souza et al., 2007), and many questions
regarding their impact on consumer decision-making process and
consumer behaviour remain unanswered.
With the present study, we are trying to shed some light on the
perceived credibility of quality labels (PCQL) among consumers
by answering the following two questions: (1) How credible are
quality labels? (2) How can we measure it? The purposes of this
paper are twofold: (a) to present quality labels as signals that
reduce the information asymmetry between supplier and buyer
about unobservable product quality; and (b) to refine and validate
a scale originally proposed by Larceneux (2001) that assessed the
perceived credibility of quality labels.
Towards these aims, this paper is organized around the follow-
ing lines. In the first section, the theoretical background is pre-
sented. A definition of the PCQL concept and a brief description of
the PCQL scale are given in the next section. The third section
focuses on scale validation issues (i.e. item selection and judge-
ment, questionnaire and data collection, factorial structure and
internal consistency, unidimensionality and convergent validity,
discriminant and predictive validities). In the fourth section, both
theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, along with
limitations and future research directions.
Literature review
Information economics and signal theory
Following information economic models of search behaviour
(Stigler, 1961), Nelson (1970) proposed in his seminal paper a
distinction between two types of goods: search and experience

526 International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
S. Moussa and M. Touzani
goods. Search goods were defined as products whose quality the
consumer can verify before purchasing (e.g. clothing). Experience
goods were defined as products whose quality can be ascertained
only after buying and experiencing the product (e.g. foods).
Darby and Karni (1973) took up Nelson’s theory and broadened
it in two perspectives. First, they turned from a product differen-
tiation to a distinction between product attributes because a
product can incorporate diverse attributes. Second, they intro-
duced credence attributes in addition to search and experience
ones. Credence attributes are product characteristics that cannot be
evaluated by search prior to purchase or experience after purchase
and are very costly to evaluate at all (Darby and Karni, 1973,
pp. 68–69). For many products, taste, safety, health, ethical and
ecological qualities are very often experience or credence
attributes (Grunert, 2005; Jahn et al., 2005), and when the object
of exchange is such a product, sellers usually possess more infor-
mation about these qualities than do buyers. This information
differential is called information asymmetry (Arrow, 1963;
Akerlof, 1970; Kirmani and Rao, 2000; Karstens and Belz, 2006).
Therefore, in the predominance of experience and credence
attributes, many market dysfunctions, such as adverse selection
(Akerlof, 1970), may arise. With adverse selection, George
Akerlof showed that when uncertain about the sellers’ quality,
consumers will tend to look for bargains that minimize the risk of
being tricked. However, this bargain search has the adverse effect
of driving out higher quality sellers from the market because they
are indisposed to accept lower prices, leaving behind only the
lemons (i.e. lower quality sellers; Akerlof, 1970, pp. 489–492).
A possible answer to the lemons problem could be the seller’s
transfer of information to the customer in order to indicate its
quality. This type of information forwarding is referred to as
signalling (Spence, 1973). Nobel prize-winning economist
Michael Spence defines signals as attributes or activities that
convey information about the characteristics of an economic agent
(e.g. job applicants, firms, consumers) and that are subject to his
manipulation (Spence, 1973, p. 357). A more elaborated definition
considers signals ‘as a marketer-controlled, easy-to-acquire infor-
mational cue, extrinsic to the product itself that consumers use to
form inferences about the quality or the value of the product’
(Bloom and Reve, 1990, p. 59).
Commonly studied signals in the marketing literature include
brand name (Erdem et al., 2006), price (Rao, 2005), advertising
spending (Moorthy and Hawkins, 2005), warranties (Sobermann,
2003), money-back guarantee (Moorthy and Srinivasan, 1995),
retailer reputation (Purohit and Srivastava, 2001), certification
(Mishra, 2006) and quality labels (Fotopoulos and Krystallis,
2003; Larceneux, 2003a,b; Jahn et al., 2005; Karstens and Belz,
2006).
According to Kirmani and Rao (2000), these signals can be
classified1 as either default-independent or default-contingent
signals. Default-independent signals are signals that involve
up-front money expenditure and in which monetary loss occurs
independently of whether the firm default on its claim (advertising
expenditures, brand investments and certification costs belong to
this group). Conversely, default-contingent signals are signals in
which the monetary loss occurs only when the firm does not
adhere to its claim (the main representatives of this group are
1
Other classifications do exist (see Bhattacharya, 1980).
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Perceived credibility of quality labels
warranties and money-back guaranties). Each of these categories
can be further subdivided on the basis of whether the expenditure
depends on an actual sale. Sale-independent default-independent
signals, such as investments in advertising and quality certifica-
tion, involve expenditure that occurs whether or not a sale takes
place. In contrast, sale-dependent signals, such as a low introduc-
tory price and slotting allowances, involve expenditures only in the
presence of a sales transaction.
Quality labels as quality signals
Certification marks and quality labels can be defined as ‘marks
used upon or in connection with the products and services of one
or more persons to certify regional or other origin, material, mode
of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of such
goods or services’ (Phelps, 1949). As sale-independent default-
independent signals,2 quality labels are designed to provide the
consumer with product quality information, hence reducing the
information asymmetry between suppliers and buyers (Fotopoulos
and Krystallis, 2003; Larceneux, 2003b). In other words, a quality
label assists the ill-informed consumer by transforming credence
or experience attributes into ‘quasi-search attributes’ that the con-
sumer can search for (Caswell, 1998; Jahn et al., 2005; Karstens
and Belz, 2006). Take for example a golden organic apple, which
has a number of different attributes: (a) the price and the colour
can be searched prior to the purchase; (b) the taste of the apple can
be experienced after the purchase; whereas (c) the kind of farming/
production can hardly be verified by the consumer – neither before
nor after the purchase of the product. Only a credible organic label
can convert this credence attribute into a search one.
However, quality labels are also a blurry category that covers
many different things. They can be awarded by manufacturers,
groups of manufacturers, retailers, government bodies, certifiers
and independent organizations (e.g. consumer associations, maga-
zines). The criteria for awarding the labels can either be very strict
or non-existent at all. Some quality labels refer to very specific
qualities, such as labels indicating organic production, whereas
others are intended as general quality labels (Grunert, 2005).
Therefore, just giving consumers more information will not reduce
asymmetry when consumers do not feel confident about using the
information. For this reason, the credibility of the signal represents
the main aspect behind an equilibrium in which high- and low-
quality sellers can be separated (Kirmani and Rao, 2000).
The perceived credibility of a quality
label and the PCQL scale
Signalling theory suggests that signal credibility determines
whether a signal conveys information effectively. But what is
‘credibility’? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language, in its fourth edition, credibility is the
quality, capacity or power to elicit belief. Eisend (2002) states that
‘credibility describes a person’s perception of the truth of a piece
of information’. Therefore, credibility is a perceived quality; it
does not reside in an object, a person or a piece of information.
2
For several quality labels, up front expenditures are essential to meet
certain norms or standards of production/sale, and this money spent occurs
whether or not a sale happens.
527
Perceived credibility of quality labels
Consequently, in discussing the credibility of a quality label, we
are always discussing its perceived credibility.
The scholarly examination of the concept of credibility is as
old as the discussion of rhetoric itself, having originated with the
ancient Greeks (e.g. Aristotle, Cicerone). Previous works have
detected many different dimensions of credibility (for reviews,
see Ohanian, 1990; Eisend, 2002). In a recent study, Eisend
(2002) found that there are two main dimensions of source cred-
ibility in marketing communication, namely competence and
trustworthiness. Source credibility is a term commonly used to
imply a communicator’s positive characteristics that affect the
receiver’s acceptance of the message.3 Eisend also concluded
that these dimensions are the same as those identified by
Hovland et al. (1953, p. 21) in their seminal work on source
credibility and labelled expertness and trustworthiness. The
expertness dimension captures the perceived knowledge, experi-
ence, skill and competence of the source. Trustworthiness refers
to an audience’s belief that the source provides information in
an honest manner, without a motivation for manipulation or
deception.
Turning to PCQL, the literature review revealed that the concept
was evoked and investigated in a small number of works (e.g.
Parkinson, 1975). Expertise, trustworthiness and impartiality were
depicted as the principal characteristics of a credible seal or label
and were compared with other sources of information (i.e. adver-
tisements, salespersons and friends). However, neither a definition
of the concept nor its measure was reported. Recently, the PCQL
concept was further studied by Fabrice Larceneux. In his works,
Larceneux (2001, 2003a,b) concludes that quality-label credibility
likely depends on the awarder’s credibility. To be credible, a label
must come from a third-party organization, foreign to the
manufacturer/seller, competent and not at all interested in the sale
of the product bearing the label. Note that this definition stresses
on the independence of the awarding organization, its expertise
and the honesty of its intentions. Based on the above definition,
Larceneux (2001) proposed a scale containing six items measured
on a seven-point Likert-type scale (i.e. 1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree). But given that the study carried out by Larce-
neux (2001) was exploratory in spirit, data analysis was restricted
to principal component analysis and internal consistency assess-
ment through Cronbach’s coefficient alpha computation
(a = 0.846). The data analysed were collected from a convenience
sample of only 60 respondents (Larceneux, 2001, pp. 12–14).
Consequently, this scale should be scrutinized further. We turn to
this issue just next.
The PCQL scale refinement
and validation
The process used to refine and validate the PCQL scale followed
the procedures recommended by Churchill (1979) and Gerbing
and Anderson (1988), among others. The scale evolved from items
selection and judgement to construct validity tests.
3
The persuasiveness of source credibility is well documented. Interested
readers are directed to Pornpitakpan’s (2004) recent literature review for
more details.
528
S. Moussa and M. Touzani
Items selection and judgement
Based on a literature review (Larceneux, 2001, 2003b), a set of 17
items was developed. Driven by face validity considerations
(Hardesty and Bearden, 2004), these items were presented to four
marketing academics to determine whether each item should be
retained for further analyses. The four ‘expert judges’ were given
the definition of the PCQL concept and were instructed to rate
each of the 17 items in the following scale: (a) clearly represen-
tative; (b) somewhat representative; and (c) not at all representa-
tive of the construct under scrutiny. Items that were not rated as
representative were dropped, resulting in nine items solution.
A pretest sample of 32 students was then conducted. Face-to-
face interviews were adopted. The two chief objectives of this
pretest were to eliminate ambiguous and redundant items and to
determine whether there is any problem with the original French
version of the items. From respondent comments, some of the
statements were rephrased. In addition, two items were dropped
because they appeared to be extremely redundant. The remaining
pool of seven items was used for the main study data collection.
Questionnaire and data collection
Three grocery products (i.e. cookies, yogurt and shampoo) dis-
playing three different quality labels (i.e. an ISO 9001:2000 cer-
tification mark, élu produit de l’année or voted product of the year
2006, and Victoire de la beauté 2006) were selected. These prod-
ucts reflect experience goods (Nelson, 1970) relatively inexpen-
sive and frequently purchased. The retained quality labels fit with
the two label categories identified by Larceneux (2003a), namely
technical labels (ISO 9001:2000 certification mark) and experien-
tial labels (voted product of the year 2006 and Victoire de la beauté
2006). Thus, three versions of the questionnaire were developed.
All were administrated in French with quality-label logo and
product pictures.
For each quality label/product pair, students were intercepted on
campus and were asked: (a) to indicate their agreement on a series
of seven items about the PCQL; and (b) to evaluate products
bearing each quality label on a series of seven statements, covering
product perceived quality (PPQ; four items) and product purchase
intention (PPI; three items). For the PCQL items as well as for
other constructs, a seven-point Likert-type scale was used (i.e.
1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
A total of 627 self-administrated questionnaires were collected
with convenience sampling method. Twenty-five surveys contain-
ing missing data about the theoretical concept of interest were
discarded, resulting in an effective sample size of 602 responses.
Sample socio-demographical characteristics appear in Table 1.
The sample of 602 observations was split randomly into an explor-
atory analysis sample (N1 = 301) and a validation sample
(N2 = 301).
Factorial structure and internal consistency
Scores on PCQL seven items for N1 = 301 observations were
factor analysed by using the spss version 12 (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL, USA) principal axis analysis. Principal axis analysis was
retained as the method of extraction as principal components
analysis is not always appropriate when developing scales
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
S. Moussa and M. Touzani Perceived credibility of quality labels

Table 1 Sample socio-demographic characteristics (N = 602) Table 2 Summary of the principal axis factor analysis results (N1 = 301)

Characteristics Number in sample Items ma sb bic ad

Monthly household income PCQL1 4.73 1.698 0.704

-325 TDa 185
Between 325 and 650 TD 258
Between 651 and 975 TD 106
Between 976 and 1300 TD 19
Between 1301and 1625 TD 14
+1626 TD 20
Gender
Female 404
Male 198
Age
Mean 23.773
Median 23
Standard deviation 3.838
Urbanization
Urban 543
Rural 59
a
$US1 = 1.209 Tunisian Dinar (31 January 2008 exchange rate).
(Fabrigar et al., 1999; Iacobucci, 2001). With principal axis fac-
toring, we seek to maximally account for the co-variance among
the original variables with a small number of common factors.
The factor analysis was implemented by using several conven-
tional criteria (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). First, the
Bartlett test of sphericity (the correlation matrix is identity) and
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure (KMO of sampling adequacy) were
inspected to verify whether the items shared a common core.
Second, parallel analysis (Horn, 1965; Patil et al., 2008) was per-
formed to determine the number of factors to retain. Third, com-
munalities and factor loadings were inspected. Only items that
exhibit a communality above 0.40 and a loading higher than 0.50
were retained. Here, only one item did not show a high commu-
nality and a significant loading with the extracted factor. Before
deletion, the item was inspected to ensure that the original
meaning of the construct remained unchanged. A second factor
analysis was conducted on the six remaining items (see Appen-
dix). The KMO yielded a value of 0.877 and the Bartlett test of
sphericity obtained an approximated c2 value of 627 452 with an
associated significance of P < 0.001, signifying that the data set is
adequate to factor analysis. Parallel analysis indicated a one-factor
solution with a total extracted variance of 56.777%. The six items
loaded heavily on the extracted factor. The loadings ranged from
0.649 to 0.735 (see Table 2). Cronbach’s alpha index of internal
consistency was computed and obtained a value of a = 0.847
(95% confidence interval: 0.818–0.872; Duhachek et al., 2005).
Unidimensionality and convergent validity
However, as written by Gerbing and Anderson (1988) and Ping
(2004), the exploratory factor analysis does not provide an explicit
test of unidimensionality. This important propriety refers to the
existence of a single trait or construct underlying a set of mea-
sures. Thus, a subsequent confirmatory analysis is needed for the
assessment of unidimensionality. Towards this end, we conducted
PCQL2 4.64 1.6 0.698
PCQL3 4.53 1.765 0.695 a = 0.847
PCQL4 4.91 1.53 0.735 (0.818–0.872)
PCQL5 4.95 1.636 0.649
PCQL6 4.78 1.724 0.679
a
Item mean.
b
Standard deviation.
c
Factor loadings.
d
Cronbach’s alpha reliability index (and its 95% confidence interval).
PCQL, perceived credibility of quality labels.
a confirmatory factor analysis for the remaining six items as speci-
fied by a multiple-indicator reflexive measurement model (Jarvis
et al., 2003) and estimated the model through the AMOS 4.01
(Smallwaters Corp., Chicago, IL, USA) maximum likelihood
method (Arbuckle, 1999; Byrne, 2001).4 Following the recent
recommendations of Bentler (2007, p. 826), the overall model fit
was evaluated by inspecting the comparative fit index (CFI),
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square
residual (SRMSR) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) indices. These different indices point out an excellent
level of fit for the measurement model (Table 3).
Convergent validity was determined by inspecting the param-
eter estimates. Specifically, large (>0.4), positive and statistically
significant estimates (t > 1.96) indicated that all loadings were not
trivially different from zero. The composite reliability index (r,
Jöreskog’s rho) and the average variance extracted (AVE or rVC)
showed values above the recommended thresholds of 0.70 and
0.50, respectively (Fornell and Larker, 1981; Ping, 2004), which
provides additional evidence of convergent validity.
Discriminant and predictive validity
In order to evaluate discriminant and predictive validities, a theo-
retical model was proposed. According to signal theory, the model
hypothesizes that the PCQL is positively related to the PPQ, which
is a prerequisite to the PPI (see Fig. 1). The model also posits a
direct relationship between PCQL and PPI.
PPQ refers to the consumer’s judgement of the overall excel-
lence, esteem or superiority of a product relative to alternative
product(s). PPQ is at a high level of abstraction than any specific
attribute of a product and differs from objective quality, as PPQ is
more akin to an attitudinal assessment of a brand (Zeithaml, 1988).
Four items were used to measure this construct based on scales
used by Dean (1999) and Erdem and Swait (2004). PPI refers to a
decision plan to buy a particular product (or brand) created
4
Prior to perform maximum likelihood estimation, values for skewness,
kurtosis and Mardia’s test of multivariate normal distribution were
inspected. Together they ascertain the non-deviation from multinormality
(Lei and Lomax, 2005).

International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors 529

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Perceived credibility of quality labels S. Moussa and M. Touzani

Table 3 Measurement model parameter estimates (N2 = 301) Table 4 Parameter estimates for the measurement models (N2 = 301)

Construct Path Estimatea tb rc r VCd Construct Path Estimatea tb rc r VCd

Perceived credibility of lX11 0.631 –e 0.861 0.509 Perceived credibility of lX11 0.648 –e 0.861 0.510
quality labels (x1) lX21 0.706 10.006 quality labels (x1) lX21 0.699 10.260
lX31 0.691 9.841 lX31 0.686 10.099
lX41 0.841 11.248 lX41 0.832 11.679
lX51 0.707 10.017 lX51 0.707 10.354
lX61 0.691 9.845 lX61 0.702 10.290
Perceived product lY11 0.818 –e 0.876 0.639
Overall goodness of fit indices
quality (h1) lY21 0.771 14.426
c2 = 24.868, d.f. = 9, P = 0.003, c2/d.f. = 2.763 lY31 0.821 15.595
Tucker–Lewis index = 0.963 lY41 0.787 14.806
Comparative fit index = 0.978 Product purchase lY12 0.740 –e 0.823 0.609
Root mean square error of approximation = 0.077 intention (h2) lY22 0.769 12.164
Standardized root mean square residual = 0.029 lY32 0.829 12.742
a
Standardized factor loadings computed via AMOS 4.01 maximum Overall goodness of fit indices
likelihood method.
b
c 2 = 137.420, d.f. = 62, P = 0.000, c 2/d.f. = 2.216
Student’s t-test of the null hypothesis that the parameter estimate is
Tucker–Lewis index = 0.950
zero.
c
Comparative fit index = 0.961
Jöreskog’s rho index of composite reliability.
d
Root mean square error of approximation = 0.064
Fornell and Larker’s average variance extracted.
e
Standardized root mean square residual = 0.044
This path was fixed to one for model identification.
a
Standardized factor loadings computed via AMOS 4.01 maximum like-
lihood method.
b
Student’s t-test of the null hypothesis that the parameter estimate is
zero.
c
Jöreskog’s rho index of composite reliability.
d
Fornell and Larker’s average variance extracted.
e
This path was fixed to one for model identification.

Figure 1 Theoretical model.

through a choice/decision process. Three items were used for
this construct based on the studies of Erevelles et al. (2001) and
Netemeyer et al. (2004).5
Figure 2 shows the structural model that was estimated through
the AMOS 4.01 maximum likelihood method. The parameter esti-
mates corresponding to the empirical model appear in Tables 4
and 5. The relatively low value (<0.08) of the RMSEA and the low
value (<0.05) of the SRMSR, together with the high values (>0.95)
of TLI and CFI, suggest that the hypothesized structural model
provides a good fit to the data (Bentler, 2007).
As Table 4 demonstrates, all the loadings ranged from 0.648 to
0.832. The smallest t-value of the standard estimates was 10.099,
which indicates a high significance of the loadings. In addition, all
multi-item scales had composite reliability values ranging from
0.823 for PPI to 0.876 for PPQ. AVE rVC showed values ranging
from 0.510 for PCQL to 0.639 for PPQ. According to Fornell and
Larker (1981, p. 46), rVC can also be used to evaluate discriminant
validity. The requirements for discriminant validity are fully sat-
isfied if the squared correlation between constructs (g112 and g212) is
less than either of their individual AVEs [rVC(x1), rVC(h1) and
5
A bilingual expert fluent in both English and French translated these
scales. The verbal equivalence between the French and the English ver-
sions was checked through back-translation with the help of a second
bilinguist. This process was repeated until agreement was reached.
rVC(h2)], which suggests that the constructs each have more error-
free (extracted) variance than variance shared with other con-
structs (g112 and g212). As can be seen in Table 6, the results support
discriminant validity.
Turning to the statistical estimates of the structural paths (see
Table 5), we note that all the proposed relationships in the model
were statistically significant at the P < 0.01 level. The prediction
of a positive relationship between PCQL and PPQ was supported
(g11 = 0.601, t = 8.116, P < 0.01). The relationship between PCQL
and PPI was also significant (g11 = 0.311, t = 3.994, P < 0.01). This
provides an explicit evidence of the predictive validity of the
PCQL scale. Furthermore, PPQ was also significantly related to
PPI (b21 = 0.451, t = 5.721, P < 0.01).
Discussion
Summary and implications
The primary objective of this research was to refine and validate
a measure of the PCQL. Signal theory was used to delineate
the PCQL construct domain. Several advocated psychometric
procedures were used, including item judging, exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses, internal consistency and
unidimensionality assessment, and convergent, discriminant and
predictive validity testing. Across pretests and studies that cover
over 600 respondents and examine three different quality labels
displayed by three products, consistent evidence of the validity of
the revisited PCQL measure was found.

530 International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
S. Moussa and M. Touzani Perceived credibility of quality labels

Figure 2 Empirical model.

Table 5 Structural path parameter estimates (N2 = 301) (or cues) akin to the total food quality model (Grunert, 2005) can
provide more understanding about effects of quality labels on
Independent Dependent
consumer behaviour before and after purchase.
variable variable Path Estimate t R 2a
Given the brevity of this measure, managers may find it useful
x1b h1c g11 0.601 8.116 0.361 to determine whether the quality label that their products are
x1 h2d g21 0.311 3.994 0.469 bearing or will bear is perceived as highly credible by consumers.
h1 h2 b21 0.451 5.721 This scale can also be used by retailers, magazines and third-party
a
Coefficient of determination for the system of equations. organizations to evaluate the perceived credibility of their own
b
Perceived credibility of quality label. labels against other quality labels present in the marketplace.
c
Product perceived quality.
d
Product purchase intention. Limitations and future research directions
Like most studies, ours is not without limitations. However, these
limitations raise questions that could be the subject of further
Table 6 Assessment of discriminant validity (N2 = 301)
research. First, our sample was convenience-based and was mainly
Construct x1 h1 h2 composed by students. Whether our results will generalize to all
a
the population is not known. We suggest that future replications
x1 0.510
could retest and calibrate the scale on random samples of consum-
h1 0.361b 0.639a
h2 0.096c 0.203d 0.609a
ers. Second, although we looked at three different quality labels,
all retained products were frequently purchased grocery goods.
a
Average variance extracted (r VC). Whether this measure would hold as well for quality labels asso-
b
Square of g11. ciated to durable goods, services or web sites has yet to be tested.
c
Square of g21. This scale could also be translated to other languages and extended
d
Square of b21. to other countries to see how the PCQL varies across cultures.
However, it is necessary to note that quality labels seldom
operate in isolation as manufacturers and sellers regularly use a
The above results have both theoretical and managerial impli- combination of signals to convey quality information. Understand-
cations. Theoretically, to our knowledge, this is the first study that ing the interactions between these signals can prove to be highly
offers a valid multi-item measure for the PCQL construct. As there useful (Miyazaki et al., 2005). Thus, future research is needed to
had been no published studies that validated such a measure with determine how quality labels operate in the presence of other
rigorous psychometric procedures, the results reported here should effective signals like brands (Erdem et al., 2006), warranties
be considered as part of a larger effort of trying to develop more (Sobermann, 2003) or prices (Rao, 2005).
dependable measures and empirical research about quality labels.
With this improved scale, relationships between PCQL and other
theoretically related constructs can henceforth be further studied.
Acknowledgements
In this spirit, a more comprehensive conceptual framework that The authors would like to acknowledge the support, comments and
deals with how consumers infer quality from a variety of signals suggestions of the guest editor and the two IJCS anonymous

International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors 531

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Perceived credibility of quality labels
reviewers. The first author wants to thank Hamida Skandrani,
Karima Ghzaeil, Nadia Gouta, Hayet Ben Ayed and Hounaida
Dhaou for their helpful comments during the first stages of this
research.
References
Akerlof, G.A. (1970) The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and
the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–
500.
Arbuckle, J.L. (1999) AMOS 4.01 [Computer software]. SmallWaters
Corp., Chicago, IL.
Arrow, K.J. (1963) Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical
care. American Economic Review, 53, 941–973.
Beltramini, R.F. & Stafford, E.R. (1993) Comprehension and perceived
believability of seals of approval information in advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 22, 3–13.
Bentler, P.M. (2007) On tests and indices for evaluating structural
models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825–829.
Bhattacharya, S. (1980) Nondissipative signaling structures and dividend
policy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95, 1–24.
Bloom, P.N. & Reve, T. (1990) Transmitting signals to consumers for
competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 33, 58–66.
Byrne, B.M. (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic
Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Caswell, J.A. (1998) How labelling of safety and process attributes
affects markets for food. Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review, 27, 151–158.
Churchill, G.A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures
of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 21,
64–73.
Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal
amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.
Dean, D.H. (1999) Brand endorsement, popularity and event sponsor-
ship as advertising cues affecting pre-purchase attitudes. Journal of
Advertising, 28, 1–12.
De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E. & Mielants, C. (2005)
Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee.
International Marketing Review, 22, 512–530.
Duhachek, A., Coughlan, A.T. & Iacobucci, D. (2005) Results on the
standard error of the coefficient alpha index of reliability. Marketing
Science, 24, 294–301.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green deci-
sion: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental
labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 371–376.
Eisend, M. (2002) Dimensions of credibility in marketing communica-
tion. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 366–373.
Erdem, T. & Swait, J. (2004) Brand credibility, brand consideration, and
choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 191–198.
Erdem, T., Swait, J. & Valenzuela, A. (2006) Brands as signals: a cross-
country validation study. Journal of Marketing, 70, 34–49.
Erevelles, S., Roy, A. & Yip, L.C.S. (2001) The universality of the
signal theory for products and services. Journal of Business Research,
52, 175–187.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegner, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. & Strahan, E.J. (1999)
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Fornell, C. & Larker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18, 39–50.
Fotopoulos, C. & Krystallis, A. (2003) Quality labels as a marketing
advantage. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1350–1374.
532
S. Moussa and M. Touzani
Fraj, E. & Martinez, E. (2007) Ecological consumer behaviour: an
empirical analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31,
26–33.
Gerbing, D.W. & Anderson, J.C. (1988) An updated paradigm for scale
development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment.
Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.
Getz, C. & Shreck, A. (2006) What organic and fair trade labels do not
tell us: towards a place-based understanding of certification. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 490–501.
Grunert, K.G. (2005) Food quality and safety: consumer perception and
demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 369–391.
Hardesty, D.M. & Bearden, W.O. (2004) The use of expert judges in
scale development: implications for improving face validity of mea-
sures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57,
98–107.
Horn, J.L. (1965) A rational and test for the number of factors in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. & Kelley, H.H. (1953) Communication and
Persuasion. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Iacobucci, D. (2001) Factor analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
10, 75–76.
Jahn, G., Schramm, M. & Spiller, A. (2005) The reliability of certifica-
tion: quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 28, 53–73.
Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B. & Podsakoff, P.M. (2003) A critical
review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecifica-
tion in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30, 199–218.
Karstens, B. & Belz, F.-M. (2006) Information asymmetries, labels and
trust in the German food market. International Journal of Advertising,
25, 189–211.
Kirmani, A. & Rao, A.R. (2000) No pain, no gain: a critical review of
the literature on signalling unobservable product quality. Journal of
Marketing, 64, 66–79.
Larceneux, F. (2001) Proposition d’une échelle de mesure de la
crédibilité d’un signe de qualité. DMSP Working paper n°289.
Larceneux, F. (2003a) Segmentation des signes de qualité: labels expéri-
entiels et labels techniques. Décisions Marketing, 29, 35–46.
Larceneux, F. (2003b) Stratégie de la signalisation de la qualité:
l’impact des labels sur le processus de décision des consommateurs.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris IX Dauphine, France.
Laric, M.V. & Sarel, D. (1981) Consumer (mis)perceptions and usage of
third party certification marks, 1972 and 1980: did public policy have
an impact? Journal of Marketing, 45, 135–142.
Lei, M. & Lomax, R.G. (2005) The effect of varying degrees of nonnor-
mality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling,
12, 1–27.
Llopis-Goig, R. (2007) Fair trade and global cognitive orientation: a
focus on Spanish fair trade consumers. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31, 468–477.
McEachern, M.G. & Schröder, M.J. (2004) Integrating the voice of the
consumer within the value chain: a focus on value-based labelling
communications in the fresh-meat sector. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 21, 497–509.
McEachern, M.G. & Warnaby, G. (2004) Retail ‘quality assurance’
labels as a strategic marketing communication mechanism for fresh
meat. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 14, 255–271.
Mishra, D.P. (2006) The role of certification in service relationships:
theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 13, 81–96.
Miyazaki, A.D. & Krishnamurthy, S. (2002) Internet seal of approval:
effects on online privacy policies and consumer perceptions. Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 36, 28–49.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 S. Moussa and M. Touzani
Miyazaki, A.D., Grewal, D. & Goodstein, R.C. (2005) The effect of
multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: a matter of consis-
tency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 146–153.
Moorthy, S. & Hawkins, S.A. (2005) Advertising repetition and quality
perception. Journal of Business Research, 58, 354–360.
Moorthy, S. & Srinivasan, K. (1995) Signaling quality with money-back
guarantee: the role of transaction costs. Marketing Science, 14, 442–
466.
Nelson, P. (1970) Information and consumer behaviour. Journal of
Political Economy, 78, 311–329.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean,
D., Ricks, J. & Wirth, F. (2004) Developing and validating measures
of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business
Research, 57, 209–224.
Ohanian, R. (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure
celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attrac-
tiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19, 39–52.
Parkinson, T.L. (1975) The role of seals and certifications of approval in
consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 9, 1–14.
Patil, V.H., Singh, S.N., Mishra, S. & Donavan, D.T. (2008) Efficient
theory development and factor retention criteria: abandon the ‘eigen-
value greater than one’ criterion. Journal of Business Research, 61,
162–170.
Phelps, D.M. (1949) Certification marks under the Lanham act. Journal
of Marketing, 13, 498–505.
Ping, R.A. Jr. (2004) On assuring valid measures for theoretical models
using survey data. Journal of Business Research, 57, 125–141.
Appendix The French final version of the PCQL scale (seven-point Likert scale,
1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree)
PCQL1
PCQL2
PCQL3
PCQL4
PCQL5
PCQL6
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 526–533 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
View publication stats
Perceived credibility of quality labels
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: a criti-
cal review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 34, 243–281.
Purohit, D. & Srivastava, J. (2001) Effect of manufacturer reputation,
retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of
product quality: a cue diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 10, 123–134.
Rao, A.R. (2005) The quality of price as a quality cue. Journal of
Marketing Research, 42, 351–357.
Sobermann, D.A. (2003) Simultaneous signalling and screening with
warranties. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 176–192.
Spence, M. (1973) Job market signalling. Quarterly Journal of Econom-
ics, 87, 355–374.
Stigler, G.J. (1961) The economics of information. Journal of Political
Economy, 69, 213–225.
Tang, E., Fryxell, G.E. & Chow, C.F. (2004) Visual and verbal commu-
nication in the design of eco-label for green consumer products.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16, 85–105.
Worthington, R.L. & Whittaker, T.A. (2006) Scale development
research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices.
Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806–838.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) Consumer perception of price, quality, and value:
a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52, 2–22.
Je peux me fier à ce que dit ce signe.
Ce signe émane d’un organisme ou d’experts reconnus.
Ce signe est honnête.
L’organisme qui remet ce signe a de bonnes intentions.
L’organisme a fait passer des tests sérieux avant de délivrer ce signe.
Ce signe m’inspire confiance.
533