Being the Same and Different: A Model Explaining New Product Adoption

Yaron Timmor, Ph.D.

Academic Head of Business Studies
Raphael Recanati International School of Business
Head, Marketin !ommunication Proram
Arison School of Business
Interdisciplinar" !enter Her#li"a $ID!%
P.&.B. '(), Her#li"a *('+,
Tel- ./)01/1/(,10)'(, ./)0121(*213((,
4a5- ./)01/1/+(13(,+, e1mail- timmor6idc.ac.il
http-77888.idc.ac.il7lecturers7"aron.timor
Tal 9at#1:a;on, Ph.D.
Arison School of Business
Interdisciplinar" !enter Her#li"a $ID!%
P.&.B. '(), Her#li"a *('+,, Israel
Tel7fa5- ./)01/1/+01)2*/
e1mail- kat#t6idc.ac.il
Being the Same and Different: A Model Explaining New Product Adoption
Abstract
The stud" suests an alternati;e conceptuali#ation for understandin adoption
<eha;ior o;er time, <ased on &ptimal Distincti;eness Theor" $Bre8er, '//'%, 8hich states
that social identit" deri;es from a fundamental tension <et8een human needs for ;alidation
and similarit" to others=the need for assimilation=and a counter;ailin need for
uni>ueness and indi;iduation=the need for differentiation. The present stud" proposes that
the effect of the si#e of the roup of consumers 8ho ha;e alread" adopted a ne8 product on
an indi;idual consumer?s decision to adopt this product is continent upon the consumer?s
t8o predispositions- the need for assimilation and the need for distincti;eness. Results of
empirical research suested that differentl" percei;ed su<roup si#es fulfill consumers? dual
needs for distincti;eness and assimilation differentl". The influence of the adopters? roup
si#e on a consumer?s decision to adopt a ne8 product ;aried amon indi;iduals 8ith different
le;els of needs for distincti;eness and assimilation- 8hen need for distincti;eness 8as lo8,
the hiher 8as the need for assimilation and the larer 8as the percei;ed roup si#e, the
hiher 8as the pro<a<ilit" of adoptin the product. @hen the need for distincti;eness 8as
hih, the lo8er 8as the need for assimilation and the larer 8as the percei;ed roup si#e, the
lo8er 8as the pro<a<ilit" of adoptin the product. In addition, 8hen the need for
distincti;eness and assimilation 8ere <oth hih, the pro<a<ilit" of adoptin the product rose
as the percei;ed roup si#e increased. Implications for product ;ariation, marketin
communication, and taret roups are discussed.

Ke !ords: New Product Adoption" Diffusion" Need for Distincti#eness" Assimilation"
Ma$orit and Minorit %nfluence
0
%ntroduction
Marketin studies are continuall" lookin to understand consumer decisions to adopt
ne8 products $Bearden A Bt#el, '/30C Drier A Deshpande, 0,,'C Sheth, Minttal A :e8man,
'///%. Studies of ne8 product adoption ha;e used t8o main approaches to e5plain
consumers? adoption <eha;ior. &ne approach uses areate models, 8hich e5amine
consumers after the diffusion process of a ne8 product is completed. These models are <ased
mainl" on time and order of adoption alon the product diffusion process $Bass, '/(/C
MahaEan, Muller, A Sri;asta;a, '//,%. 4or e5ample, these models classif" consumers as
inno;ators 8ho adopt a ne8 product earl" in its lifec"cle, earl" adopters, or earl" and late
maEorit" $Roers, '/)(C Roers A Shoemaker, '/)'%. Some studies associate the first roup
of adopters $i.e., inno;ators% 8ith other personalit" traits such as <ein opinion leaders
$Midle" A Do8lin, '//2C Summers, '/),%, sociall" acti;e, in;ol;ed, and ;enturesome
$Danaher, Bruce, Hardie, A @illiam, 0,,'C Datinon A Ro<ertson, '/3+C Horski, '//,C
Fa<a" A 9innear, '/3'C Roers A Shoemaker, '/)'%. Ho8e;er, these studies characteri#e the
indi;iduals in the ;arious cateories post ante, and do not e5plain why particular indi;iduals
choose to adopt at a certain time or attempt to predict adoption <eha;ior <efore the inno;ation
is introduced.
A second approach uses continenc" models, 8hich seek to e5plain and predict
indi;idual adoption <eha;iors <" e5plorin a consumer?s personal predispositions and ho8
these dispositions interact 8ith specific situations $9enrick A 4under, '/33C Midle" A
Do8lin, '//2%. The present stud" suests an alternati;e conceptuali#ation for
understandin adoption <eha;ior. The model arues that the effect of the si#e of the roup of
consumers 8ho ha;e alread" adopted a ne8 product on the consumer?s decision to adopt this
product is continent upon the consumer?s t8o predispositions- the need for assimilation and
the need for distincti;eness $Bre8er, '//'C '//2%.
2
&ptimal Distincti;eness Theor" $&DTC Bre8er, '//'% suests that social identit" is
acti;ated in order to meet competin needs for differentiation of the self from others and
inclusion of the self into social collecti;es. Both differentiation and inclusion are po8erful
social moti;es or dri;es. Social identit" deri;es from a fundamental tension <et8een the
human needs for ;alidation and similarit" to others=the need for assimilation=and a
counter;ailin need for uni>ueness and indi;iduation=the need for differentiation. These t8o
fundamental needs are independent, i.e., indi;iduals need <oth a specific le;el of similarit" to
and differentiation from others at a certain time. &ptimal distincti;eness can <e ;ie8ed as a
compromise <et8een assimilation and differentiation from others $Bre8er, '//'%.
The stud" starts <" re;ie8in the main findins of the influence of roup si#e on
adoption <eha;ior. It then discusses &ptimal Distincti;eness Theor" $Bre8er '//', '//2% and
the t8o predispositions of need for distincti;eness and need for assimilation. These needs?
moderatin effects on the relationship <et8een perceptions of roup si#e and adoption
<eha;ior are e5plained theoreticall". 4inall", the empirical research is presented, discussin
the theoretical and manaerial implications.
&he influence of percei#ed group si'e on adoption beha#ior
The proposed model is <ased on the assumption that all related indi;iduals are part of
a roup in reards to a specific content such as product, ser;ice, opinion or idea. Bach
indi;idual <elons either to the su<roup that has alread" adopted the ne8 product or to the
su<roup of indi;iduals that has not adopted it. @hiche;er roup the indi;idual <elons to is
the Ginroup?, 8hile the other roup is the Goutroup?. The numerical si#e of each su<roup
constantl" chanes as indi;iduals mo;e from one su<roup to the other.
MaEorit" and minorit" su<roups constantl" influence each other mem<ers? <eha;iors
and attitudes $De Hries et al., '//(C Prislin, Fim<ert A Bauer, 0,,,C Tan, @ei, @hatson,
!lapper A McFean, '//3%, mainl" throuh roup norms and social pressure $e.., Asch '/++C
*
Bond A Smith '//(C Deutsch A Derard, '/++C 9rulanski A @e<ster, '//'% and minorit"
dissent $Mosco;ici, '/3+C '/)(C :emeth, '/3(%. @hen e5posed to maEorit" influence, a
minorit" is likel" to e5perience su<stantial conformance pressure that causes it to focus on the
maEorit" position. This induces compliance <eha;ior $Mackie, '/3)%. In addition, studies
suested that indi;iduals tend to <elie;e that the maEorit" position implies correctness and
8hat is riht, discounts uncertaint", or Eustifies decisions $Baker A Pett", '//*C Dardikiotis,
Martin A He8stone 0,,+C Shuper A Sorrentino, 0,,*C Tan et al., '//3%. This apparent
maEorit" influence increases as the maEorit" su<roup si#e increases $e.., Asch, '/++C
Tanford A Penrod, '/3*%.
!onsumer <eha;ior studies ha;e discussed the influence of roup si#e on customers?
Eustification and adoption <eha;ior $Burt, '/3)C Mackie, '/3)C Tan et al., '//3%. The term
<and8aon effect $Fei<enstein, '/+,% descri<es a <eha;ioral propensit" to follo8 the cro8d.
Applied to the adoption of ne8 products, the <and8aon effect predicts that consumers are
more likel" to adopt a ne8 product if the" percei;e a hiher le;el of adoption <" other
consumers in the marketplace. In this conte5t, the <and8aon effect ma" 8ork throuh t8o
related processes- A purel" coniti;e process ma" produce inferences reardin the >ualit" of
the productC if man" consumers ha;e adopted the product, it must <e effecti;e, ood or
;alua<le. Bmotional or social processes ma" also reduce the percei;ed risk of adoptionC there
is less social risk in adoptin a product if man" other consumers ha;e alread" adopted it. A
<and8aon effect e5ists 8hen consumers deri;e a <enefit from usin a <rand that is popular
$Hellofs A Iaco<son, '///%. Becker $'//'% noted that the use of some oods in;ol;es a social
aspect in that people use or consume the <rand in pu<lic. The <and8aon effect predicts that
adoption likelihood increases as the percei;ed num<er of adopters in the rele;ant reference
roup increases $Bass, '/(/C MahaEan, Muller, A Sri;asta;a, '//,, Roers, '/32%.
+
Indi;iduals tend to compare their decisions and <eha;iors to others that ser;e as their
reference roups $Hoch A Foe8enstein, '//'%. Reference theor" $Stafford, '/)'% refers to the
notion that comparison roups are used as frames of reference <" indi;iduals to determine
their o8n self status or relati;e position in a social s"stem. Bmpiricall", Asch?s $'/++%
e5periments of maEorit" influence on indi;iduals and the studies that follo8ed used small
anon"mous reference roups at a sinle time point $e.., !lark A Maass, '//,C Prislin et al.,
0,,,- Tanford A Penrod, '/3*%. The indi;iduals in these roups kne8 e5actl" ho8 man"
mem<ers <eloned to 8hich su<roup $maEorit" ;s. minorit"%. Ho8e;er, ;er" often a
commercial firm?s taret roups tend to <e lare, 8ith relati;el" 8eak relationships amon
mem<ers. In lare roups, consumers cannot accuratel" estimate the si#e of their reference
roup that has adopted the product and 8hether this roup of adopters constitutes a maEorit"
or a minorit". !onse>uentl", consumers 8ould <ase their <eha;ior on their perceptions of the
roup si#es. The follo8in is h"pothesi#ed-
(). In lare roups, the percei;ed le;el of ne8 product adoption
amon mem<er of the rele;ant reference roup 8ill ha;e a positi;e
effect on an indi;idual?s propensit" to adopt a ne8 product.
11111111111111111111
Insert 4iure ' a<out here
1111111111111111111111
Needs for distincti#eness and assimilation and group si'e
The >uestion is 8ho is mo;in from one su<roup $i.e., non1adopters% to the other
$i.e., adopters%, and 8h".
(
!onsider the follo8in e5ample- A customer enters the store lookin for a pair of
pants. She looks at one <riht red pair. Aimin to help her make her decision, the sales person
sa"s, JI see that "ou ha;e ;er" ood and uni>ue taste. Most <u"ers don?t look at the red ones.
The" prefer the <lue ones.K She mum<les, JMmm, I can understand 8h"L I?ll think a<out it
and come aain ne5t 8eek.K Then, another customer enters the store and looks at the red
pants. This time, the sales person hesitates to repeat her mistake and instead sa"s, JIt?s
interestin, most of m" clients this 8eek 8ere interested in these red pants and man" <ouht a
pair for themsel;esK. In response, the costumer also lea;es the store <ut this time mum<les,
J@ell, I?ll o to look for somethin that other people don?t ha;e.K In the former situation, the
fact that onl" a minorit" of customers <ouht the product influenced the customer?s decision
not to <u" the product, 8hile in the latter situation the fact that the maEorit" of customers
<ouht the product influenced the customer?s decision not to <u" it.
@hether identification 8ith a particular social roup satisfies simultaneousl" <oth the
need for assimilation and the need for distincti;eness depends on this roup?s le;el of
inclusi;eness, i.e., the num<er of persons that can <e classified as mem<ers of the same roup.
There e5ists an optimal roup si#e in 8hich <oth needs are satisfied. This optimal le;el is a
function of the relati;e strenths of the opposin dri;es for assimilation and differentiation
$Bre8er, '//2%.
It is important to point out the differences <et8een the needs for assimilation and
distincti;eness and other indi;idual characteristics that ha;e <een discussed in the marketin
literature in relation to adoption <eha;ior. Most studies e5amined factors such as product
kno8lede $i.e., interest in the product, readin related maa#ines, social acti;it"%, reliance on
peers $i.e., seekin ad;ice 8hen purchasin ne8 products%, opinion leaders $i.e., i;in ad;ice
to others%, and educational le;el $Bass, '/(/C Datinon A Ro<ertson '/3+C MahaEan et al.,
'//,%. Amon these studies, conformit" $Burt, '/3)% and need for uni>ueness $Sn"der A
)
4rankin, '/))C Tian, Bearden, A Hunter, 0,,'% ha;e more rele;ance to attitudes to8ard
maEorit" and minorit" su<roups. !onformit" refers to a chane in <eliefs or <eha;iors <ased
on real or percei;ed roup pressures $Black8ell, Miniard, A Bnel, 0,,(%. :eed for
uni>ueness refers to counter1conformit" $:ail, '/3(%. These concepts differ from the needs
for assimilation and distincti;eness in the follo8in manner- !onformit" is measured on a
continuum from the conformers to the counter1conformers. Thus, an indi;idual cannot <e a
conformer and a counter1conformer simultaneousl". Assimilation and distincti;eness on the
other hand are independent of each other, 8hich means that an indi;idual can ha;e a hih
need for assimilation and for distincti;eness at the same time $Bre8er, '//2%. In addition,
conformit" is associated 8ith lo"alt"C indi;iduals sho8 hih conformit" 8hen the" stick to
their su<roup 8hether it is the Jsmall minorit"K or the Jlare maEorit"K. Assimilation
ho8e;er, is fulfilled 8ithin lare roups 8hile distincti;eness is fulfilled 8ithin small roups
$Bre8er, '//'%.
It is proposed that the t8o needs for distincti;eness and assimilation influence
indi;iduals? adoption <eha;ior. 4or each ne8 product, a consumer ma" <elon either to the
su<roup of people 8ho ha;e alread" adopted the product or to the su<roup that has not "et
adopted it. The si#e of each of these t8o su<roups chanes o;er time as more indi;iduals
adopt the product. As the su<roups? si#es chane, so do their le;els of inclusion, i.e., their
a<ilit" to satisf" consumers? needs for assimilation and distincti;eness. Since each indi;idual
has different le;els of the t8o needs, different roup si#es satisf" the needs of different
indi;iduals.
The need for distincti;eness is concerned 8ith personal identit" that differentiates one
indi;idual from others 8ithin a i;en social conte5t. Farer su<roups are more inclusi;e
social units that de1personali#e the self1concept that is J8here I <ecome @e $Turner et al.,
'/3), p. +,%. As more and more people adopt a ne8 product or idea alon the diffusion
3
process, the adopters roup si#e increases. Hence, as the su<roup si#e increases, it cannot
satisf" indi;iduals? need for distincti;eness and the indi;idual is less a<le to satisf" his7her
need for distincti;eness. Thus, the follo8in is h"pothesi#ed-
(*- The indi;idual?s need for distincti;eness moderates the
relationship <et8een the indi;idual perception of the si#e of the roup
of people that alread" adopted the product and the indi;idual?s decision
to adopt the product- the hiher the indi;idual?s need for distincti;eness
and the larer the percei;ed roup si#e, the lo8er the pro<a<ilit" that
the indi;idual 8ill adopt the ne8 product.
Some indi;iduals need to feel Jthe sameK as the other roup mem<ers $Bre8er, '//'%.
Alon the diffusion process, 8hen more and more roup mem<ers adopt a ne8 product or
idea, one percei;es one?s <eha;ior as similar to man" others. The adopters? roup si#e
increases, and conse>uentl", the indi;idual is <etter a<le to satisf" his7her need for
assimilation. Thus, the follo8in is h"pothesi#ed-
(+- The indi;idual?s need for assimilation moderates the relationship
<et8een the indi;idual perception of the si#e of the roup of people
that alread" adopted the product and the indi;idual decision to adopt
the product- the hiher the need for assimilation and the larer the
percei;ed roup si#e, the hiher the pro<a<ilit" that the indi;idual 8ill
adopt the ne8 product.
@e assert that consumers 8ill adopt a ne8 product 8hen the" percei;e that a certain
num<er of consumers ha;e alread" adopted the product and this num<er optimall" satisfies
their dual needs to <e assimilated in the inroup and differentiated from the outroup. An
/
indi;idual 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness and lo8 need for assimilation 8ill adopt a
product 8hen s7he percei;es that onl" a small num<er of consumers ha;e alread" adopted it.
In a roup of potential customers, an indi;idual 8ith a hih need to <e distinct from others
and a lo8 need for inclusi;eness 8ithin the roup <eha;es in a 8a" that emphasi#es that s7he
is different. To ensure that the adoption <eha;ior is noticed, this indi;idual 8ill adopt the
product 8hen s7he percei;e that onl" a small num<er of customers ha;e alread" adopted the
product, thus makin her7his adoption conspicuous. B" adoptin a ne8 product or idea 8hen
others ha;e "et to adopt it, one e5plicitl" sinifies that s7he is not like most other people. As
the num<er of adopters increases, the indi;idual 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness is
e5pected to look aain for somethin different and ne8. These indi;iduals are not necessaril"
Jinno;atorsK or Jopinion leadersK $Datinon A Ro<ertson '/3+C Roers '/32% since the" are
not necessaril" ad;enturers or risk takers <ut rather seek to satisf" their hih need to <e
distinct from others.
An indi;idual 8ith a lo8 need for distincti;eness and a hih need for assimilation 8ill
tend to adopt 8hen s7he percei;es that man" consumers ha;e alread" adopted the product, and
this lare roup satisfies her7his hih need for inclusion.
Another option is that the indi;idual?s needs for distincti;eness and assimilation are
<oth hih. In this case, this consumer? desire to <e a part of the roup is in conflict 8ith
his7her aspiration to also <e uni>ue. In order to sol;e this internal conflict, the consumer ma"
8ait and adopt the product onl" later in time, 8hen the num<er of adopters increases and
satisfies his7her need for assimilation. Yet, at the same time, this consumer ma" look for the
product?s least popular st"le in order to satisf" his7her need for distincti;eness. 4or e5ample,
such a person ma" <u" the most popular <rand of Eeans in order to satisf" the hih need for
assimilation, <ut ma" prefer the least purchased color to satisf" her7his hih need for
distincti;eness.
',
4inall", an indi;idual can ha;e <oth a lo8 need for assimilation as 8ell as a lo8 need
for distincti;eness. These indi;iduals ma" <e less suscepti<le to social influences and <e
moti;ated more <" personal preferences. These indi;iduals are not necessaril" laards
$Roers, '/32% since their personal needs ma" influence their decision to adopt the product at
an" point alon the diffusion process. Hence, it is proposed that the needs for assimilation and
distincti;eness moderate the relationship <et8een percei;ed roup si#e and adoption <eha;ior
as follo8s-
(,- 4or indi;iduals 8ith a lo8 need for distincti;eness, the hiher their
need for assimilation and the larer the" percei;e the si#e of the roup
of people that ha;e alread" adopted the product to <e, the hiher the
pro<a<ilit" that the" 8ill adopt the product.
(-- 4or indi;iduals 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness, the lo8er their
need for assimilation and the larer the" percei;e the si#e of the roup
of people that ha;e alread" adopted the product, the lo8er the
pro<a<ilit" that the" 8ill adopt the product.
Methods
Participants- A total of '/3 students in an academic institute in Israel $3,M response
rate% ans8ered a >uestionnaire that 8as distri<uted to them at the end of class. The use of
students as participants is common in adoption research $for e5ample, Hill et al., '/3)C Fee A
Alla8a", 0,,0C Fim A Du<insk", 0,,*C Timmor A R"mon, 0,,)%. 4urthermore, 9een $'///%
found no difference in predictin consumer decisions reardin Internet use <et8een students
and mall shopper samples. In terms of social roup definition $Fickel et al., 0,,,%, the
participants in this stud" <eloned to the task and social cateories <ecause the students had
alread" studied toether in the same stud" proram for a<out t8o "ears and hence, had similar
oals and 8ere also enaed in social relations and acti;ities.
''
Procedure: 4irst, a <rainstormin meetin of the researchers and three students $8ho
8ere not part of the stud" sample% 8as held to identif" ne8 products. It 8as decided to use
three different products that 8ere then relati;el" ne8 to the market as e5amples in our
>uestionnaires- a cell phone 8ith a camera, a memor" stick, and a ne8 fashion item $in the
latter, 8e instructed participants to Jthink of a ne8 fashion item that has recentl" <een
introduced, such as a shirt or pair of pantsK%. Technoloical and fashion items are commonl"
used in studies of diffusion and adoption <eha;ior $e.., MahaEan et al., '//,C Miller,
McInt"re, A Mantrala, '//2C Tian et al., 0,,'%. Three ;ersions of the >uestionnaire 8ere
composed, one for each of the three products. Bach respondent 8as asked a<out onl" one of
the three product cateories.
:e5t, a pilot stud" of the three >uestionnaire ;ersions 8as conducted amon +,
students. Results demonstrated that less than half $'+M for the cell phone 8ith camera, 22M
for the memor" stick, and *3M for a ne8 fashion item% had alread" adopted the products,
impl"in that the products 8ere actuall" relati;el" ne8 to the market. 4inall", 0*,
>uestionnaires 8ere randoml" distri<uted $3, of each of the three different ;ersions% in si5
different classes.
Measures- &ur measures are <ased on earlier studies 8hen possi<le. In cases 8here
pre;ious measurements 8ere not a;aila<le or did not fit the proposed h"potheses, specific
measurement tools 8ere de;eloped.
Need for assimilation $N O .)0% and Need for distinctiveness $N O .32% 8ere each
measured 8ith four items <ased on Bre8er $'//', '//2C see Appendi5 ' for items%. 4or <oth
scales, responses raned on a +1point Fikert scale from 'PJdo not aree at all,K to +PJstronl"
aree.K
Perceptions of group size- Participants? perceptions of the si#e of the adopters roup
8ere measured usin the follo8in item- JThink a<out the students 8ho take the Marketin
'0
Research class 8ith "ou, ho8 man" of them do "ou estimate use a cell phone 8ith a camera
$or memor" stick or this fashion item%QK Responses raned on a +1point Fikert scale from
'PJno<od",K to +PJe;er"<od"K.
Adoption of the new product 8as measured <" the follo8in item- JDo "ou ha;e a cell
phone 8ith a camera $or a memor" stick or this fashion item%QKC responses 8ere either "es or
no.
Opinion leader 8as measured usin fi;e items and Risk taking 8as measured usin
t8o items $see Appendi5% adapted from Doldsmith and Hofacker $'//'C N O .)0 and N O .)(,
respecti;el"%. Responses raned on a +1point Fikert scale from 'PJdo not aree at all,K to
+PJstronl" aree.K
Control variables: $'% In order to control for necessit" or utili#ation of the
product $Bearden A Bt#el, '/30%, 8e included perceptions of product necessit"- Jin
"our opinion to 8hat e5tent is the product essentialQK Responses raned on a +1point
Fikert scale from 'PJnot at all,K to +PJhihl"K. $0% @e used a dumm" ;aria<le for
product t"pe.
.esults
Ta<le ' presents means, standard de;iations and correlations amon all ;aria<les.
!orrelations amon need for distincti;eness, need for assimilation, and <ein a risk taker, and
an opinion leader re;ealed no sinificance $see Ta<le '%.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Insert Ta<le ' a<out here
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
To test the three1factor structure of need for distincti;eness, need for assimilation, and
percei;ed roup si#e, 8e conducted a !onfirmator" 4actor Anal"sis $!4A% usin the !AFIS
procedure of SAS. The anal"ses 8ere performed on ;ariance1co;ariance matrices 8ith
'2
pair8ise deletion of missin ;alues. The !4A "ielded an accepta<le fit le;el $Hu A Bentler,
'///% of R
0
$0/, N O '/,% O **.*2, p O .,2, D4I O ./+, !4I O ./(, RMR O .,3, and RMSBA O .
,+. All the standardi#ed factor loadins in the model 8ere a<o;e .(, $the maEorit" of the
loadins 8ere <et8een .(, and .),%.
:e5t, in order to test the h"potheses, 8e applied a Foistic Reression Anal"sis to
e5amine the <eha;ior of those 8ho had and those 8ho had not adopted the product. The
independent ;aria<les 8ere percei;ed roup si#e, need for assimilation, need for
distincti;eness, product t"pe, and product necessit", the three t8o18a" interactions of
assimilation and percei;ed roup si#e, distincti;eness and percei;ed roup si#e, and
assimilation and distincti;eness, and the three18a" interaction of assimilation, distincti;eness
and percei;ed roup si#e.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Insert Ta<le 0 a<out here
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Results demonstrated $Ta<le 0% that the loistic reression 8as sinificant $pS .,'%, as
8as the prediction ;alidit" of 30.*M. All the main effects and interactions 8ere sinificant,
supportin the h"potheses. In order to raphicall" depict the three18a" interaction, 8hich
demonstrated the moderatin effects of needs for distincti;eness and assimilation on the
relationships <et8een percei;ed roup si#e and adoption <eha;ior, 8e follo8ed the raphin
procedure outlined <" Aiken and @est $'//'C see 4iures 0 and 2%.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Insert 4iures 0 A 2 a<out here
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The pro<a<ilit" of adoptin a ne8 product <" consumers 8ith a lo8 need for
distincti;eness increased the larer the" percei;ed the roup si#e of adopters to <e and
the hiher 8as their need for assimilation $4iure 0%. The pro<a<ilit" of adoptin a
ne8 product for consumers 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness decreased the larer
'*
the" percei;ed the roup si#e of adopters to <e and the lo8er their need for
assimilation 8as $4iure 2%. In addition, the pro<a<ilit" of adoptin a ne8 product <"
consumers 8ith <oth a hih need for distincti;eness and a hih need for assimilation
increased in tandem 8ith an increase in the percei;ed roup si#e.
Discussion
This stud" adds se;eral tiers to the understandin of the theor" and practice of
consumer <eha;ior in adoptin ne8 products- The stud" proposes alternati;e moti;ations
deri;ed from &ptimal Distincti;eness Theor" to e5plain and forecast customer <eha;ior in the
conte5t of ne8 product adoption. This model follo8s the continenc" approach, and theori#es
that the effect of roup si#e on adoption is moderated <" 8hether the particular roup si#e
satisfies the person?s need for assimilation and for distincti;eness, and their interaction.
@hile most other studies of minorit" and maEorit" influence used small roups mainl"
in la<orator" settins $for e5ample, Asch, '/++C Prislin et al., 0,,,C Tanford A Penrod, '/3*%,
the present stud" 8as conducted 8ithin relati;el" lare roups. @hen the roup is lare and
indi;idual roup mem<ers cannot correctl" estimate the numeric ;alue of the maEorit" and the
minorit" su<roups, there is a percei;ed minimum roup si#e that supports the indi;idual?s
<eha;ior rather than a numeric maEorit" or minorit". Since it is difficult for indi;iduals to
estimate the e5act roup si#e, the" consider 8hether the roup is G<i or small enouh? for
their particular needs.
The stud" results suest that consumers? percei;ed si#e of the adopters? roup had a
positi;e direct effect on the former?s <eha;ior such that the hiher the percei;ed roup si#e
8as, the more consumers 8ere inclined to adopt the ne8 product. This findin supports the
literature that emphasi#es that a percei;ed lare roup of adopters ma" Eustif" and reinforce
the decision to adoptC moreo;er, as the percei;ed adopter roup si#e increases, so ma" the
'+
pressure to Eoin this roup and follo8 its <eha;ior $Dardikiotis et al., 0,,+C Mackie, '/3)%.
Another rationale for Eoinin lare roups as reards information technolo" miht <e the
Gnet8ork effect?. 4or e5ample, the larer the roup of consumers 8ho ha;e a cell phone, the
larer is m" utilit" to communicate 8ith a cell phone and hence I 8ill tend to <u" one. &n the
other hand, if onl" a fe8 people ha;e a ;ideophone, then I am unlikel" to <u" one.
Scholars in the field of diffusion of inno;ation ha;e arued for the e5istence of
;arious indi;idual characteristics that can influence adoption <eha;ior $Danaher et al., 0,,'C
Datinnon A Ro<ertson, '/3+C Midle" A Do8lin, '//2%. &ur results suest that the
indi;idual?s needs for distincti;eness and assimilation co1e5ist simultaneousl" 8ithin the
same indi;idual, and also influence the consumer?s decision to adopt ne8 products. In
addition, the stud" results demonstrate that these t8o needs had a lo8 and non sinificant
correlation 8ith the concepts of opinion leaders and risk takers, 8hich 8ere pre;iousl"
discussed in the marketin literature in reard to ne8 product adoption.
In this stud", the effect of roup si#e on the consumer?s decision to adopt a ne8
product 8as continent on the consumer?s optimal distincti;eness needs- The three18a"
interaction of percei;ed roup si#e and needs for distincti;eness and assimilation 8as
sinificant. The chane in adoption <eha;ior $from non1adopter to adopter% occurred as a
result of the interaction <et8een the consumer?s perceptions of the adopters? roup si#e, and
his7her indi;idual needs for distincti;eness and assimilation. The different percei;ed roup
si#es fulfilled the needs for distincti;eness and assimilation differentl" and hence, impacted
the roup?s a<ilit" to affect adoption <eha;ior differentl". It appears that 8hile, in eneral, the
roup?s si#e has a positi;e effect on indi;idual consumer?s decision to adopt a ne8 product
$Dardikiotis et al., 0,,+C Mackie, '/3)C Roers, '/32%, its influence ;aries amon indi;iduals
8ith different le;els of distincti;eness and assimilation needs.
'(
The literature on maEorit" influence on adoption <eha;ior suests that the maEorit"
influences decisions throuh social pressure and the <and8aon effect, 8hile also discountin
uncertaint", $Baker A Pett", '//*C Dardikiotis, Martin A He8stone, 0,,+C Shuper A
Sorrentino, 0,,*C Tan et al., '//3%. This stud"?s results suest a >ualitati;el" different
e5planation for maEorit" influence on consumers? decisions to adopt ne8 products = that the
need for assimilation is more fulfilled in lare roups $Bre8er, '//2%. As the indi;idual
percei;es that more mem<ers ha;e adopted the product, her7his need for assimilation is <etter
satisfied <" <ein 8ithin this roup. Indeed, our results demonstrated that 8hen the
consumer?s need for distincti;eness 8as lo8 and the need for assimilation 8as hih, the
pro<a<ilit" of adoptin the product increased as the percei;ed roup si#e increased, <etter
fulfillin this hiher need for assimilation.
&n the other hand, the need for distincti;eness is more fulfilled in small roups
$Bre8er, '//2%, 8here the indi;idual percei;es that fe8er mem<ers ha;e alread" adopted a
product. &ur results sho8 that 8hen the consumer?s need for distincti;eness 8as hih and the
need for assimilation 8as lo8, the pro<a<ilit" of adoptin the product decreased as the
percei;ed roup si#e increased P no lon fulfillin the hiher need for distincti;eness. To
date, most studies on product adoption ha;e focused on 8hen an indi;idual 8ill adopt the
product, and little attention has <een i;en to indi;iduals 8ho ha;e alread" a<andoned it $e..,
MahaEan et al., '//,C Midle" A Do8lin '//2C Roers, '/)(%. Theoreticall", our model
suests that a<andonment <eha;ior can occur 8hen consumers ha;e a hih need for
distincti;eness and a lo8 need for assimilation. The" are most prone to a<andon the product
and mo;e to another one 8hen the" percei;e that the roup of adopters has ro8n too <i to
fulfill their hih need for distincti;eness.
@hen <oth the need for assimilation and need for distincti;eness 8ere hih and the
percei;ed num<er of adopters 8as hih, it ma" <e presupposed that consumers 8ill <e
')
conflicted internall" as to 8hether to adopt the ne8 product. &n one hand, the" miht feel
encouraed to adopt the product <ecause the percei;ed maEorit" satisfies their hih need for
assimilation. Ho8e;er, alternati;el", the" ma" feel disinclined to adopt the product due to the
fact that man" people ha;e alread" adopted it and their need for distincti;eness 8ould there<"
not <e satisfied. &ur results demonstrate that the pro<a<ilit" that consumers 8ith <oth a hih
need for assimilation and a hih need for distincti;eness 8ill adopt the product increased as
the percei;ed num<er of adopters increased. &ne potential e5planation for this findin ma" <e
the conte5t of the present stud". Since the three products used 8ere relati;el" ne8, less than
fift" percent of the participants had alread" adopted them at the time of the stud". Hence, the
percei;ed roup si#e still had some a<ilit" to fulfill the need for distincti;eness <ut had
alread" reached a si#e that 8ould fulfill the hih need for assimilation. 4or e5ample, the
consumer 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness and a hih need for assimilation ma" adopt the
product <ecause JI am not the onl" one 8ho <u"s the product, "et not e;er"one has alread"
purchased itK. A hih need for assimilation ma" encourae the consumer to <u" a 8ell1kno8n
<rand $e.., Fe;i?s Eeans% "et a hih need for distincti;eness ma" push the customer to prefer a
less common color or desin.
'3
4inall", consumers 8ith a lo8 need for distincti;eness and a lo8 need for assimilation
8ere Eust as likel" to adopt the product e;en as the percei;ed roup si#e increased. The term
self1monitorin refers to the e5tent to 8hich indi;iduals reulate their <eha;iors <ased on
e5ternal e;ents such as the reactions of other people or <ased on internal factors such as their
o8n <eliefs, attitudes, and interests $Sn"der, '/)*%. !onsumers 8ith a lo8 need for
distincti;eness and a lo8 need for assimilation ma" <e lo8 self1monitors, hence, indifferent to
the e5ternal influence of others. These indi;iduals? decisions to adopt a ne8 product ma"
in;ol;e internal factors such as indi;idual taste and preferences. Another potential
e5planation ma" <e that these consumers are less sociall" in;ol;edC conse>uentl", the" are
less a8are of and affected <" the <eha;iors of others.
/uture .esearch
4irst, the present stud" 8as conducted amon <usiness students. It 8ould <e
interestin to e5amine such a diffusion process in other population sements. Second, 8e
used three t"pes of different sociall" ;isi<le products and recei;ed similar patterns of results
for the three of them. 4or further ;alidation of the proposed model, 8e suest testin it 8ith
other t"pes of products, for e5ample, less ;isi<le products such as h"iene products. Third,
participants 8ere sur;e"ed in a specific period. @hile the relati;el" short period ena<led us to
<etter control the process, a loner research period ma" ena<le deeper e5amination of the
diffusion process alon time. 4inall", the stud" 8as conducted amon a @estern and modern
population. Predispositions such as the needs for distincti;eness and assimilation ma" <e
affected <" cultural factors. Hence, it is 8orth replicatin it across different cultures.
%mplications and 0onclusions
Researchers and practitioners are constantl" dealin 8ith the >uestion of 8hat affects
consumers? decisions to purchase ne8 products. This stud" suests that potential <u"ers
decidin a<out purchasin a ne8 product consider the num<er of consumers that ha;e alread"
'/
adopted the product ad hoc. In lare taret roups, 8hat is important is the percei;ed num<er
of adopters rather than the real maEorit" or minorit" actuall" adoptin. Hence, consumers ma"
under1 or o;er1estimate the num<er of adopters. Marketers can reduce disinformation <"
communicatin to potential customers $throuh ad;ertisin, PR acti;ities% the actual num<er
of adopters.
!ustomers 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness ma" respond more positi;el" and <u"
products 8hen onl" a small roup of customers ha;e adopted it 8hereas customers 8ith a
hih need for assimilation 8ill adopt products 8hen man" other people are alread" usin it.
Thus, althouh ne8 customers ma" feel encouraed to adopt a particular product 8hen more
and more people are <u"in it, persons 8ith a hih need for distincti;eness ma" react in the
opposite 8a", and a;oid usin the ne8 product. Moreo;er, such customers ma" in fact
a<andon the product and mo;e to a different one. In order to retain these customers, it is
important to consider introducin to the market ne8 ;ariations of a product earlier in its life
c"cle, or to constantl" offer ne8 ;ariations of a product. In addition, for customers 8ith a
hih need for distincti;eness, there should <e a further focus on product and imae
differentiation. Hariation can also <e suita<le for the customers 8ith hih needs for <oth
assimilation and distincti;eness. Ho8e;er, 8hen dealin 8ith customers 8ith a hih need for
assimilation, more concern should <e i;en to the J<ein the sameK factor, 8hich emphasi#es
that man" ha;e alread" adopted the product, re;ealin that others think and <eha;e the same
8a" $i.e., product item, color%.
The model can <e more easil" applied 8ith customers? clu<s and B1to1B, since these
marketin platforms allo8 closer relations 8ith clients and hence, make it easier to anal"#e
their needs and the su<roups? composition. :e;ertheless, in mass marketin and sporadic
contacts, also, the <eha;ior of indi;idual customers can <e o<ser;ed at the point of purchase,
0,
and e;en durin a sales talk <et8een a seller and a potential <u"er, the latter can sinal that
s7he is more assimilation ;ersus distincti;eness oriented.
0'
.eferences
Aiken, F., A @est, S. $'//'%. ultiple Regression: !esting and "nterpreting
"nteractions. Fondon- Sae.
A<rams, D., Thomas, I., A Ho, M.A. $'//,%. J:umeric Distincti;eness, Social
Identit" and Dender SalienceK, #ritish $ournal of %ocial Psychology, 0/ $'%, 3)1/0.
Alicke, M.D., A Faro, B. $'//+%. JThe Role of the Self in the 4alse !onsensus
BffectK, $ournal of &'perimental %ocial Psychology, 2', 031*).
Asch, S. B. $'/++%. J&pinions and Social PressureK, %cientific American, '/2, 2'1+.
Baker, S. M., A Pett", R.B. $'//*%. JMaEorit" and Minorit" Influence- Source Position
Im<alance as a Determinant of Messae Scrutin"K, $ournal of Personality and %ocial
Psychology, () ', +1'/.
Bass, 4. M. $'/(/%. JA :e8 Product Dro8th Model for !onsumer Dura<lesK,
anagement %cience, '+ $+%, 0'+100).
Becker, D.S. $'//'%. JA :ote on Restaurant Pricin and &ther B5amples of Social
Influences on PriceK, $ournal of Political &conomy, //, '',/1'''(.
Bearden, @.&., A Bt#el, M.I. $'/30%. JReference Droup Influence on Product and
Brand Purchase DecisionsJ, !he $ournal of Consumer Research, /,'321'/*.
Bond, R. A Smith, P.B. $'//(%. J!ulture and !onformit"- A Meta1anal"sis of Studies
Tsin AschUs $'/+0<, '/+(% Fine Iudment TaskK, Psychological #ulletin, ''/, ''1'2).
Bre8er, M. B. $'//'%. JThe Social Self- &n Bein the Same and Different at the Same
TimeK, Personality and %ocial Psychology #ulletin, '), *)+1*30.
Bre8er, M. B. $'//2%. JThe Role of Distincti;eness in Social Identit" and Droup
Beha;iorK, In M. A. Ho and D. A<rams $Bds.%, (roup otivation: %ocial Psychological
Perspectives, Pp. '1'+. Fondon- Har;ester @heatsheaf.
Burt, R. S. $'/3)%. JSocial !ontaion and Inno;ation- !ohesion Hersus Structural
B>ui;alenceK, American $ournal of %ociology, /0, '03)1'22+.
!lark, R.D. A Maass, A. $'//,%. JThe Bffects of MaEorit" Si#e on Minorit"
InfluenceK, &uropean $ournal of %ocial Psychology) 0,, //1'').
00
Danaher, P. I., Hardie, B.D.S. A @illiam, P. P. $0,,'%. JMarketin1Mi5 Haria<les and
the Diffusion of Successi;e Denerations of Technoloical Inno;ationK, $ournal of arketing
Research, 23, +,'1+'*.
De Hries, :. 9., De Dre8, !. 9. @., DordiEn, B. A Schuurman, M. $'//(%, JMaEorit"
and Minorit" Influence- A Dual Role InterpretationK, In @. Stroe<e and M. He8stone $Bds.%,
&uropean Review of %ocial Psychology, ), '*+1')0.
Deutsch, M. A Derard, H. B. $'/++%, JA Stud" of :ormati;e and Informational Social
Influence Tpon Indi;idual IudmentK, $ournal of Abnormal and %ocial Psychology, +', (0/1
(2(.
Bnel, I.4., Black8ell, R.D., A Miniard, P.@. $'//+%. Consumer #ehavior* 3
th
Bd.
&rlando, 4l- The Dr"den Press.
Dardikiotis, A., Martin, R. A He8stone, M. $0,,+%. JDroup !onsensus in Social
Influence- T"pe of !onsensus Information as a Moderator of MaEorit" and Minorit"
InfluenceK, Personality and %ocial Psychology #ulletin, 2' $/%, ''(21'')*.
Datinon, H. A Ro<ertson, T.S. $'/3+%. JA Propositional In;entor" for :e8 Diffusion
ResearchK, $ournal of Consumer Research, '', 3*/13().
Doldsmith, R.B. A Hofacker, !.4. $'//'%. JMeasurin !onsumer Inno;ati;enessK,
$ournal of the Academy of arketing %cience, '/, 0,/100'.
Drier, S.A. A Deshpande, R. $0,,'%. JSocial Dimensions of !onsumer
Distincti;eness- The Influence of Social Status on Droup Identit" and Ad;ertisin
PersuasionK, $ournal of arketing Research, 23, 0'(100*.
Hellofs, F.F A Iaco<son, R. $'///%. JMarket Share and !ustomers? Perceptions of
Vualit"- @hen can 4irms Dro8 Their @a" to Hiher Hersus Fo8er Vualit"QK, $ournal of
arketing, (2, '(10+.
Hill, T. D., Smith, A Mann, M. $'/3)%. JRole of Bfficac" B5pectations in Predictin
the Decision to Tse Ad;anced Technoloies- The !ase of !omputersK, $ournal of Applied
Psychology, )0, 2,)12'2.
Hoch, S.I., A Foe8enstein, D.4. $'//'%. JTime1inconsistent Preferences and !onsumer
Self1controlJ, $ournal of Consumer Research, '), */01+,).
02
Horsk", D. $'//,%, JThe Bffects of Income, Price and Information on the Diffusion of
:e8 !onsumer Dura<lesK, arketing %cience, /, 2*012(+.
9een, !.:. $'///%. JThe Attri<utes Structure of Internet Shoppin- @hat is
Important
and @hat Tradeoffs are Possi<le Bet8een Internet, Retail, and !atalo 4ormatsQK,
+npublished ,octoral ,issertation) Purdue +niversity) -est .ills) C*A*
9enrick, D.T., A 4under, D.!. $'/33%. JProfitin 4rom !ontro;ers"- Fessons from the
Person1Situation De<ateK, American Psychologist, *2 $Ianuar"%, 0212*.
9rueer, I., A !lement, R.@. $'//*%. JThe Trul" 4alse !onsensus Bffect- An
Ineradica<le and Bocentric Bias in Social PerceptionJ, $ournal of Personality and %ocial
Psychology, (), +/(1(',.
9rulanski, A.@. A @e<ster, D.M. $'//'%. JDroup Mem<ers? Reactions to &pinion
De;iates and !onformists at Har"in Derees of Pro5imit" to Decision Deadline and
Bn;ironmental :oiseK, $ournal of Personality and %ocial Psychology, (', 0'0100+.
Fa<a", D.D. A 9innear, T.!. $'/3'%. JB5plorin the !onsumer Decision Process
in the Adoption of Solar Bner" S"stemsK, $ournal of Consumer Research, 3, 2, 0)'1
0)3.
Fee, I. A Alla8a", A. $0,,0%. JBffects of Personal !ontrol on Adoption of
Self1Ser;ice Technolo" Inno;ationsK, !he $ournal of %ervices arketing, '(, ++21+)2.
Fei<enstein, H. $'/+,%. Band8aon, Sno<, and He<len Bffects in the Theor" of
!onsumers? DemandJ, /uarterly $ournal of &conomics, (*, '3210,).
Fickel, B. Hamilaton, D.I., @iec#orko8ska, D. Fe8is, A. Sherman, S.I. A Thles,
A.:. $0,,,%. JHarieties of Droups and the Perception of Droup Bntiti;it",K $ournal of
Personality and %ocial Psychology) )3, 00210*+.
Fim, H. and Du<insk", A.4. $0,,*%. J!onsumers? Perceptions of e1Shoppin
!haracteristics- An B5pectanc"1Halue ApproachK, $ournal of %ervices arketing, '3,
+,,1'2.
Mackie, D. M. $'/3)%. JS"stematic and :ons"stematic Processin of MaEorit" and
Minorit" Persuasi;e !ommunicationsK, $ournal of Personality and %ocial Psychology, +2 $'%,
*'1+0.
0*
MahaEan, H., Muller, B. A Sri;asta;a, R.9. $'//,%. JDetermination of Adopter
!ateories <" Tsin Inno;ation Diffusion ModelsK, $ournal of arketing Research, 0), 2)1
+,.
Midle", D. 4. A Do8lin, D.R. $'//2%. JA Fonitudinal Stud" of Product 4orm
Inno;ation- The Interaction <et8een Predispositions and Social MessaesK, $ournal of
Consumer Research, '/, (''1(0+.
Miller, !.M., McInt"re, S.H., A Mantrala, M.9. $'//2%. JTo8ard 4ormali#in 4ashion
Theor"J, $ournal of arketing Research, 2,, '*01'+).
Mosco;ici, S. $'/)(%. J%ocial "nfluence and %ocial ChangeK, San Dieo, !A- Academic
Press.
Mosco;ici, S. $'/3+%. JSocial Influence and !onformit"K, In D. Find#e" and B.
Aronson $Bds.%, .andbook of %ocial Psychology, 2
rd
ed., Hol. 0, 2*)1*'+, :e8 York, :Y-
Random House.
:emeth, !. I. $'/3(%. JDifferential !ontri<utions of MaEorit" and Minorit" InfluenceK,
Psychological Review, /2 $'%, 02120.
Prislin, R., Fim<ert, @.M. A Bauer, B. $0,,,%, J4rom MaEorit" to Minorit" and Hice
Hersa- The As"mmetrical Bffects of Fosin and Dainin MaEorit" Position @ithin a DroupK,
$ournal of Personality and %ocial Psychology, )/ $2%, 23+12/).
Roers, B. M. A Shoemaker, 4.4. $'/)'%. Communication of "nnovations, :e8 York,
:Y- The 4ree Press.
Roers, B.M. $'/)(%. J:e8 Product Adoption and DiffusionK, $ournal of Consumer
Research, 0, 0/,12,'.
Roers, B.M. $'/32%. ,iffusion of "nnovations, 2
rd
Bdition, :e8 York, :Y- The 4ree
Press.
Sheth. :., Mittal, I.B., A :e8man, B.I. $'///%. Customer #ehavior 0 Consumer
#ehavior and #eyond. The Dr"den Press.
Shuper, PA., A Sorrentino, R.M. $0,,*%. JMinorit" ;ersus MaEorit" Influence and
Tncertaint" &rientation- Processin Persuasi;e Messaes on the Basis of Situational
B5pectanciesK, !he $ournal of %ocial Psychology, '**,'0)1'*).
0+
Smith, B. I. $'//'%. JBthnic Identit" De;elopment- To8ards the De;elopment of a
Theor" @ithin the !onte5t of MaEorit"7Minorit" StatusK, $ournal of Counseling and
,evelopment, ),, '3'1'33.
Sn"der, M. $'/)*%. Self1monitorin of B5pressi;e Beha;ior. $ournal of Personality
and %ocial Psychology, 2,, +0(1+2).
Sn"der, !.R. A 4romkin, H.F. $'/))%. JA<normalit" as a Positi;e !haracteristic- The
De;elopment and Halidation of a Scale Measurin :eed for Tni>ueness,K $ournal of
Abnormal Psychology, 3(, +'31+0).
Summers, I.&. $'/),%. JDenerali#ed !hane Aents and Inno;ati;enessK, $ournal of
arketing Research, 3, 2'212'(.
Stafford, I.B. JReference Theor" as a !onceptual 4rame8ork for !onsumers
DecisionsK In R.F. Da", A T.B. :ess $Bds.%, arketing odels) #ehavioral %cience
Applications "nte't %erials in arketing, '/)', pp 0*/1(+.
Tan, B.!., 98ok19ee @ei, Y., @atson, R.T., !lapper, D.F., A McFean, B.R. $'//3%.
J!omputer1Mediated !ommunication and MaEorit" Influence- Assessin the Impact in an
Indi;idualistic and a !ollecti;istic !ultureK, anagement %cience, ** $/%, '0(21'0)3.
Tanford, S., A Penrod, S. $'/3*%. JSocial Influence Model- A formal Interation of
Research on MaEorit" and Minorit" InfluenceK, Psychology #ulletin, /+, '3/100+.
Tian, 9.T., Bearden, @.&., A Hunter, D.F. $0,,'%. J!onsumers? :eed for Tni>ueness-
Scale De;elopment and HalidationK, $ournal of Consumer Research, 03, +,1((.
Timmor,Y. A R"mon, T. $0,,)%. JTo Do or :ot To Do- The Dilemma of Technolo"1
Bases Ser;ice Impro;ement,K $ournal of %ervices arketing, 0', //1'''.
Turner, I.!. Ho, M. &akes, P. Reicher, S., A @etherell, M. $'/3)%.
JRediscovering the %ocial (roup: A self1Categorization !heoryJ, &5ford- Black8ell.
0(
Ta<le ' P Means $Std% and !orrelations
Means
$Std%
:eed for
Assimila1
tion
:eed for
Distincti;e1
ness
Percei;ed
Droup
Si#e
Product
:ecessit"
&pinion
Feader
:eed for
Assimilation
0.22
$.(/%
:eed for
Distincti;eness
0.(,
$.)3%
1.,3
Percei;ed Droup
Si#e
'.)2
$'.0'%
1.,' 1.,'
Product :ecessit" 0.+/
$'.'0%
.,2' 1.,'2 .*+'W
&pinion Feader 0.+)
$.),%
1.,0( .'/' 1.,* 1.,,3
Risk taker 0.2/
$./2%
1.'(* .,*3 1.,,) .,*/ .,/2
W
p S .,+
0)
Ta<le 0- Results of a Foistic Binominal Reression
!ateorical Dependent Haria<le P Adopted ;s. Did :ot Adopt the Product
4actors Model '
% B !oefficient $
Model 0
% B !oefficient $
Model 2
$B !oefficient%
Product T"pe $'% 0.0(WW './0WW '.,/W
Product T"pe $0% ./2WW '.2)WW '.2/W
Product necessit" .0)WW 1.2/W 1.(+W
:eed for Assimilation .3*WW '.3/WW
:eed for Distincti;eness .*0W '.'0W
Percei;ed Droup Si#e 1.*/WW 2.,*
W
:eed for Assimilation 5 :eed
for Distincti;eness
1.++
X
:eed for Assimilation 5
Perception of Droup Si#e
'.(0W
:eed for Distincti;eness 5
Perception of Droup Si#e
1'.2*W
:eed for Assimilation 5 :eed
for Distincti;eness 5 Perception
of Droup Si#e
.('W
Model Statistics
10 lo likelihood 0'*.*0 '(,.2, '*,.,)
!hi s>uare +'.)+
$2 d. f, p < .,'%
',,.2'
$( d. f, p <. ,'%
''+.+*
$', d. f, p <. ,'%
!orrect classification (/.2M )/.2M 30.*M
WW pS.,'
W pS.,+
1
pS .'
03
4iure '- The !onceptual Model and H"potheses
0/
Percei;ed
Droup Si#e
!onsumer Adoption
Beha;ior
:eed for
Assimilation
:eed for
Distincti;eness
H'
0H 2H
*H +H
4iure 0- Fo of Purchase Pro<a<ilit" on Percei;ed Droup Si#e, :eed for Assimilation,
and Fo8 :eed for Distincti;eness
'.,
'.0
'.*
'.(
'.3
0.,
0.0
0.*
Fo8
Percei;ed Droup Si#e
Fo of
Purchase
Pro<a<ilit"
Fo8 assimilation
Hih assimilation
Hih
2,
4iure 2- Fo of Purchase Pro<a<ilit" on Percei;ed Droup Si#e, :eed for Assimilation,
and Hih :eed for Distincti;eness
,.*
,.(
,.3
'.,
'.0
'.*
'.(
'.3
0.,
Percei;ed Droup Si#e
Fo8 Hih
Hih assimilation
Fo of
Purchase
Pro<a<ilit"
Fo8 assimilation
2'
Appendix )
Responses raned on a +1point Fikert scale from 'PJdo not aree at all,K to +PJstronl"
aree.K
Need for Assimilation
It is important to me to <eha;e like m" friends
I usuall" dress the same as m" friends
I usuall" listen to the same music that most of m" friends listen to
I usuall" o to the same mo;ies that most of m" friends o to
Need for Distincti#eness
I think differentl" than most of m" friends
I tend to associate 8ith people 8ho are different and uni>ue
It is important to me to <e different, uni>ue, uncon;entional
I think that I am different than most of m" friends
2pinion 3eader
&ther people ask for m" recommendations <efore the" <u" a ne8 music record
&ther people consider m" opinion <efore the" <u" a fashion item
People ask for m" ad;ice <efore the" <u" ne8 products
People 8hom I kno8 rel" on m" recommendations 8hen the" <u" ne8 products
I often con;ince people to <u" !Ds 8ith music I like
.is4 ta4er
I like to take risks
I like to tr" ne8 and different thins
20