Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence

Author(s): William O. Bearden, Richard G. Netemeyer and Jesse E. Teel
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Mar., 1989), pp. 473-481
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489543 .
Accessed: 14/07/2014 22:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility
to Interpersonal Influence

WILLIAM0. BEARDEN
RICHARDG. NETEMEYER
JESSE E. TEEL*

The development of a scale for measuring consumer susceptibility to interpersonal

influence is described. Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence is hypoth-
esized as a general trait that varies across individuals and is related to other individ-
ual traits and characteristics (McGuire 1968). The construct is defined as the need
to identify with or enhance one's image in the opinion of significant others through
the acquisition and use of products and brands, the willingness to conform to the
expectations of others regarding purchase decisions, and/or the tendency to learn
about products and services by observing others or seeking information from oth-
ers. A series of studies provides evidence to support the convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of a two-dimensional scale.

A n important determinant of an individual's be- individual differencemeasures be developed to study

havior is others' influence. Portrayal of prod-
ucts being consumed in social situations and the use
of prominent/attractive spokespersons endorsing
products is evidence of this belief. Further, models
used to explain consumer behavior frequently in-
clude interpersonal influence. These models recog-
nize that consumer behavior cannot be fully under-
stood unless consideration is given to the effects of
interpersonalinfluence on development of attitudes,
norms, values, aspirations, and purchase behavior
(Staffordand Cocanougher 1977).
Our objective is to develop a scale to assess con-
sumersusceptibilityto interpersonalinfluence, which
is assumed to be a general trait that varies across indi-
viduals. This construct is derived from McGuire's
(1968) concept of influenceability and is consistent
with early research(e.g., Allen 1965; Asch 1958; Cox
and Bauer 1964; Janis 1954), which demonstrated
that individuals differ in their responses to social
influence. Our efforts are also consistent with
Kassarjian's (1971) suggestion that domain specific
*William0. Beardenand Jesse E. Teel are Professorsof Market-
ing, Collegeof BusinessAdministration,University of South Caro-
lina, Columbia,SC 29208. RichardG. Netemeyer is AssistantPro-
fessorof Marketing,Collegeof BusinessAdministration,Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. The authors wish to
thank the three anonymous reviewersfor their helpful comments
throughoutthe review process and Robert Burnkrant,Gil Chur-
chill, and Paul Peter who commented on an initial draft of the ar-
ticle.
personality issues in consumer research.
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
THEORY AND RESEARCH
An early review by McGuire (1968) summarized
numerous theoretical and empirical articles dealing
with various aspects of susceptibility to interpersonal
influence and the relationship of susceptibility to
other individual traits and characteristics. This re-
view concluded that susceptibility to interpersonal
influence is a general trait that varies across persons
and that a person's relative influenceability in one sit-
uation tends to have a significant positive relation-
ship to his or her influenceability in a range of other
social situations. McGuire (1968, p. 1134) also cited
evidence showing that conformity and persuasibility
exist across occurrences.That is, people who conform
to one source on one issue will likely conform to other
sources on other issues.
Further, susceptibility to influence by others is re-
lated to other personal characteristics (e.g., self-es-
teem, intelligence) (McGuire 1968, p. 1132; Petty
and Cacioppo 1981, pp. 80-84). Cox and Bauer
(1964) pointed out that people with low self-esteem
comply with others' suggestionsto avoid social disap-
proval. Cox and Bauer's research demonstrated that
a relationship between self-confidence and persuasi-
bility, previously found among men, also existed
among women under some conditions. Likewise,
Janis (1954) cited both clinical and correlational

473 ? JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH * Vol. 15 0 March 1989

This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 474
studies that suggested that some people consistently
are amenable to social influence while others are con-
sistently resistant. Based on his research,Janis (1954,
p. 518) concluded that individuals with low self-es-
teem tend to be more readily influenced than others.
Likewise, Berkowitz and Lundy (1957) found that
persons low in interpersonalconfidence are more sus-
ceptible to peer influence.
Consumer Susceptibility
to InterpersonalInfluence
Although susceptibility to interpersonal influence
appearsto be an important individual differencevari-
able for the study of consumer behavior, it unfortu-
nately has been neglected as a general trait in recent
literature. However, numerous recent articles from
psychological and consumer research have docu-
mented the existence of manifest interpersonal in-
fluence upon individual decision processes (e.g., Co-
hen and Golden 1972; Kassarjian and Robertson
1981; Moscovici 1985; Sherif 1935). In consumer re-
search, these studies include the efforts of Ford and
Ellis (1980), Moschis (1976), Stafford (1966), and
Witt and Bruce(1972). However, most of these inves-
'tigated the tendency of subjects to conform to group
norms or to modify their judgments based upon
others' evaluations and did not address the various
types of interpersonal influence operative in a given
situation. Only a few studies have addressed the di-
mensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influence
and its effects upon decision processes. In this regard,
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) posited that interper-
sonal influence is manifested through either norma-
tive or informational influences.
Burnkrant and Cousineau (1975) defined norma-
tive influence as the tendency to conform to the ex-
pectations of others. Consumer research has sepa-
rated normative influence into value expressive and
utilitarian influences (Bearden and Etzel 1982; Park
and Lessig 1977; Price, Feick, and Higie 1987). Value
expressiveness reflects the individual's desire to en-
hance self-image by association with a reference
group. Value expressiveness is motivated by the
individual's desire to enhance or support his or her
self-concept through referent identification (Kelman
1961). Value expressive influences operate through
the process of identification, which occurs when an
individual adopts a behavior or opinion of another
because the behavior or opinion is associated with
satisfying a self-defining relationship (Brinberg and
Plimpton 1986; Park and Lessig 1977; Price et al.
1987). Value expressive influence was found to vary
across selection decisions of products that differedin
consumption conspicuousness and of services that
varied regardingconsumer preference heterogeneity
and referent coorientation (similarity). Utilitarian
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
influence, the other type of normative influence men-
tioned, is reflectedin individuals' attempts to comply
with the expectations of others to achieve rewardsor
avoid punishments, and it operates through the pro-
cess of compliance (Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975,
p. 207; see also Beardenand Etzel 1982; Parkand Les-
sig 1977; Price et al. 1987). Compliance occurs when
individuals conform to the expectations of others to
gain rewards or to avoid punishments mediated by
others.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) defined informational
influence as the tendency to accept information from
others as evidence about reality. Informational in-
fluence may occur in two ways. Individuals may ei-
ther search for information from knowledgeable oth-
ers or make inferences based upon the observation of
the behavior of others (Park and Lessig 1977). Infor-
mational influence operatesthroughthe process of in-
ternalization, which occurs if information from oth-
ers increases the individual's knowledge about some
aspect of the environment. Informational influence
has been found to affect consumer decision processes
regardingproduct evaluations (Burnkrantand Cousi-
neau 1975; Cohen and Golden 1972; Pincus and Wa-
ters 1977) and product/brand selections (Bearden
and Etzel 1982; Park and Lessig 1977).
In summary, recent research on manifest suscepti-
bility to interpersonal influence has suggested that it
is a multidimensional construct. Consequently, it
seems reasonable to assume that the general trait of
susceptibility to interpersonalinfluence also is multi-
dimensional. Hence, recognizing the existence of al-
ternative manifestations of interpersonal influence
documented by recent research, consumer suscepti-
bility to interpersonalinfluence is defined as the need
to identify or enhance one's image with significant
others through the acquisition and use of products
and brands, the willingness to conform to the expec-
tations of others regardingpurchase decisions, and/
or the tendency to learn about products and services
by observing others and/ or seeking information from
others.
An initial effort to develop measures of three di-
mensions of manifest susceptibility to interpersonal
influence was reported by Park and Lessig (1977). In
their research, 14 statements were developed to assess
value expressive, utilitarian, and informational in-
fluences. The statements were projective and framed
for particular product and brand decisions. That is,
respondentswere asked on an item-by-item basis how
"relevant" each interpersonal influence statement
would be for an "unspecified other" for a given
product/brand purchase.Although the Parkand Les-
sig items were useful in several subsequent studies
(Bearden and Etzel 1982; Brinberg and Plimpton
1986), these measures have limitations. To compare
the Parkand Lessig measureswith generalpersonality
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
traits and individual characteristics,their statements
have to be reworded so that the statements are not
product and/or situation specific. Further, phrasing
the terms so that they are relevant to an unspecified
other may add errorthat could cause some people to
respond based either upon their own feelings or sa-
lient others' influence. Additionally, Park and Lessig
(1977) did not reportestimates of either internal con-
sistency or test-retest reliability. Their only evalua-
tion of the statements was a multitrait-multimethod
analysis in which two products were used as traits.
Other evidence of validity was not provided nor was
the dimensionality of the measures tested.
OVERVIEW OF SCALE
DEVELOPMENT AND
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The extant theoretical and empirical literature re-
garding the nature of susceptibility to interpersonal
influence suggeststhat it is a general trait with multi-
ple dimensions. The limitations of prior operational
measuresalong with conflicting findings in related re-
search suggest the need for a measure that can be ap-
plied across research settings without modification
and that has been examined for reliability and valid-
ity and tested for dimensionality. Consequently, the
objectives of the present researchwere to develop and
test a general measure of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonalinfluence.
Development of the present scale began with a liter-
ature review that generated a large pool of items de-
signed to measurethe dimensions of interpersonalin-
fluence. The items were evaluated for content validity
usingjudging procedures,resultingin a reduced set of
items. A questionnaire then was administered to 220
adult consumersto assess the dimensionality and reli-
ability of the present measures of susceptibility to in-
terpersonalinfluence. Measurement items remaining
after this study were reevaluated with data from a
convenience sample of 141 student subjects. This
study resulted in the final form and content of the
present scale. Next, a series of studies was conducted
to provide additional evidence regardingthe validity
and reliability of the scale. These studies consisted of
comparisons of the present scale with individual
difference measures, behavioral indices, external
judge rankings,and motivation to comply.
SCALE CONTENT
An original pool of 166 items was generated from a
review of prior researchfor use in the development of
the present consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence scale. Seven-place bipolar agree/disagree
scales followed each of the statements (e.g., "When
buying products, I generally purchase those brands
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
475
that I think others will approve of."). Following the
item generation step, ambiguous items and state-
ments with essentially identical meaning were elimi-
nated, resultingin a revised pool of 135 items. Faculty
and Ph.D. students were then used"asjudges in an
evaluation of the content validity of the items. In this
analysis, the fivejudges were exposed to the definition
of each dimension plus a related explanation and an
example item and were asked to allocate the state-
ments to each dimension or to a "not applicable"cat-
egory.
Items that did not receive consistent classification
by at least four of the fivejudges were eliminated. This
initial analysis resulted in 86 statements for the three
dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influ-
ence. Next, and similar to the procedure used by
Zaichkowsky (1985), an additional four judges were
given each construct's definition and asked to rate
each statement as clearly representative of the con-
struct, somewhat representative, or not representa-
tive. For the three dimensions, only items evaluated
as clearly representative by three judges and some-
what representativeby a fourth judge were retained.
This process eliminated 24 more items.
EVALUATING THE MEASURES
Initial Administration
Separate item analysis was performed for the 62
statements using the responses obtained from a con-
venience sample of 220 adult consumers. Items for
each dimension of susceptibility to interpersonal in-
fluence were interspersed throughout the question-
naire used in the initial data collection.
Item Reduction. The correlation of each item
with the total score for each of the three susceptibility
dimensions was computed (total scores were based
upon a priori specification of each item's content).
Items that did not have corrected item-to-total corre-
lations above 0.50 were deleted (cf. Zaichkowsky
1985). Items that did not have statistically significant
higher correlations with the dimension to which they
were hypothesized to belong in comparison to item
correlations with remaining dimension total scores
also were deleted (Ruekert and Churchill 1984, p.
229). Principal axis factor analysis with oblique rota-
tion (Churchill 1979) (restricting the solution to
three factors) also was performed. Several additional
items that failed to exhibit simple structureon factors
representingthe three dimensions of referencegroup
influence were deleted. These analyses resulted in 18
items remaining in the scale.
Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
The reliability and structure of the remaining items
were examined using coefficient alpha and confirma-
476
tory factor analyses. First, a confirmatoryfactor anal-
ysis (i.e., a three-factorcorrelatedstructure) revealed
three items with low item reliabilities. These items
then were deleted, leaving five items in each influence
category: informational, utilitarian, and value ex-
pressiveness. A second confirmatory factor analysis
was performed on the remaining 15 items. For a
three-factor correlated structure, the overall chi-
square statistic was 139.46 (df = 87, p < 0.01). Each
indicator t-value exceeded 9.97 (p < 0.01). Although
the overall chi-square statistic was significant, these
results represent significant improvement over the
chi-square values of 499.69 (df = 90) and 1717.13
(df = 105) obtained from a one-factor model and a
null model. Coefficient alpha estimates were 0.86,
0.87, and 0.82 for informational, utilitarian, and
value expressiveness, respectively. The estimates of
construct reliability based upon the LISREL results
were 0.86, 0.87, and 0.83. The more conserva-
tive variance extracted estimates were 0.55, 0.58,
and 0.50.
Dimensionality and Convergent/Discriminant Va-
lidity. Analysis of the relationships among the three
factorsrevealeda very high intercorrelation(r = 0.92,
sd = 0.02) between the utilitarian and value expres-
siveness factors. Correspondingintercorrelationsbe-
tween the utilitarian and informational measures and
the value expressivenessand informational measures
were 0.44 (standarderror = Or.06)and 0.37 (standard
error = 0.07), respectively. These results (similar to
those reported by Brinberg and Plimpton 1986)
render the dimensionality of the three-factor struc-
ture suspect. In an effort to investigate this concern,
two additional tests were performed.
First, to satisfy the requirements for discriminant
validity, variance extracted estimates should be
greater than the square of the correlation between
constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981, p. 46). This
condition was satisfied for the informational-value
expressivenessand the informational-utilitarianrela-
tionships, but was not met for the value expressive-
ness-utilitarianrelation. This finding suggeststhat the
value expressiveness and utilitarian dimensions are
not distinct and that a two-factor model may be more
appropriate.
Second, tests were performed using the procedures
recommended by Burnkrantand Page (1982, p. 557).
In these tests, models, in which separate but corre-
lated factors were allowed, were compared to models
in which each pair of factorswas hypothesized to have
a unity correlation equivalent to a unidimensional
model for the various pairs of factors. The difference
between models is evaluated by a chi-squaretest with
one degree of freedom. In each case, the correlation
between factors was significant (one-tailed test, p
< 0.01). For the informational-value expressiveness
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
and informational-utilitarian comparisons, the con-
fidence intervals for the correlation between factors
did not contain the number one. Further, these two
comparisons resulted in significant chi-square differ-
ence values with one degree of freedom of 267.57 and
328.22 for the informational-value expressiveand in-
formational-utilitarian comparisons. These results
support the discriminant and convergent validity of
the informational factor in comparison with the value
expressiveness and utilitarian factors. The very large
correlation coefficient (0.96) and the modest chi-
square difference test (4.68) coupled with the vari-
ance extracted analysis recommended by Fornell and
Larcker(1981) do not support the modeling of utili-
tarian and value expressiveness measures as distinct
factors.
These analyses then resulted in a two-factor struc-
ture in which utilitarian and value expressive mea-
sures were combined into a single normative factor
(hereafter referred to as normative influence). The
coefficient alpha and construct reliability estimates
for this 10-item factor were both 0.91; the variance
extracted estimate was 0.52.
Second Administration
The reliability and validity of the remaining 15
items again were examined in a second administra-
tion to 141 undergraduate student subjects. Again,
the three-factor correlated model did not provide a
better representationof the data in terms of structure
(i.e., the number of factors and their discriminant
validity) than did a two-factor correlated model.
However, three items (one from each of the three
original dimensions) exhibited low reliability. These
items were dropped, which resulted in 12 remaining
items-four informational and eight normative. For
a two-factor correlated model, the chi-square good-
ness-of-fit statistic for 15 and 12 indicators, respec-
tively, were 186.61 (df = 89, p < 0.05) and 107.41
(df = 52, p < 0.05). For the two-factor, 12-indicator
model, the intercorrelation between the two factors
was 0.44. The overall chi-square fit statistic for a uni-
dimensional model was 255.60 (df = 54, p < 0.01).
(Reanalysis of the initial sample for the 12 items re-
sulted in an overall chi-square statistic of 79.83 (df
= 53, p < 0.01). Thus, there was a chi-square differ-
ence statistic between the 12-item, two- and one-fac-
tor models of 148.09 (df = 2, p < 0.05). This indi-
cated that the two-factor model provided a better rep-
resentation of the data than did the one-factor model.
These analyses yielded a two-factor, 12-item scale
comprised of four informational and eight normative
items. The mean scores, standarddeviations, reliabil-
ity estimates, and variance extracted estimates for
both samples are summarized in Table 1. The state-
ments along with the factor analysis item loadings for
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 477

TABLE 1
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS,RELIABILITY
AND VARIANCEEXTRACTEDESTIMATES

Reliability
No. of Variance
Construct items Range Mean SD Alpha Construct Retest extracted

Initialadministration
Informational 4 4-28 16.70 5.59 .83 .83 - .55
Normative 8 8-56 22.04 9.79 .87 .90 - .53
Second administration
Informational 4 4-28 19.02 4.45 .82 .82 .75 .50
Normative 8 8-56 27.18 9.15 .88 .89 .79 .54

TABLE 2
SUSCEPTIBILITYTO INTERPERSONALINFLUENCEITEMS

Factor Corrected Item

coefficient item-to-totala no. Statementb

Normative
.61 .60 5 I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them.
.81 .45 3 It is important that others like the products and brands I buy.
.86 .75 8 When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will
approve of.
.75 .72 11 If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect
me to buy.
.69 .63 9 1like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others.
.73 .69 12 1achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that
others purchase.
.70 .64 2 If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy.
.67 .65 6 1often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands they
purchase.
Informational
.78 .69 4 To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often observe what others are
buying and using.
.75 .66 7 If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product.
.69 .62 1 1often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a
product class.
.74 .66 10 I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy.

a Factor corrected item-to-total correlations.

bThe response format for each item is a seven-place rating scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).

the initial sample are presentedin Table 2. Coefficient
alpha estimates based upon the follow-up student
data were 0.82 and 0.88 for the informational and
normative factors, respectively. Based on the re-
sponses of 35 subjects participating in a follow-up
three weeks later, test-retest reliability estimates were
0.75 and 0.79 for the informational and normative
scales, respectively. All single-item and multi-item
test-retest correlation estimates were significant (p
< 0.01, one-tailed). Lastly, the 12-item two-factor
structurewas tested for stability across the initial ad-
ministration (n = 220) and the second administra-
tion (n = 141) samples. The group chi-square statis-
tics for an invariate factor structure and for the two
groups separatelywere 186.19 (df = 118) and 173.38
(df = 106), respectively. This analysis then resulted
in a nonsignificant chi-square difference test (df
= 12).
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
The scales for assessingthe normative and informa-
tional dimensions of interpersonal influence were
evaluated further in five separate studies. In the first
study, we examined the relationships between the
present measures and measures of attention-to-so-
cial-comparison-information (ATSCI) (Lennox and

This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
478
Wolfe 1984) and self-esteem (Eagly 1967). The at-
tention-to-social-comparison-information measure
addresses the general tendency to conform and has
been found to be related to fear of the evaluation of
others. Lennox and Wolfe (1984) demonstrate that
the measure directly addresses conformity
(utilitarian) and the concern for the reaction of oth-
ers (value expressive). Consequently, ATSCI was ex-
pected to be correlatedmore stronglywith the norma-
tive factor than with the informational factor. For
self-esteem, it was predicted that both dimensions of
interpersonalinfluence would be inversely related to
self-esteem. These later predictions are consistent
with McGuire's (1968) and Stafford and Co-
canougher's (1977) argument that susceptibility to
interpersonalinfluence is inversely related to self-es-
teem. In the second study, we investigated the rela-
tionships between the alternative measuresof suscep-
tibility to interpersonalinfluence with an aggregated
index of behaviors performed over multiple time pe-
riods. In the third and fourth studies, the measures
were correlatedwith external judges' rankings of the
subjectson the two dimensions of susceptibility to in-
terpersonalinfluence. In the fifth study, we examined
the relationshipbetween the present measures of nor-
mative and informational influence and motivation
to comply.
ATSCI and Self-Esteem
Forty-seven undergraduate business students re-
sponded to a questionnaire containing the 13-item
ATSCI measureof Lennox and Wolfe (1984), the 20-
item self-esteem scale describedby Eagly (1967), and
the 12 interpersonal influence items included in the
present scale. The coefficient alpha estimates for the
ATSCI and the self-esteem scales were 0.82 and 0.88.
The ATSCI measure correlated more strongly (p
< 0.05 for a test of differences between dependent
correlations) (Bruning and Kintz 1977) with the nor-
mative dimension of the present scale (r = 0.68, p
<0.05) than with the informational dimension (r
= 0.16, p < 0.05). Both dimensions of the present
scale had significant negative correlations with self-
esteem. These estimates were -0.21 (p < 0.10) and
-0.23 (p < 0.05) for the normative and informational
measures. These results provide some evidence of
construct validity.
Relationships With Behavioral Indices
Similar to the procedures suggested by Epstein
(1979, 1980) and, more recently, by Lastovicka and
Joachimsthaler (1988), the normative and informa-
tional measures of susceptibility to interpersonal in-
fluence were correlated with an aggregatedindex of
consumer behaviors.As noted by Lastovickaand Joa-
chimsthaler (1988), correlations between a trait and
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
individual behaviors typically are weak. Addition-
ally, correlations between traits and behaviors across
single observations often are small. However, the
strength of these relationships tends to increase as
they are averagedover multiple observations and be-
haviors.
First, a convenience sample of 35 undergraduate
business students was used to elicit 21 normative and
17 informational behaviors reflecting the definitions
of the normative and informational dimensions of
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Example
normative behaviors included worrying about what
others thought of the respondent's selection of cloth-
ing, copying the purchase behavior of someone the
respondentadmired, and having shown off something
bought or owned to seek approval of others. Example
informational behaviors included discussing prod-
ucts with friends or relatives, asking advice of others
prior to making a purchase, avoiding a purchase be-
cause others said it was unsatisfactory, and having
asked an "expert"about a contemplated purchase.
A questionnaire containing the normative and in-
formational items then was administered to a new
sample of 43 subjects. The same 43 subjects reported
at four separate intervals their performances regard-
ing the 21 normative and 17 informational behaviors
duringthe preceding48 hours. Similarto the methods
used by Epstein (1979), the self-reportedbehavioral
measures were averaged over the odd (1,3) and even
(2,4) administrations. The correlation between the
even and odd summary averages for the normative
and informational indices were 0.72 and 0.80. Based
upon a 0,1 scoring and summed over observations
and behaviors, the mean and standard deviation for
the normative index were 21.75 and 11.49, respec-
tively. Correspondingestimates for the informational
index were 23.76 and 13.78. The normative scale was
significantly correlated with the normative behav-
ioral index (r = 0.37, p < 0.05). Further, the magni-
tude of this correlation compares favorably with the
trait behavior correlationsreportedby Epstein (1979,
p. 1 118).Although not significant,the measure of in-
formational interpersonal influence was correlated
positively with the informational behavioral index (r
= 0.15). Since only trait-behavior correlations of
0.29 or greaterfor single act criteriawere reportedby
Epstein (1979), it is not possible to compute an aver-
age correlation from the summary of his research.
However, an examination of Table 5 in Epstein
(1979, p. 1118) revealed that 13 percent of the corre-
lations between traits and his "objective events" were
significant. In the present research,33 percent and 12
percent, respectively, of the pairwise correlations be-
tween the average individual behaviors and the nor-
mative and informational measures of susceptibility
to interpersonalinfluence were significant(p < 0.05).
In general, these results provide stronger support for
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
the normative scale than they do for the informa-
tional scale.
External Judge Ratings
The present scale was evaluated in two studies in-
volving external judges ranking subjects on the two
dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influ-
ence. The first external judge study was based upon
data collected from 72 members of either a university
fraternity (n = 39) or sorority (n = 33). Each of the
subjects responded to the 12 items comprising the
preseht scale. Two other members of each group eval-
uated their respective group members. Each judge
was given a copy of the normative and informational
dimensions of susceptibility to interpersonal influ-
ence and asked to rate each member of their group on
each dimension using a seven-point rating scale. The
single item measure was bounded by a rating of high
in susceptibility to normative (informational) influ-
ence to a rating of low in susceptibility to normative
(informational) influence. The averageinterjudgere-
liability was 0.66. The correlations between the judg-
ment scores and the normative and informational
measures were 0.40 (p < 0.05) and 0.24 (p < 0.05),
respectively.
In the second external judge study, a convenience
sample of 43 undergraduateswas given a question-
naire containing the proposed measures. They were
instructed to have the questionnaire completed by
someone they knew and to return it at the next class
meeting. Upon receipt of the completed question-
naire, subjectswere given the descriptions of the nor-
mative and informational dimensions and asked to
rate the person who had completed the questionnaire.
The same rating scales employed in the fraternity/
sorority study were used to elicit the rankings. The
correlations between judge rankings and the norma-
tive and informational measures of the present scale
were 0.47 (p < 0.05) and 0.37 (p < 0.05), respec-
tively.
Motivation To Comply
In a final test, it was predictedthat both the norma-
tive and informational interpersonalinfluence scores
would be related positively to individual motivations
to comply with the expectations of others. Although
this relationship should be strongest for the norma-
tive dimension, as noted by Miniard and Cohen
(1981), normative aspects (e.g., motivation to
comply) of the theory of reasoned action also are re-
lated to informational interpersonal influence. To
test this prediction, data were collected from 143 sub-
jects. Subjects were provided with a shopping situa-
tion in which they were contemplating the purchase
of a pair of jeans in a clothing store. While in the pro-
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
479
cess of deciding about the purchase, a close friend (or
classmate) entered the store and recommended pur-
chase of the jeans being considered. Motivation to
comply was operationalized as the sum of three state-
ments developed from Ajzen and Fishbein (1980).
The first item was operationalized as a seven-place
scale included as part of the statement: "With respect
to this purchase, I would very much like to/very
much not like to do what my close friend (classmate)
thinks I ought to do." The second item was operation-
alized as a seven-place bipolar unlikely/likely scale
following the statement: "Regardingthis purchase, I
want to do what my close friend thinks I should do."
The third item was a five-categoryvertical scale rang-
ing from "not-at-all" to "very strongly"and followed
the question: "How much do you want to do what
your close friend thinks you should do?" The coeffi-
cient alpha estimate of this measure of motivation to
comply was 0.81 .
Examination of the correlations between the sus-
ceptibility to interpersonal influence measures and
motivation to comply supported the validity of the
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence
measures. The correlations between the motivation
to comply and the informational and the normative
measures were 0.39 (p < 0.05) and 0.59 (p < 0.05),
respectively. These correlations also were signifi-
cantly differentfrom one another based upon a test of
dependent correlations(p < 0.05).
DISCUSSION
We developed a two-dimensional measure of infor-
mational and normative interpersonal influence and
examined its reliability and validity. A 12-item, two-
factor scale emerged from the scale development and
validation efforts. The scale was found to be reliable
and valid across multiple samples of both student and
nonstudent subjects. Correlations with other con-
structs demonstrated convergent and discriminant
validity. Replicated confirmatory factor analysis
demonstrated a stable two-factor correlated struc-
ture. This finding is consistent with other examina-
tions of consumer interpersonal influence that limit
influence scores to normative and informational di-
mensions (cf. Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975).
Lastly, the scale was correlated as predicted with in-
dependent judge ratings, behavioral indices, and
measures of motivation to comply. Generally, corre-
lations between the normative dimension and these
other measures consistently were stronger than the
correlations involving the informational measure.
However, the correlations between both measures of
susceptibility to interpersonal influence and the re-
lated measures demonstrated a range and pattern of
significance comparable to other scale development
studies (e.g., Cacioppo and Petty 1982; Swap and Ru-
bin 1983).
480
Certainly,additional tests of the scale are needed to
establish its validity and final form. A caveat is also
in orderregardingthe direction of the items. The final
form of the scale reported here included only posi-
tively worded statements, leaving open the possibility
for some response bias. Next, factor analysis of our
data consistently revealed a two-factor correlated
structure. However, our justification for multiple di-
mensions of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence largely was based upon researchaddressing
manifest susceptibility to interpersonal influence.
Further experimental research along the lines of
Burnkrantand Cousineau (197 5) is warrantedto pro-
vide further evidence of the dimensionality of inter-
personal influence. Although we tried to adhere to
recommended scale development procedures, it may
also be that the final set of utilitarian items contains
statements that reflect response to a general norma-
tive influence rather than responses to gain rewards
and punishments. However, the items are couched in
terms of approval and the expectations of others,
which underly the process of compliance (Burnkrant
and Cousineau 1975).
[Received July 198 7. Revised A ugust 1988.1
REFERENCES
Ajzen, Icek and MartinFishbein (1980), UnderstandingAt-
titudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood
Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allen, Vernon L. (1965), "Situational Factors in Confor-
mity," in Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol.
2, ed. LeonardBerkowitz,New York: Academic Press,
133-175.
Asch, S. ( 1958), "Effectsof Group PressureUpon the Mod-
ification and Distortion of Judgments,"in Readings in
Social Psychology, for the Committee on the Teaching
of Social Psychology of the Society for the Psychologi-
cal Studiesof Social Studies, New York:Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 174-182.
Bearden, William 0. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Refer-
ence Group Influence on Product and BrandPurchase
Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September), 183-194.
Berkowitz, Leonard and Richard M. Lundy (1957), "Per-
sonality CharacteristicsRelated to Susceptibilityto In-
fluence by Peers or Authority Figures," Journal of Per-
sonality, 25 (1), 306-316.
Brinberg,David and Linda Plimpton (1986), "Self-Moni-
toring and Product Conspicuousness on Reference
Group Influence,"in Advancesin ConsumerResearch,
Vol. 13, ed. Richard J. Lutz, Provo, UT: Association
for ConsumerResearch,297-300.
Bruning, James L. and B.L. Kintz (1977), Computational
HandbookofStatistics, Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.
Burnkrant,Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), "Infor-
mational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer
Behavior," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 2 (Decem-
ber), 206-215.
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
and Thomas J. Page, Jr. (1982), "An Examination
of the Convergent, Discriminant, and Predictive Va-
lidity Of Fishbein's Behavioral Intention Model,"
Journal of MarketingResearch, 19 (November), 550-
561.
Cacioppo, John T. and RichardE. Petty (1982), "The Need
for Cognition," Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 42 (1), 116-131.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A ParadigmFor Devel-
oping Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,"
Journal of MarketingResearch, 16 (February), 64-73.
Cohen, Joel B. and Ellen Golden (1972), "Informational
Social Influence and Product Evaluation," Journal of
AppliedPsychology, 56 (February), 54-59.
Cox, Donald and Raymond A. Bauer (1964), "Self-Confi-
dence and Persuasibilityin Women," Public Opinion
Quarterly,28 (Fall), 453-466.
Deutsch, Morton and Harold B. Gerard(1955), "A Study
of Normative and InformationalInfluence Upon Indi-
vidual Judgment," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 51 (November), 629-636.
Eagly,Alice H. (1967), "Involvement As a Determinant of
Responses to Favorable and Unfavorable Informa-
tion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7
(November), 1-15.
Epstein, Seymour(1979), "The Stabilityof Behavior:I. On
Predicting Most of the People Much of the Time,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
(July), 1097-1126.
(1980), "The Stability of Behavior:II. Implications
for Psychological Research," American Psychologist,
35 (September), 790-806.
Ford, JeffryD. and Elwood Ellis (1980), "A Re-examina-
tion of Group Influence on Member Brand Prefer-
ence," Journal of MarketingResearch, 17 (February),
125-132.
Fornell, Claes and David Larcker (1981), "Evaluating
StructuralEquation Models With Unobservable Vari-
ables and MeasurementError," Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (February), 39-50.
Janis, Irving L. (1954), "PersonalityCorrelatesof Persua-
sion," Journal of Personality, 22 (1), 504-518.
Kassarjian,Harold H. (1971), "Personalityand Consumer
Behavior:A Review," Journal of MarketingResearch,
8 (November), 409-418.
and Thomas S. Robertson, eds. (1981), "Social Pro-
cesses," in Perspectives in ConsumerBehavior, Glen-
view, IL: Scott, Foresman, 317-328.
Kelman, HerbertC. (1961), "Processesof Opinion Change,"
Public Opinion Quarterly,25 (Spring), 57-78.
Lastovicka, John L. and Erich A. Joachimsthaler(1988),
"Improvingthe Detection of Personality-BehaviorRe-
lationships in Consumer Behavior," Journal of Con-
sumerResearch, 14 (March), 583-587.
Lennox, Richard D. and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), "Re-
vision of the Self-Monitoring Scale," Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,46 (6), 1349-1364.
McGuire, William J. (1968), "Personalityand Susceptibil-
ity to Social Influence," in Handbook of Personality
Theoryand Research, eds. EdgarF. Borgattaand Wil-
liam W. Lambert, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1130-
1187.
INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
Miniard,Paul W. and Joel B. Cohen (1981), "An Examina-
tion of the Fishbein-Ajzen Behavioral Intentions
Model's Concepts and Measures," Journal of Experi-
mental and Social Psychology, 17 (July), 309-339.
Moschis, George P. (1976), "Social Comparisonand Infor-
mal Group Influence," JournalofMarketingResearch,
13 (August), 237-244.
Moscovici, Serge (1985), "Social Influence and Confor-
mity," in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, eds.
GardnerLindzey and Elliot Aronson, New York: Ran-
dom House, 347-412.
Park,C. Whan and ParkerV. Lessig (1977), "Students and
Housewives:Differencesin Susceptibilityto Reference
Group Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, 4
(September), 102-110.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981), Atti-
tudes and Persuasion: Classic and ContemporaryAp-
proaches, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Pincus, Steven and L.K. Waters(1977), "InformationalSo-
cial Influence and Product Quality Judgments,"
JournalofApplied Psychology, 62 (5), 615-619.
Price, Linda L., Lawrence F. Feick, and Robin H. Higie
(1987), "PreferenceHeterogeniety and Coorientation
as Determinants of Referent Influence in the Choice of
This content downloaded from 162.223.39.3 on Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:11:52 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
481
Service Providers," working paper, Department of
Marketing,Katz GraduateSchool of Business, Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA 15260.
Riiekert, Robert W. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1984),
"Reliability and Validity of Alternative Measures of
Channel Member Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing
Research, 21 (May), 226-233.
Sherif, Muzafer (1935), "A Study of Some Social Factors
in Perception,"Archivesof Psychology, 27 (187), 60.
Stafford,James E. (1966), "Effects of Group Influence on
Consumer Brand Preferences," Journal of Marketing
Research, 3 (February), 68-75.
and Benton A. Cocanougher (1977), "Reference
Group Theory," in Selected Aspects of ConsumerBe-
havior, Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Docu-
ments, U.S. Government Printing Office,361-380.
Swap, Walter C. and Jeffrey Z. Rubin (1983), "Measure-
ment of InterpersonalOrientation," JournalofPerson-
ality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 208-219.
Witt, Robert E. and Grady D. Bruce (1972), "Group Influ-
ence and Brand Choice Congruence," Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 9 (November), 440-443.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the In-
volvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 12 (December), 34 1-352.